Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015) - Page 623

Coldrsx · #**12441** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 4:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Enough grey already.

Simply where the LED colours are, not the entirety. Or gradients there of.

Coldrsx · #**12442** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 4:58 PM**

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/land-swap-oliver-park-1.4942267

s4.audios · #**12443** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 5:44 PM**

^From the article re the original site, "Some community members said the building was too tall for the interior of the neighbourhood."

FFS you live in an urban community that is building upwards, gtfo of there if you don't want "tall" buildings built near you... ugh comments like this piss me off so much!!

Honestly I prefer the 104 Ave location but don't really care, I just want to see more height develop in Oliver.

Coldrsx · #**12444** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 5:51 PM**

CNIB
Job No 300122107-001
Description: To construct a Mixed Use Building - Apartment House (333 Dwellings) with General Retail on the main floor, Professional Financial Office Support Services on the 2nd floor and an underground parkade (4 levels)
Location: 12010 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan 4423AJ Blk 20 Lot 4
12010 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan 4423AJ Blk 20 Lot 3
12010 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan 4423AJ Blk 20 Lot 2
12010 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan 4423AJ Blk 20 Lot 1
Applicant: SLINKO, ANDREW
Status: Intake Review
Create Date: 12/10/2018 2:44:27 PM

EdmTrekker · #**12445** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Simply where the LED colours are, not the entirety. Or gradients there of.

How does the word "simply" fit when 1/3rd of all stalls are surface parking? That is a visual clusterfuck in a residential area. It should ALL be underground or in the podium and out of sight except from garage collection, maintenance and drop off.

EdmTrekker · #**12446** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/land-swap-oliver-park-1.4942267

This proposed land swap is the most intelligent idea I have seen come out of the Oliver community ... EVER.

CMD UW · #**12447** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Surface parking? Really?

In this day and age?

Yes. Part of that parking is associated with the adjacent strip mall to the west and providing them with the 12 stalls that currently exist today. We're just re-orienting it into a better configuration.

The other portion of the surface parking is visitor/car sharing parking for the building and for the standalone Tang Bistro building located north of the strip mall, which was part of this acquisition.

Regardless, we're not proposing that much parking for the entire development as we believe that there won't be the need/demand. As it stands our parking ratio for just the residential component is around 0.3-0.4 stalls/unit.

Coldrsx · #**12448** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 6:10 PM**

I like it as well.

DKaz · #**12449** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/land-swap-oliver-park-1.4942267

I like this. They're not losing too much with this park, only a fraction of the trees are mature. Have the developer transport some of the mature trees to the proposed site and landscape the new park with a brand new playground for the kids and share the cost for a couple of urban features (basketball court? tennis courts? skate park?) and I think it's a win win.

I assume the arena and the outdoor pool will be untouched if the city chooses to keep them operational?

Coldrsx · #**12450** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 6:32 PM**

The rink and pool are on borrowed time...

Hardhatdan · #**12451** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 6:38 PM**

Very interesting concept. At face, without digging in, it seems like a good deal for all the parties and aligned with locating more high density very close to the LRT and more park space in a quieter center of neighborhood location.

CMD UW · #**12452** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Very interesting concept. At face, without digging in, it seems like a good deal for all the parties and aligned with locating more high density very close to the LRT and more park space in a quieter center of neighborhood location.

Agreed.

kcantor · #**12453** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

The rink and pool are on borrowed time...

some might call it "borrowed time"...

others might call it stealing from the past and robbing the future all at the same time because we're too busy chasing shiny new objects to maintain what we already have.

Hardhatdan · #**12454** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcantor

some might call it "borrowed time"...

others might call it stealing from the past and robbing the future all at the same time because we're too busy chasing shiny new objects to maintain what we already have.

And it might just be that they are at end of life and the cost to maintain doesn't make financial sense.

It's an asset, assets get considered on a lifecycle and reviewed for on-going costs maintenance vs. replacement.

Isn't that just what the COE is doing?

That doesn't account for all the soft pieces around having good services in certain communities, or in relative proximity, that factor outside the bottom line numbers.

In reality what should probably happen is that Oliver gets new assets to replace the aging ones with a high cost of operation. In adding additional people and density it will ensure they are well utilized.

Judging from the article, there is room to accomplish this on the existing parkland, build this building and complete the land swap. All of which would be a net positive it seems.

kcantor · #**12455** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

And it might just be that they are at end of life and the cost to maintain doesn't make financial sense.

It's an asset, assets get considered on a lifecycle and reviewed for on-going costs maintenance vs. replacement.

Isn't that just what the COE is doing?

That doesn't account for all the soft pieces around having good services in certain communities, or in relative proximity, that factor outside the bottom line numbers.

In reality what should probably happen is that Oliver gets new assets to replace the aging ones with a high cost of operation. In adding additional people and density it will ensure they are well utilized.

Judging from the article, there is room to accomplish this on the existing parkland, build this building and complete the land swap. All of which would be a net positive it seems.

i'm not against the swap per se but i guess we got different things from the same article.

the sentence that stood our for me was this one: "It has also set aside $55,000 for a community league building, after the nearly century-old building was torn down due to rotting in early 2017." tearing them down because we've allowed them to rot isn't life-cycle management.

there's been talk of tearing down the single surface ice rink for 10 years. do you really think the structure and it's systems have received appropriate life-cycle management and maintenance and repairs for those 10 years? or will we simply fulfilling the inevitable with it as well as with the community league building?

what would be the relative costs - capital and operating - of maintaining this sheet (particularly if we had not neglected it in the first place) versus the cost of the single sheet adjacent to rogers place that the community gets to use sometimes? and what would be the relative population within walking distance of the two?

DKaz · #**12456** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 8:30 PM**

A pulley for the construction lifts at Stantec tower snapped, several contractors trapped in both lifts.

Hardhatdan · #**12457** Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcantor

i'm not against the swap per se but i guess we got different things from the same article.

the sentence that stood our for me was this one: "It has also set aside $55,000 for a community league building, after the nearly century-old building was torn down due to rotting in early 2017." tearing them down because we've allowed them to rot isn't life-cycle management.

there's been talk of tearing down the single surface ice rink for 10 years. do you really think the structure and it's systems have received appropriate life-cycle management and maintenance and repairs for those 10 years? or will we simply fulfilling the inevitable with it as well as with the community league building?

what would be the relative costs - capital and operating - of maintaining this sheet (particularly if we had not neglected it in the first place) versus the cost of the single sheet adjacent to rogers place that the community gets to use sometimes? and what would be the relative population within walking distance of the two?

Why are we comparing the single sheet in Oliver to the Community Arena at Rogers? They actually service two different primary purposes no matter how it is jazzed up. The primary use of Community Arena is a practice facility for the Oilers/Facility for McEwan. It also allows some usage by the Community. In my mind, it was good it was built because it addressed three needs and increased available amenities.

The rink at Oliver gets the maintenance it needs to keep operating. That doesn't change the fact that buildings have certain cycles of major capital maintenance as do mechanical systems. The longer you defer replacements, typically the higher and more frequent the maintenance costs. That's what is occurring. I'm not saying it should be torn down and not replaced, there should be a good look at what Oliver already is and where it is headed and supplying the requisite amenities for that community.

As for the community building...a 100 year old wood structure...most 100 year old wood structures get torn down a long time before 100 years. Was it neglect or was it just that it was 100 years old and made of wood and probably built not really that well back then because no one thought it would be around in 100 years.

I see the ability to line a bunch of wins on this. The fact that a developer listened to a community suggestion about a land swap in the first place seems like a real positive. Not sure why that can't be a foundation for a really good outcome from all this.