Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[s211]

Originally Posted by itom 987

Oliver residential proposal:


Source: https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neig.../st-johns-school-site-redevelopment.aspx

Keep reaching for the stars, Edmonton.

What ham-fisted 8-bit architecture school drop-out or demon child spawned this offspring from their IBS*?

(* Irritable Bowel Syndrome)

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by s211

Keep reaching for the stars, Edmonton.

What ham-fisted 8-bit architecture school drop-out or demon child spawned this offspring from their IBS*?

(* Irritable Bowel Syndrome)

Easy. While it ain't pretty we've seen a lot worse. It somewhat reminds me of University City in Calgary.

https://www.emporis.com/buildings/1199828/university-city-tower-2-calgary-canada

[Vixx]

Originally Posted by Black Star

Good riddance.

Tegler Killer!

Im hoping for a tower between 170m to 180m.

And incorporate some of Teglars architecture into the new tower.

Same here. That would look sweet especially beside the new Enbridge tower.

Daveography reported on Skyrise cities that Regency plans to begin construction in 3 months with a 3 year timeline to complete this project. Assuming this is true, that means we should be seeing renders very soon.

[240glt]

^ no that’s not correct. They’re taking the building down to grade, leaving the sub grade level there and fencing the site off until the LRT line is done at the very least.

[Vixx]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ no that’s not correct. They’re taking the building down to grade, leaving the sub grade level there and fencing the site off until the LRT line is done at the very least.

Is that confirmed? Not doubting what you said (in all honesty I found what Daveography said to be very optimistic and wondering where he heard that from) but it would be good to know whether this site will sit for a few years or if Regency wants to get the ball rolling ASAP.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

www.twitter.com/ianoyeg

I'm curious about this site's long term lease of the rice howard way parkade. I'm hoping they will be able to work their way out of it and, going forward, provide onsite u/g parking at the BMO site. It was truly bush league to begin with, to expect that tenants of the BMO building would go offsite for parking in an old above-ground facility, versus modern heated and secure parking directly underneath.

[NBorody]

The new building being proposed looks like an 80 story townhouse. http://https://edmonton.skyrisecities.co...n-submitted-eight-storey-oliver-building

[Xelebes]

Can you please link to the source of the photo? The link isn't working.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ no that’s not correct. They’re taking the building down to grade, leaving the sub grade level there and fencing the site off until the LRT line is done at the very least.

Actually... good sir... what I have been told is that they plan to do excavation during LRT construction to complete a multi-level UG parkade with structure coming back up to grade (F&F) to allow flexibility for a 40-50 storey tower.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm curious about this site's long term lease of the rice howard way parkade. I'm hoping they will be able to work their way out of it and, going forward, provide onsite u/g parking at the BMO site. It was truly bush league to begin with, to expect that tenants of the BMO building would go offsite for parking in an old above-ground facility, versus modern heated and secure parking directly underneath.

They reverted the DC back to CCA... ie. that parkade requirement for the RHW parkade is no longer en force.

[NBorody]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Can you please link to the source of the photo? The link isn't working.

The link I used was the link to the article itself.

[Urban recluse]

https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/news/...n-submitted-eight-storey-oliver-building

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/news/...n-submitted-eight-storey-oliver-building

Whoever designed this obviously didn't have their glasses on.

Yikes......

[DKaz]

Kinda looks like something out of the 80's...

[s211]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

They reverted the DC back to CCA... ie. that parkade requirement for the RHW parkade is no longer en force.

Understood that the requirement may have fallen away, but does that concurrently nullify the parkade lease? As the owner of the parkade, assuming I want to keep running the site as a parkade, I'd hope not, otherwise my guaranteed revenue stream would fall away, and I'd be having words with the counsel that wrote up the parkade lease.

[Coldrsx]

Without knowing/recalling the specifics, unsure, but my guess is that if the zone reverts, the lease is terminated.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Without knowing/recalling the specifics, unsure, but my guess is that if the zone reverts, the lease is terminated.

my guess is they're completely independent. the original permits and possibly even subsequent occupancy may have required "proof" to the city that the parking had been secured but it would have been by a separate agreement that the city itself would not be party to. the permit conditions - met or not initially and subsequently - would be attached to the bank of montreal building and not the parkade. it would be my guess that the parkade lease was probably terminated many years ago as the fed's don't take parking as part of their lease commitment to a landlord and not having it when that lease was terminated may well have contributed to the unleasability of the premises for subsequent office use. regardless, those original conditions would likely have been a development permit conditions, not a zoning condition.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by kcantor

my guess is they're completely independent. the original permits and possibly even subsequent occupancy may have required "proof" to the city that the parking had been secured but it would have been by a separate agreement that the city itself would not be party to. the permit conditions - met or not initially and subsequently - would be attached to the bank of montreal building and not the parkade. it would be my guess that the parkade lease was probably terminated many years ago as the fed's don't take parking as part of their lease commitment to a landlord and not having it when that lease was terminated may well have contributed to the unleasability of the premises for subsequent office use. regardless, those original conditions would likely have been a development permit conditions, not a zoning condition.

I think they terminated the lease on the stalls in that parkade when they did the de-lamination project. I seem to remember that coming up in a meeting a few years back

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by kcantor

my guess is they're completely independent. the original permits and possibly even subsequent occupancy may have required "proof" to the city that the parking had been secured but it would have been by a separate agreement that the city itself would not be party to. the permit conditions - met or not initially and subsequently - would be attached to the bank of montreal building and not the parkade. it would be my guess that the parkade lease was probably terminated many years ago as the fed's don't take parking as part of their lease commitment to a landlord and not having it when that lease was terminated may well have contributed to the unleasability of the premises for subsequent office use. regardless, those original conditions would likely have been a development permit conditions, not a zoning condition.

Thanks Ken.

My recollection is that it was written into the DC, which, as you say likely was part of the DP requirements.

[Coldrsx]

These guys are really flying on Encore.


www.twitter.com/ianoyeg