Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[240glt]

I think there's a great case for a multi-plea at the coliseum site. Easy access, lots of parking, cheaper than building new.. Get it done now.

The festival site has been the most contentious, and I agree, most outlandish aspect of the proposal. Most of the residents in the area agree. Could it be done well ? Probably.. But do we need it.. I'd argue no. But even if it did go ahead, I don't see it as a barrier to developing the SW corner of the site. Most people don't want to live in a condo next to an arena.. But obviously some do

We still have the Expo which is a really nice facility, and very expensive.. The current use needs to be expanded to get more regular activity in there. As for the rest of it.. Create a plan and work it. This city has been far too wishy-washy, and area residents have demanded better for years. So Ken can wring his hands and worry about it all he wants, but we're past the point of wait & see.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Yeah I've heard of some of the code changes coming. A good thing no-doubt, and I think we've learned from our mistakes of the past (envelope and condensation problems resulting from the last go-around) I think this will be a good step forward

I was hoping to get to the retro-commissioning seminar.. That's my expertise as a former Controls guy, and I've had great success with the programs we've already implemented

One of the things that always gets left out in discussions of Retro commissioning of older buildings is Testing and Balancing. Its amazing how much money can be saved when the systems are re-calibrated. Doing a couple of projects downtown, bringing the ventilation rates up to code. The TAB work is ongoing and we are getting some very good feed back from the users.

[240glt]

^ 100%. When I first got here, I noticed that my VAV fans were always pinned in one of the towers. I ran a calculation on the airflow set points and found that we were demanding 77,000 CFM from a 50,000 CFM fan. Looking further a lot of the box values were way out of whack. A couple of days of balancing and all is copasetic, fans are in the sweet spot and I'm saving power. I love saving power.

I'm doing some VFD conversions on my secondary chilled loops this spring, as the pressure bypasses are original and don't work that well anymore. That'll be a very nice improvement

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ 100%. When I first got here, I noticed that my VAV fans were always pinned in one of the towers. I ran a calculation on the airflow set points and found that we were demanding 77,000 CFM from a 50,000 CFM fan. Looking further a lot of the box values were way out of whack. A couple of days of balancing and all is copasetic, fans are in the sweet spot and I'm saving power. I love saving power.

I'm doing some VFD conversions on my secondary chilled loops this spring, as the pressure bypasses are original and don't work that well anymore. That'll be a very nice improvement

I was contracted to rebalance the total Bell tower. Reset all the minimums on the old Pneumatic system. the cost for my services back then 35000, saved them replacing a chiller. and all they required was replacing one damaged coil. I would probably be 150,000 now. Do not pick up balancing equipment anymore unless I need base line numbers. But I am a bad balance's worst nightmare. I did right the book on balancing.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I think there's a great case for a multi-plea at the coliseum site. Easy access, lots of parking, cheaper than building new.. Get it done now.

The festival site has been the most contentious, and I agree, most outlandish aspect of the proposal. Most of the residents in the area agree. Could it be done well ? Probably.. But do we need it.. I'd argue no. But even if it did go ahead, I don't see it as a barrier to developing the SW corner of the site. Most people don't want to live in a condo next to an arena.. But obviously some do

We still have the Expo which is a really nice facility, and very expensive.. The current use needs to be expanded to get more regular activity in there. As for the rest of it.. Create a plan and work it. This city has been far too wishy-washy, and area residents have demanded better for years. So Ken can wring his hands and worry about it all he wants, but we're past the point of wait & see.

i still can't figure out how anything i have said amounts to nothing but "wringing hands and worrying about it" or amounts to ignoring the fact we're "past the point of wait & see".

for what it's worth, i think we have been long past the point of wait and see for a long time. but that's what we've done and that's where we are. and it's not what we should continue to do.

but that doesn't mean we should accept something just because it's not nothing.

that's how we got where we are and that's not what will fix where we are except if it comes about by sheer dumb luck and happenstance. and a quarter of a billion dollars being spent in the hope that its being spent on the right thing for the right reasons without even asking the question isn't a plan.

it shouldn't take decades or even years to ask and answer those questions. but not asking those questions for decades already hasn't turned out terribly well as far as i can tell. because if it had, you wouldn't be in such a rush to start something a lot different just to see anything started.

[middeljohn]

The new National Energy Code is big. It's part of the building code. Ie. in order to get a construction permit you have to show how your building will also meet the (now required) energy standards. Previously the building codes mainly dealt with health and safety, now they deal with energy as well. They essentially just adopted ASHRAE 2011 into the code, so for provinces like Ontario, Quebec and BC it's nothing new, bt for Alberta this is very new since there has been no provincial or municipal legislature before.

For people who sell electrical products/services for commercial buildings it's a good thing, as there's a lot more emphasis put on efficient lighting, controls, airflow etc.

It will also completely change how homes in Alberta will be built. There will be a mandatory R17 insulation rating for walls, which basically means walls are going to become thicker. Also, this is an all-encompassing value which includes doors and windows as well, so we may see a trend towards smaller/fewer windows.

The WELL Seminar was educational. About 30 people showed up for it. It's intended to complement LEED (also monitered by the US Green Buildings Council), however I'm still not sold on it taking off the same way LEED did. Their mandatory checklist is quite long, and a lot of it can get pretty pricey for developers. For example, WELL calls for lighting with no blue spectrum for a minimum of 4 hours per day. It sounds simple, however the only light source that can do this naturally is incandescent, which with the new building can't be used. So it forces people to use LED, and not just any LED, but LED with the blue light filtered out. This is a very new technology and as with all new technologies the price is still quite high.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by kcantor

i still can't figure out how anything i have said amounts to nothing but "wringing hands and worrying about it" or amounts to ignoring the fact we're "past the point of wait & see".

for what it's worth, i think we have been long past the point of wait and see for a long time. but that's what we've done and that's where we are. and it's not what we should continue to do.

but that doesn't mean we should accept something just because it's not nothing.

approximately four and a half years past, from what I recall.

But no one wanted to talk about it at that time. Everyone was so enamoured with their fancy new bauble. And here we are. So I have zero sympathy for those who feel blindsided or offended at this. Their reactions have been... so... Edmontonian

that's how we got where we are and that's not what will fix where we are except if it comes about by sheer dumb luck and happenstance. and a quarter of a billion dollars being spent in the hope that its being spent on the right thing for the right reasons without even asking the question isn't a plan.

The $48 million is a moot point, the city is going to end up with the building anyways. Which while ambitious and perhaps out of vision for the Northlands at the time, is still a fantastic facility and critical to Edmonton's economic development. Does it need the hall D reno ? I don't know.. that's worth spending some time figuring out. But in the meantime, the facility can continue to operate, and if the loan is forgiven or if the city takes it over, will generate about a million in margin per year, plus all the economic benefits it generates now.

The coliseum reno seems to have widespread support. Plus it does appear to fill several needs cost effectively and keeps the facility active. Surely some more investigation is worthwhile, and I believe the proposed costs to be low, but that's to be expected. Regardless, it shouldn't take years to figure out if this is a worthwhile proposal. I firmly believe that this use will have far greater benefit to the area than an NHL hockey arena ever would

The festival grounds is a huge hang-up, and I agree needs time to decide if it is necessary as well. The Spectrum has little residual value as well.

it shouldn't take decades or even years to ask and answer those questions. but not asking those questions for decades already hasn't turned out terribly well as far as i can tell. because if it had, you wouldn't be in such a rush to start something a lot different just to see anything started.

Horse racing is done at that facility. there are acres of former neighbourhoods (bought and razed by the city) sitting behind corrugated metal fences at the south west corner of the site, being used for horse racing related equipment storage. Right next to a busy shopping plaza, an LRT stop, one of the nicest parks in the city and hundreds of condo and apartment units. Plus the water and sewer mains adjacent to the site were upgraded two years ago to accommodate substantial growth. Does it really take studies and years of deliberation to figure out what the best use for that site might be ?

This is not a new conversation Ken. This has been going on for years.

[craner]

Definitely a downside to the energy code being adopted in the 2014 Alberta building code is the likelyhood of thicker walls and less glass.

[GreenSPACE]

^We need to look more to how Scandinavians design buildings. They don't overuse glass, but do it in a very creative or sometimes simple ways. It's gonna be a challenge for sure.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 240glt

approximately four and a half years past, from what I recall.

But no one wanted to talk about it at that time. Everyone was so enamoured with their fancy new bauble. And here we are. So I have zero sympathy for those who feel blindsided or offended at this. Their reactions have been... so... Edmontonian



The $48 million is a moot point, the city is going to end up with the building anyways. Which while ambitious and perhaps out of vision for the Northlands at the time, is still a fantastic facility and critical to Edmonton's economic development. Does it need the hall D reno ? I don't know.. that's worth spending some time figuring out. But in the meantime, the facility can continue to operate, and if the loan is forgiven or if the city takes it over, will generate about a million in margin per year, plus all the economic benefits it generates now.

The coliseum reno seems to have widespread support. Plus it does appear to fill several needs cost effectively and keeps the facility active. Surely some more investigation is worthwhile, and I believe the proposed costs to be low, but that's to be expected. Regardless, it shouldn't take years to figure out if this is a worthwhile proposal. I firmly believe that this use will have far greater benefit to the area than an NHL hockey arena ever would

The festival grounds is a huge hang-up, and I agree needs time to decide if it is necessary as well. The Spectrum has little residual value as well.



Horse racing is done at that facility. there are acres of former neighbourhoods (bought and razed by the city) sitting behind corrugated metal fences at the south west corner of the site, being used for horse racing related equipment storage. Right next to a busy shopping plaza, an LRT stop, one of the nicest parks in the city and hundreds of condo and apartment units. Plus the water and sewer mains adjacent to the site were upgraded two years ago to accommodate substantial growth. Does it really take studies and years of deliberation to figure out what the best use for that site might be ?

This is not a new conversation Ken. This has been going on for years.

sorry, maybe it's me, but we seem to be saying pretty much exactly the same thing. which is why i'm having a hard time understanding your having taken offense with what i've posted... nowhere did i suggest we start doing studies and taking years of deliberation before doing something. nor did i suggest that much of the information necessary to answer the questions i asked isn't already available.

as for all the grants, funding and support for communities and groups, i can find line items for those received by northlands (and i know some of them would not be directly available to the city), i can't find a similar line item for those given out by northlands to determine how efficient the flow through is (and yes, i also know some of the incoming is use specific and the uses are disappearing as northlands drops them from their model).

the northlands discussion is one discussion.

reintegrating all or some of the site into the neighbouring communities is another.

choosing a direction from both discussions shouldn't take years. if the directions coincide, it should be an informed decision. and whether they do or whether they don't coincide, as i've already stated, it shouldn't take years to get underway with it (although it will take a lot longer than 4 years to complete it regardless of what it is).

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by craner

Definitely a downside to the energy code being adopted in the 2014 Alberta building code is the likelyhood of thicker walls and less glass.

That said, they also have a prescriptive and performance track in the code, and it's here where the good builders and consultants will be able to distinguish themselves.

Prescriptive is basically a checklist. For example if the insulation level meets code you just check it off.

Performance allows for offsetting. Eg in a commercial building if you want to put larger windows in then you can offset that by reducing the W/sqft of the lighting. Or by putting solar panels on the roof.

Essentially what we're headed to is a NET ZERO society. This is just the first step. Eventually we're going to have legislature that mandates every building produce as much energy as it uses per year, like the Mosaic on the south side.

Keep in mind this is only based off ASHRAE 2011. There have been updates since then. Title 24 in California as well as BC energy code is much more stringent than what we're about to see in Alberta. The difference is that in Cali and BC they went from a 1 to a 3 to 5 to 8 to a 10...gradually making it more stringent. For Albertans we're going straight from a 1 to a 7, so it seems much more stringent than it actually is.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

Bummer. It's 2015, and we're still moving inter-city transit away from the core? There isn't even ETS bus service to VIA.

No transit to Edmonton's new Greyhound depot, but you can hop a train once there
http://edmontonjournal.com/business/loca...depot-but-you-can-hop-a-train-once-there

Greyhound’s choice of location for a new bus depot has left some Edmontonians complaining that it’s not easy to get to on foot or by public transit.

“Way to go, putting it in a no man’s land that you have to shell out cab fare to get to,” said James Watkins. “The only city bus that I’m aware goes by there is Route 560 to Spruce Grove, but it doesn’t stop there. Useless.”

The bus company said Monday it was moving next to the Via Rail train station, 12304 121 St., sometime before its lease at the current depot in the downtown arena district expires in May.

The new Greyhound depot will be on the northwest corner of the former City Centre Airport, more than a kilometre’s walk away from the nearest public transit stops, according to Google Maps.

“The closest public transportation is at least five blocks away, with no sidewalks,” said Audrey Sharun.

“I would not be the one wanting to … take a Greyhound at anytime, and for sure not during the winter months.”

Edmonton Transit spokeswoman Gillian Rutherford said it’s too early to give a definitive answer whether the city will add a potential new route for the station, since news of Greyhound’s plan just came to light this week.

“There has been consideration in the past of a route past Via Rail, but it never met our ridership standards,” Rutherford said.

But Edmonton Transit’s route planning department is now revisiting the idea, she said.

While Greyhound riders can’t currently catch an Edmonton Transit bus to the facility, once there, they will be able to hop a passenger train bound for other parts of Canada because it shares the site with Via Rail.

Both Greyhound and Via Rail had been seeking an intermodal facility, a term which refers to moving people or freight using multiple forms of transportation.

“Intermodality is a strategy which Via Rail has pursued and supported for many years, as it offers the travelling public various travel options and ease of interconnections between modes of public transportation,” said Via Rail spokesman Malcolm Andrews.

“For example, Via Rail and Greyhound have had a long and successful partnership at Via Rail’s Vancouver Pacific Central Station, and Via has similar arrangements with other transportation providers at a number of locations throughout Canada.”

[240glt]

Originally Posted by kcantor

sorry, maybe it's me, but we seem to be saying pretty much exactly the same thing. which is why i'm having a hard time understanding your having taken offense with what i've posted... nowhere did i suggest we start doing studies and taking years of deliberation before doing something. nor did i suggest that much of the information necessary to answer the questions i asked isn't already available.

as for all the grants, funding and support for communities and groups, i can find line items for those received by northlands (and i know some of them would not be directly available to the city), i can't find a similar line item for those given out by northlands to determine how efficient the flow through is (and yes, i also know some of the incoming is use specific and the uses are disappearing as northlands drops them from their model).

http://www.northlands.com/our-community/

Once again, and the reason I am slightly annoyed with your somewhat obtuse stances regarding the site and organization, and as I've stated several times through the conversation, you haven't even bothered to educate yourself on the proposals, impacts and conversations beyond what's been covered by the Journal or the Metro. Read through that link and tell me you don't believe Northlands has an impact on communities and organizations

I'm actually quite shocked and disappointed that you'd question or attempt to discredit the organizations' community impacts. That's a poor demonstration of character from someone who's considered to be so community minded

the northlands discussion is one discussion.

Yes it is. It should have started four years ago

reintegrating all or some of the site into the neighbouring communities is another.

Yes it is, and that conversation has been going on for years. You don't know that though obviously.

choosing a direction from both discussions shouldn't take years. if the directions coincide, it should be an informed decision. and whether they do or whether they don't coincide, as i've already stated, it shouldn't take years to get underway with it (although it will take a lot longer than 4 years to complete it regardless of what it is).

Well of course. Given how the city's other projects have been going I have to muster a lot of faith that they have the talent and capacity to pull this off.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 240glt

http://www.northlands.com/our-community/

Once again, and the reason I am slightly annoyed with your somewhat obtuse stances regarding the site and organization, and as I've stated several times through the conversation, you haven't even bothered to educate yourself on the proposals, impacts and conversations beyond what's been covered by the Journal or the Metro. Read through that link and tell me you don't believe Northlands has an impact on communities and organizations

I'm actually quite shocked and disappointed that you'd question or attempt to discredit the organizations' community impacts. That's a poor demonstration of character from someone who's considered to be so community minded

Yes it is. It should have started four years ago

Yes it is, and that conversation has been going on for years. You don't know that though obviously.

Well of course. Given how the city's other projects have been going I have to muster a lot of faith that they have the talent and capacity to pull this off.

http://www.northlands.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Northlands_Financial_Statements-Dec31-2014.pdf

"Grant revenue (2014):

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development $9,324,014
Horse Racing Alberta $7,438,272
Other grant revenue $3,109,912
Total grant revenue $19,872,198"

the $1,250,000 noted on the communities page is a total of cash and "in-kind" value and there is no line item for that in their financial statements.

you may not agree with my stances but i hardly think they are obtuse.

i am much more directly connected to northlands and their board and their plans than what's been covered by the journal or the metro.

i am also familiar with the content on their website and haven't disputed it. other than to question whether there is value there given everything else that is also on their website - the very same question you agree that tim reid is raising. i'm not attempting to discredit the organization's community impacts any more than the organization's current president and ceo and i don't think either of us thinks tim is doing that.

furthermore, i haven't posted anything here that i have not shared with numerous members of the organization within their administration and with numerous members of their board of governors - all of whom i hold in high regard - for a lot longer than the past four years. we have worked together on more than one occasion and supported each others community activities going back a lot further than that as well.

as you noted yourself, there is much that goes on that isn't in the journal or the metro and you are starting to be guilty yourself of what you are incorrectly projecting as reason for your shock and disappointment.

[240glt]

^ how did you manage to spin a conversation about Northlands Community Benefits into one about the grants that they receive ? I don't understand the point you are trying to make

I have no reason to with believe or dispute your ties and relationship with Northlands other than to note that you seem rather unaware of some of the activities that have taken place over the past years

I think my reasons for my disappointment are completely valid and justified. If you believe that I'm somehow questioning the organization's community impacts I think you need to work on your reading comprehension

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ how did you manage to spin a conversation about Northlands Community Benefits into one about the grants that they receive ? I don't understand the point you are trying to make

I have no reason to with believe or dispute your ties and relationship with Northlands other than to note that you seem rather unaware of some of the activities that have taken place over the past years

I think my reasons for my disappointment are completely valid and justified. If you believe that I'm somehow questioning the organization's community impacts I think you need to work on your reading comprehension

i think we need to have a coffee - or a scotch - where we can discuss this without reading things into each other posts that aren't there and escalating agreement into disagreement. i'm happy to host...

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

That said, they also have a prescriptive and performance track in the code, and it's here where the good builders and consultants will be able to distinguish themselves.

Prescriptive is basically a checklist. For example if the insulation level meets code you just check it off.

Performance allows for offsetting. Eg in a commercial building if you want to put larger windows in then you can offset that by reducing the W/sqft of the lighting. Or by putting solar panels on the roof.


.

I had a chance to talk with our LEED people here in the office. And their take on WELL is that is more post construction with heavy emphasis on comfort, performance and Monitoring. I was wondering if I should jump on the certification to get ahead of the game. But even our people don't know how owners are going to look at this as the extra cost will be considerable. This will make it mandatory to have in place everything required for M&V.

Or maybe I am just reading this wrong. I was trying to get to the seminar but was tied up on a couple of projects.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by kcantor

i think we need to have a coffee - or a scotch - where we can discuss this without reading things into each other posts that aren't there and escalating agreement into disagreement. i'm happy to host...

I agree Ken, I'm sure we'll find we agree more than disagree on most things.. As usual an Internet message board is not the best venue for these types of conversations

Name the time & place, I'll be there!

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by craner

Definitely a downside to the energy code being adopted in the 2014 Alberta building code is the likelyhood of thicker walls and less glass.

Unless you go heavy on your mechanical system, which costs $$$.

[Daveography]

Proposed rezoning in Oliver for an apartment building

Residents are invited to an open house to provide feedback on the proposed rezoning of a site located on two parcels of land at 10135 118 Street NW from (DC1) Direct Development Control Provision to (DC2) Site Specific Development Control Provision.

Date:
Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Time:
7:00 p.m. - 9:00pm

Location:
Oliver School, 10227 - 118 Street NW

The proposed rezoning would allow for the opportunity to develop the current parking lot into a 45 metre (approximately 15 storeys) tall high-density apartment building with surface parking located at the rear of the building and an underground parkade.

An update to the map in the Oliver Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) would also be required to reflect the rezoning.

The open house will be an opportunity to learn more about the proposal and provide feedback to the City and the applicant, IBI Group Inc. Feedback will be summarized in a report to City Council for a final decision on the rezoning.

For more information:
edmonton.ca/PublicInvolvementCalendar

Media contact:
Karen Burgess
Communications Advisor, Current Planning Branch
780-496-4908

Source: http://www.mailoutinteractive.com/Industry/View.aspx?id=779103&q=1004148034&qz=f50ff7