Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728 LastLast
Results 2,601 to 2,700 of 2723

Thread: Blatchford | Neighbourhood Master Plan | Discussion/Rumours

  1. #2601
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You mean like the ice district still showing large gatherings in the plaza even though there aren't going to be sufficient public washrooms or electrical connections unless the city pays for them? Or a movie theatre?
    pretty much...

    although in about the same amount of time we actually have an ice district to criticize and elements to critique (which i have done my fair share of but hopefully fairly) while all we have for blatchford is a new website design.

    and somehow i doubt that, even with the similarities, you will attempt to hold blatchford as accountable as you would like to hold the ice district.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  2. #2602

    Default

    Kcantor, agree with your earlier sentiments. But very much looking forward to the area's street-orientated requirements overall. Whatever decade that might be.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  3. #2603

    Default

    I agree that they should be held accountable. Should they also get the benefit of a CRL on the surrounding areas to pay for it?

  4. #2604
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I agree that they should be held accountable. Should they also get the benefit of a CRL on the surrounding areas to pay for it?
    as the landowner and the developer, the city is already paying for everything up front with city taxpayer money taken from taxpayer's overall, not money borrowed from the province and intended to be paid back by this particular area. as one of those taxpayers, we would be a lot better off in terms of current spending and future repayment if it was done with a crl.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  5. #2605

    Default

    What about the commercial properties? Should we not offer them the same deal as we gave Katz? Build a building to their specifications and let the profit fully for 35 years before they hand it back to the city?

    Surely it would be worth it because of all the development that would encourage.

  6. #2606
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    What about the commercial properties? Should we not offer them the same deal as we gave Katz? Build a building to their specifications and let the profit fully for 35 years before they hand it back to the city?

    Surely it would be worth it because of all the development that would encourage.
    sometimes i think you don’t acknowledge what you know simply to justify your opinion.

    and then other times i think you really don’t know.

    and then other times i think you just don’t really want to know...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #2607
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    What was far fetched about Blatchford was the initial concept.
    Last edited by envaneo; 11-07-2018 at 12:19 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  8. #2608
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    113

    Default

    4289548 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr


    Edmonton_Plaza-1x by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr


    Picture8-5 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr








    Gratuitous final closing shot


    Closure by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

  9. #2609
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    What about the commercial properties? Should we not offer them the same deal as we gave Katz? Build a building to their specifications and let the profit fully for 35 years before they hand it back to the city?

    Surely it would be worth it because of all the development that would encourage.
    sometimes i think you don’t acknowledge what you know simply to justify your opinion.

    and then other times i think you really don’t know.

    and then other times i think you just don’t really want to know...
    Sometimes I think he just likes the sound of his own voice. No wait....
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  10. #2610
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    What was far fetched about Blatchford was the initial concept.
    not if you spent any time with it...

    i was not associated with any of the teams but had the pleasure of spending time with several of them during the competition and with the winning team afterwards.. what you deem far fetched (in order to discredit it to rationalize not implementing it?) was well thought out and well integrated (ie the material from the lake was the material for the hill which in turn provided visual and sound buffering from yellowhead and the tracks as well as creating recreational opportunities at both locations).

    but you don’t have to take my word for it - the winner was jury selected and feasibility and deliverability were an integral part of the selection criteria. it was a sanctioned competition and attracted submissions from around the world, most of which had a strong local component (including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #2611
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,928

    Default

    If any of you have been out to Sherwood Park recently, the construction around the library (north side) is giving the area a new feel. I wonder if Blatchford will do the same.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  12. #2612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ...including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer.
    The people who won the bid are no longer involved? Forgive my ignorance on the process but this makes me wonder, what incentive do they have to stick with the winning concept? If these are all new people involved aren't they going to want to put their own spin on it?

  13. #2613
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    What was far fetched about Blatchford was the initial concept.
    not if you spent any time with it...

    i was not associated with any of the teams but had the pleasure of spending time with several of them during the competition and with the winning team afterwards.. what you deem far fetched (in order to discredit it to rationalize not implementing it?) was well thought out and well integrated (ie the material from the lake was the material for the hill which in turn provided visual and sound buffering from yellowhead and the tracks as well as creating recreational opportunities at both locations).

    but you don’t have to take my word for it - the winner was jury selected and feasibility and deliverability were an integral part of the selection criteria. it was a sanctioned competition and attracted submissions from around the world, most of which had a strong local component (including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer).
    I'm not down on Blatchford. Its going to be a great addition for this city. As I understand it the initial concept of Blatchford was like Station Pointe, geo thermal. That idea seemed to have fallen through and after millions of bucks were spent looking into this thing:

    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...ver-blatchford
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  14. #2614
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Just pipe dreams of some wanna be so perfect fools. In a province where you poke a hole in the ground and cheap clean burning natural gas flows freely it’s idiocy. They will spend tens of millions on the whole thing and in the end it will be deemed unfeasable and shut down. Just another way to blow taxpayer money. More pie in the sky. Just my opinion.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 11-07-2018 at 11:33 AM.

  15. #2615
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    ^ Actually, the idea has some merit and a lot of money was put into the geothermal concept as put fourth by Blatchford and other communities:

    I wasn't trying to scoff at Blatchford, just the concept of the geothermal aspect as far fetched as related to the above link. Here's another more down to earth link on Geothermal. Quite interesting:

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/albe...stem-1.3607964

    There are "geothermal kits" on the market for about $6,000

    https://www.123zeroenergy.com/?gclid...RoC7AMQAvD_BwE

    I'm just skimming the surface here obviously, its a complicated topic. I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about here. Time & patience and life in general will determine more study.
    Last edited by envaneo; 11-07-2018 at 11:54 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  16. #2616
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ...including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer.
    The people who won the bid are no longer involved? Forgive my ignorance on the process but this makes me wonder, what incentive do they have to stick with the winning concept? If these are all new people involved aren't they going to want to put their own spin on it?
    perkins + wills was selected as the winning team in 2011 and according to the announcements at that time residents were anticipated to start moving in by the end of 2016.

    in 2014 global provided the following update https://globalnews.ca/news/1386452/e...redevelopment/ which included:

    "City administration has cut portions of the design to save money, and insists it won’t compromise the project. But the Vancouver firm behind the original design doesn’t agree.“We’re here to today to appeal to council to take the time for some sober second thought and to really learn more about the original plan and the current plan you’re contemplating,” said Joyce Drohan, Perkins and Will’s director of urban design.“Council’s decision is going to be the difference between a slightly better-than-average neighbourhood, or the original vision for a global model for sustainability.”


    there are no project consultants listed on the new city of edmonton website for blatchford and the timeline for moving in shows a 1 - 7 sequence with no dates.

    the following information is from stantec's website:


    "In 2010 Edmonton’s Council committed to an ambitious dream—to turn its City Centre Airport lands into a marquee neighborhood. The Council approved a vision and principles for the redevelopment. Once the master plan was complete, the City needed a partner that knows Edmonton and how to build a community that will set a benchmark for urban infill development. They turned to us."

    the above is now an 8 year recap and i'm sure there was lots of back and forth over that 8 years that (a) i was not a party to and (b) i have no direct or indirect knowledge of.

    but i do know - and now so do you - that the people who won the bid have not been associated with the project for a long time now and it was not the winning design team that was not prepared to "stick with the original concept".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #2617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Just pipe dreams of some wanna be so perfect fools. In a province where you poke a hole in the ground and cheap clean burning natural gas flows freely it’s idiocy. They will spend tens of millions on the whole thing and in the end it will be deemed unfeasable and shut down. Just another way to blow taxpayer money. More pie in the sky. Just my opinion.
    Yeah, who cares about all those greenhouse gasses! Gimmie cheap gas and let my grandkids worry about the aftereffects! Buncha egghead scientists! Whadda they know anyway?

    Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

    The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emission

    https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/...s#.W0ZWodhKgW8

  18. #2618
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    ^ LOL.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  19. #2619
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,698

    Default

    Natural gas is pretty clean burning.

    Lots of things globally we can do to reduce GHG's ... going after natural gas would be about the least effective of them.
    ... gobsmacked

  20. #2620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ...including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer.
    The people who won the bid are no longer involved? Forgive my ignorance on the process but this makes me wonder, what incentive do they have to stick with the winning concept? If these are all new people involved aren't they going to want to put their own spin on it?
    perkins + wills was selected as the winning team in 2011 and according to the announcements at that time residents were anticipated to start moving in by the end of 2016.

    in 2014 global provided the following update https://globalnews.ca/news/1386452/e...redevelopment/ which included:

    "City administration has cut portions of the design to save money, and insists it won’t compromise the project. But the Vancouver firm behind the original design doesn’t agree.“We’re here to today to appeal to council to take the time for some sober second thought and to really learn more about the original plan and the current plan you’re contemplating,” said Joyce Drohan, Perkins and Will’s director of urban design.“Council’s decision is going to be the difference between a slightly better-than-average neighbourhood, or the original vision for a global model for sustainability.”


    there are no project consultants listed on the new city of edmonton website for blatchford and the timeline for moving in shows a 1 - 7 sequence with no dates.

    the following information is from stantec's website:


    "In 2010 Edmonton’s Council committed to an ambitious dream—to turn its City Centre Airport lands into a marquee neighborhood. The Council approved a vision and principles for the redevelopment. Once the master plan was complete, the City needed a partner that knows Edmonton and how to build a community that will set a benchmark for urban infill development. They turned to us."

    the above is now an 8 year recap and i'm sure there was lots of back and forth over that 8 years that (a) i was not a party to and (b) i have no direct or indirect knowledge of.

    but i do know - and now so do you - that the people who won the bid have not been associated with the project for a long time now and it was not the winning design team that was not prepared to "stick with the original concept".
    Thanks for the recap. Obviously I haven't been keeping up. Really disappointing (but not surprising) that the original design competition almost seems like it was a complete waste of time now. If you're going to pick a winner and then change everything to save costs, then what's the point of picking a winner?

  21. #2621
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ...including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer.
    The people who won the bid are no longer involved? Forgive my ignorance on the process but this makes me wonder, what incentive do they have to stick with the winning concept? If these are all new people involved aren't they going to want to put their own spin on it?
    perkins + wills was selected as the winning team in 2011 and according to the announcements at that time residents were anticipated to start moving in by the end of 2016.

    in 2014 global provided the following update https://globalnews.ca/news/1386452/e...redevelopment/ which included:

    "City administration has cut portions of the design to save money, and insists it won’t compromise the project. But the Vancouver firm behind the original design doesn’t agree.“We’re here to today to appeal to council to take the time for some sober second thought and to really learn more about the original plan and the current plan you’re contemplating,” said Joyce Drohan, Perkins and Will’s director of urban design.“Council’s decision is going to be the difference between a slightly better-than-average neighbourhood, or the original vision for a global model for sustainability.”


    there are no project consultants listed on the new city of edmonton website for blatchford and the timeline for moving in shows a 1 - 7 sequence with no dates.

    the following information is from stantec's website:


    "In 2010 Edmonton’s Council committed to an ambitious dream—to turn its City Centre Airport lands into a marquee neighborhood. The Council approved a vision and principles for the redevelopment. Once the master plan was complete, the City needed a partner that knows Edmonton and how to build a community that will set a benchmark for urban infill development. They turned to us."

    the above is now an 8 year recap and i'm sure there was lots of back and forth over that 8 years that (a) i was not a party to and (b) i have no direct or indirect knowledge of.

    but i do know - and now so do you - that the people who won the bid have not been associated with the project for a long time now and it was not the winning design team that was not prepared to "stick with the original concept".
    Thanks for the recap. Obviously I haven't been keeping up. Really disappointing (but not surprising) that the original design competition almost seems like it was a complete waste of time now. If you're going to pick a winner and then change everything to save costs, then what's the point of picking a winner?
    (a) what's the point of picking a winner and (b) what's the point of holding a sanctioned design competition.

    it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with the conditions of a design competition over and above any nominal stipend that is provided. firms consider that an investment in new business development. but when it doesn't turn in to new business or if the client doesn't proceed with the design that was chosen, then you have to question whether you want to make that investment in the future with that client. and that decision isn't just the jilted winner's. every firm thinking about participating in a future design competition will have to ask that question before deciding to participate...

    there are hundreds of design competitions for work - some of it spectacular - every year and any given firm can only enter/compete in a limited number of those. even putting blatchford aside, edmonton is a lot lower on that list today than we were in 2011, not only with perkins + wills but with foster & partners and kcap and sweco and bmimecca and f&c and bnim and all of the others who were hoping to see their work executed in edmonton. i wouldn't want to say we ****** off a who's who in architectural planning and design but if you were going to write a who's who of architectural planning and design firms many of these firms would be on it. that this site got the attention of firms of that caliber who can choose to do work anywhere in the world tells you what a unique opportunity blatchford presented. i'm not holding my breath that any of them will be back.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #2622
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Natural gas is pretty clean burning.

    Lots of things globally we can do to reduce GHG's ... going after natural gas would be about the least effective of them.
    Exactly what I was thinking. Especially as it is plentiful here and also our economy depends strongly on the sale of it. It’s shooting yourself in the foot.

  23. #2623
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Kkozoriz said; Yeah, who cares about all those greenhouse gasses! Gimmie cheap gas and let my grandkids worry about the aftereffects! Buncha egghead scientists! Whadda they know anyway? Drumbones said; Kkozoriz you’re still a dork. 😉

  24. #2624

    Default

    I agree. The district energy/biomass heating was probably the least beneficial of all the bleeding edge technologies that they had proposed. It's unfortunate that all the others had to get cut.
    There can only be one.

  25. #2625
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I agree. The district energy/biomass heating was probably the least beneficial of all the bleeding edge technologies that they had proposed. It's unfortunate that all the others had to get cut.
    it's not the technologies that's the issue (even the bleeding edge ones), it's how they're dealt with.

    if they're going to implemented efficiently, that efficiency needs to be monetized for the purchaser's benefit, not for the developer/city's benefit which means a higher cost to the purchaser (otherwise the purchaser might as well purchase an equivalent product elsewhere that doesn't have that built in higher cost).

    as it stands, as far as i can determine, all of the technology being implemented is being treated as a project cost. what that means is that the costs either need to be passed on the purchaser in the form of higher pricing or the city needs to absorb the cost. in the case of higher pricing, the purchaser will actually pay twice - not only is his initial cost higher, his property taxes on an ongoing basis will be higher because that initial cost was higher. if the city absorbs the cost, then the rest of the city's taxpayers pick up the tab and effectively subsidize the purchaser initially and then again in the long run because the purchaser is theoretically getting the savings while the taxpayers at large got the bill.

    it would have made more sense to monetize those savings for the purchasers by having a home owners' or rate payers' association own the utility or the utility substitute that's delivering those technologies. while the initial cost would still be passed on to the purchasers as above, as the de-facto owners of the provider they would receive a proportionate share of the income from the utilities sold in addition to seeing their ongoing costs reduced. now the purchaser not only gets the benefit and savings of the technology, the purchaser receives the equivalent income that technology generates in reducing those costs. as that revenue is in addition to his salary and other income, his mortgage company should be prepared to provide a higher mortgage to offset that portion of the original higher price being used to purchase the utility or utility substitute. the purchaser is then able to purchase in blatchford with the same down payment and the same net mortgage payments as a lower cost lower technology alternative in the market and the city is able to recover the added technology implementation costs without charging it to others.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  26. #2626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Kkozoriz said; Yeah, who cares about all those greenhouse gasses! Gimmie cheap gas and let my grandkids worry about the aftereffects! Buncha egghead scientists! Whadda they know anyway? Drumbones said; Kkozoriz you’re still a dork. 
    "Clean coal"

  27. #2627
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  28. #2628
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    ^


    you'd think if there was a 22 in the legend there would be a 22 on the plan somewhere.


    you'd also think if you're going to have a key plan it should either be oriented in the same direction as the main plan or it should at least have its own north arrow so someone who doesn't know where airport road is or in which direction the main city grid is in the surrounding area could still use it...


    but what do i know, i'm just a dumb developer.

    ps i stand corrected, there is a 22, just not where one would expect front porches and setbacks thanks Vincent. some days dumber than others.
    Last edited by kcantor; 16-07-2018 at 07:53 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  29. #2629

  30. #2630

    Default

    Lol. The plan is a little confusing.

    22 is down and a little left of 3.

    I'm wondering what 29 is, though, and what happened to 25-28?

  31. #2631

    Default

    29 is a tree.

  32. #2632
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    ^ Not just a tree. A sustainable organic one. #blatchforded

  33. #2633
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    north arrow located top right corner...have your coffee Ken.

  34. #2634
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    north arrow located top right corner...have your coffee Ken.
    i know - i was talking about the lack of a north arrow on the key plan when it’s not oriented the same way as the main plan. but coffee sounds good. not as good as a scotch but still good.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  35. #2635

    Default

    Without a doubt this development with look like what UBC does with its neighbourhood developments. Nothing radical... just 21st Century... which for Edmonton is "radical". Or for those less familiar on UBC's neighbourhood's urban form, a more common urban design set of guidelines to this are found in the Southeast False Creek in Vancouver as well. Condos, rental, below-market and social housing. Mid-block pathways, ground-orientated units and commercial, accessible alleys and complete street designs. Parks, plazas, gardens and naturalized areas (reclaimed nature).


    Radical to a degree, I guess.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  36. #2636

    Default

    Here's a "radical" neighbourhood that exists and it's neighbourhood plan:

    https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/planni...NP-Apr2016.pdf
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  37. #2637
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Here's a "radical" neighbourhood that exists and it's neighbourhood plan:

    https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/planni...NP-Apr2016.pdf
    to be fair that market supports some pretty radical pricing to go along with its planning implementation...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  38. #2638

    Default

    Low end market equals SF homes in ("suburbia") while street-orientated design equals high end market?

    Design a good set of urban land use plans and guidelines on street-orientation and setbacks and establish zoning and street grids that support the neighbourhood function you want. Edmonton gets what it gets and Westbrook (UBC) gets what it gets. I knew someone would bring up the market right away.

    If you're zoning and design / neighbourhood guidelines allow parking lots in front of commercial strip malls or large setbacks for multifamily with no street interaction you get that. High end or low end. Edmonton market or Surrey/Vancouver/Burnaby/etc. market.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  39. #2639

    Default

    Terwillegar and Greisbach are so close in achieving this it hurts.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  40. #2640
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    Agreed. Good urban design doesn't have to be expensive.

  41. #2641
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Low end market equals SF homes in ("suburbia") while street-orientated design equals high end market?

    Design a good set of urban land use plans and guidelines on street-orientation and setbacks and establish zoning and street grids that support the neighbourhood function you want. Edmonton gets what it gets and Westbrook (UBC) gets what it gets. I knew someone would bring up the market right away.

    If you're zoning and design / neighbourhood guidelines allow parking lots in front of commercial strip malls or large setbacks for multifamily with no street interaction you get that. High end or low end. Edmonton market or Surrey/Vancouver/Burnaby/etc. market.
    westbrook has some reasonably large multi family setbacks with no street interaction on berton and binning with no street interaction although they are well detailed and well executed streets for pedestrians and cars. for what it’s worth, westbrook is one of my favourite new high density subdivisions anywhere. i think it’s one of those things you get in a city/community with a school of architecture that is harder to implement in a city/community without one where there is neither the appreciation nor the patience to incorporate really good design as a matter of course.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  42. #2642
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Agreed. Good urban design doesn't have to be expensive.
    true... it’s just like shoe repairs - they can be good, they can be quick or they can be inexpensive and you get to pick 2 out of 3 every time.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  43. #2643

    Default

    Does that mean that Blatchford is going to be good and inexpensive?

  44. #2644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Does that mean that Blatchford is going to be good and inexpensive?
    The area will definitely keep prices lower
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  45. #2645
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    ^ I think it is way too early to make that assumption.

    The City have put several building requirements on the builders that are not cheap. If they price their lots to offset that additional cost, the end price should be reasonable and the market will be left with an attractive option that may be better value than most suburb communities. If they try to price the lots to the top of the market, the cost to produce a unit is going to be such that offering the units are a "lower" price point just won't be an option.

  46. #2646
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    ^ I think it is way too early to make that assumption.

    The City have put several building requirements on the builders that are not cheap. If they price their lots to offset that additional cost, the end price should be reasonable and the market will be left with an attractive option that may be better value than most suburb communities. If they try to price the lots to the top of the market, the cost to produce a unit is going to be such that offering the units are a "lower" price point just won't be an option.
    this clearly identifies the underlying dilemma...

    if everything is treated as a project cost then the prices will escalate accordingly. not necessarily wrong but it will negatively impact affordability.

    if those additional costs are absorbed by the city to enhance affordability, taxpayers at large will be subsidizing the housing and lifestyle costs of a select group of homeowners. that means taxpayers elsewhere will be paying for things that they are not able to enjoy in their own home or have available in their own neighbourhood - something the city wouldn’t do for a private developer’s purchasers.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  47. #2647
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Agreed. Good urban design doesn't have to be expensive.
    true... it’s just like shoe repairs - they can be good, they can be quick or they can be inexpensive and you get to pick 2 out of 3 every time.
    If we're building a street network and built form that's going to be around for the foreseeable future, should we not take the extra time to make sure it's done right?

  48. #2648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    ^ I think it is way too early to make that assumption.

    The City have put several building requirements on the builders that are not cheap. If they price their lots to offset that additional cost, the end price should be reasonable and the market will be left with an attractive option that may be better value than most suburb communities. If they try to price the lots to the top of the market, the cost to produce a unit is going to be such that offering the units are a "lower" price point just won't be an option.
    I don’t. I was just shopping for houses. Even the best, most developed areas of Alberta Ave close to lrt don’t fetch nearly the same price as a similar product in areas like Bonnie Doone.

    This development will be great, partly because it will also be more affordable then other inner city areas. You will never get top dollar when you are next to a freeway and a rail yard.

  49. #2649

    Default

    I am on a Legerweb.com survey panel and this morning did a survey about what I'd call "awareness of and interest in" the Blatchford development that used the same map (with missing legend items) as was posted above, along with other graphics probably from the link that was posted above. I may not have gotten very far in the survey after I replied 'No' to "Would you consider living there?"

    But, someone is wanting to know what people think about it...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  50. #2650

    Default

    Issue of the future of Hanger No. 11 is going to City Council Executive Committee August 27. One of the options is demolition. I really hope that's not what happens.

    Item 6.3 - http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/m...octype=AGENDA#
    www.decl.org

  51. #2651
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    I wonder what the cost into restore it for a City Museum?

  52. #2652
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    according to the RJC report, the hanger would require $14.6 to $22 million to restore and update to present code. To what end does the city need a restored hanger located at a non-existing airport?

  53. #2653
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    according to the RJC report, the hanger would require $14.6 to $22 million to restore and update to present code. To what end does the city need a restored hanger located at a non-existing airport?
    Like this which is downtown New Orleans and is fantastic. Federal, State, City and private donations built this.https://www.nationalww2museum.org/vi...ilion/warbirds

  54. #2654
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    according to the RJC report, the hanger would require $14.6 to $22 million to restore and update to present code. To what end does the city need a restored hanger located at a non-existing airport?
    by that logic we don't need the old power plant at a non-existent generating facility in rossdale either...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  55. #2655
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    ^^EdmTrekker, don't know if you've noticed, but we already have a repurposed hanger on Kingsway housing the Alberta Aviation Museum. Are you suggesting we need a second one? ^Ken, I knew someone would bring that up, and quite frankly I think that's a strawman argument...sure we need to save some structures, but not all, and someone better have a really, really good repurposing idea; we still haven't decided what to do the the old RAM... So far, all I've seen regarding the old power plant is an idea to turn it into a large winter spa/swimming pool. My guess is that the old power plant will sit and rot for 20-30 years. NObody is on the horizon regarding a use for a $22 million wooden hanger... (edit) maybe a grow op...but that wouldn't require tax payer's buy in.
    Last edited by buildings; 24-08-2018 at 05:36 PM.

  56. #2656
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Actually I had first posted about a City Museum or WW2 museum but the post got lost. In any event the hanger is a big space that screams for a good use and given the City needs a new Museum and while it may want it downtown - this old hanger is large enough, is available and no way on hell should be torn down. It could provide a 20 year or permanent solution depending on the will and financing. Besides museum use, there is the need for a community centre in batch ford as well as library, recreation centre etc.

    Also It would be sad to think that NAIT would want it torn down ... frankly they should be advocating for keeping it, renovating it and using it. NAIT, one might assume, has a community responsibility to do the right thing and preserve this legacy building.

  57. #2657
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    I guess we'll agree to disagree. If the Blatchford area needs a library, rink, pool or more all-encompassing rec centre, by all means, take that $22 million and build a proper one. A museum? take a look down around 130 st. and 102 ave. I don't see what NAIT has to do with any of this; please explain.

  58. #2658

    Default

    ETS has a number of old buses that they've got in storage that could be put on display. They're too new to fit in with Fort Edmonton and it would be nice to see them more often that the rare occasions that they're brought out now.

    NAIT may want the land for a westward expansion.

  59. #2659
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    ^^EdmTrekker, don't know if you've noticed, but we already have a repurposed hanger on Kingsway housing the Alberta Aviation Museum. Are you suggesting we need a second one? ^Ken, I knew someone would bring that up, and quite frankly I think that's a strawman argument...sure we need to save some structures, but not all, and someone better have a really, really good repurposing idea; we still haven't decided what to do the the old RAM... So far, all I've seen regarding the old power plant is an idea to turn it into a large winter spa/swimming pool. My guess is that the old power plant will sit and rot for 20-30 years. NObody is on the horizon regarding a use for a $22 million wooden hanger... (edit) maybe a grow op...but that wouldn't require tax payer's buy in.
    i think the strawman argument response is a bit of a red herring, as is the "nobody is on the horizon regarding a use for a $22 million wooden hangar" because as much as this specific discussion is about a hangar, it's a hangar that is suffering from the same treatment we give too much of our infrastructure long before they're semi-derelict structures and then we use the excuse that they're semi-derelict and we haven't figured out to affordably reuse them to simply demolish them. it doesn't seem to matter whether it's a hangar or a power substation or a bridge or a coliseum or a brutalist church or an office building(b of m) built to replace an office building (tegler) or just a wading pool in front of city hall. the ram might be a bit of a one off in this discussion as it's a provincial building but then again so is the remand centre and so was the federal building so maybe even their treatment is indicative of a municipal malaise.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  60. #2660
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Well, now you're just moving the goal post...We were discussing whether a large, rotting, moldy wooden shed should get $22 million thrown at it for...what? exactly? To "all buildings are sacred" and if you don't subscribe to that, then, well...you're a malaise. I know that you've put your money where your mouth is regarding the Brighton Block and I'm personally impressed and grateful and a ton of other things, but must the tax payers go on the hook every time a falling down building makes the front page just because it's old? I assume that you're not being altruistic with the BB project and expect a return. I think the tax payers deserve no less.
    Last edited by buildings; 24-08-2018 at 06:45 PM.

  61. #2661

    Default

    This discussion reminds me of the old joke "A subdivision is where they cut down all the trees so they can name the streets after them"

  62. #2662
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    People please read the Report here: http://bit.ly/2NetebT

    "Hangar 11, located on the east side of the Blatchford redevelopment site, is on the Inventory of Historic Resources in Edmonton. The building, constructed by the United States Army Air Force in 1942, is the last structure from this era remaining on the Blatchford site. While historically very significant, the current condition of the building means it would require extensive rehabilitation, and the adaptive re-use opportunities are unknown at this time. The building is also sited on lands that are subject to negotiation between the City and the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT). The report describes the complex circumstances surrounding Hangar 11 and outlines scenarios for the building’s future for City Council to consider as potential next steps."

    "Hangar 11 is listed on the Inventory of Historic Resources in Edmonton, and is the last remaining Second World War-era hangar structure on the Blatchford site. The building serves as a direct and tangible reminder of the role Edmonton played in the global conflicts of the 20th century that shaped the modern world. It is believed to be one of the last remaining buildings of its kind in western Canada, possibly in the nation, and is one of the most significant historic structures in Edmonton.

    "The building was included on the National Trust of Canada’s 2017 Top 10 Endangered Places in Canada list, due to the historic significance of the structure, and the lack of any initiatives to preserve and adaptively reuse the building."

    Its not the Remand Centre.

  63. #2663

    Default

    While some renovations have been made to the building, including metal siding on the
    exterior, windows and some interior alterations, many of the original materials remain,
    and the structure retains its original form, scale, massing and key design elements.
    The roof is in need of replacement, and the exterior cladding materials are beginning
    to fail. The condition of the interior of the office wings is significantly deteriorated, with
    extensive moisture-related issues affecting floor, wall and ceiling finishes in many
    locations. Mechanical and electrical systems are well past their expected lifespan, and
    little maintenance to these systems has been undertaken over the years.
    Redevelopment of the office wings will require complete overhaul, while the hangar
    space itself will require a certain amount of rehabilitation.


    Overall, the building condition assessment estimates a cost of $14 to $20 million to
    fully rehabilitate the building.
    That's just to rehab it to what it was before - a big empty shell?
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  64. #2664
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    ^

    given the structure includes approximately 80,000 sf of space, 14-20 million works out to between 175-250 psf which isn’t out of line.

    and for perspective it’s 5-11 million less than we seem prepared to spend to demolish the coliseum. of course doing that math in reverse means we could have 400,000 sf of space to figure out what to do with by not spending 62.50 psf.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  65. #2665
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    ok... what about this quote from the same link emdTrekker provides: "The central vision of the Area Redevelopment Plan describes the Blatchford development as a sustainable community that is carbon neutral, reducing its ecological footprint. The retention and preservation of Hangar 11 presents opportunities to support this vision by taking advantage of the embodied energy in the building." bolding mine...what does this word salad even mean? who wrote this report? (I've checked, there is no accreditation.) Come on, I don't mean to cherry pick but this:

    " Hangar 11 is the only remaining structure on the Blatchford site that is on the Inventory of Historic Resources in Edmonton. The existing control tower structure on the site is intended to be retained and re-purposed, but it is not on the Inventory. Hangar 8, also constructed in the early 1940s, was located to the immediate north of Hangar 11, and was also on the Inventory. Hangar 8 was demolished in 2016. Hangar 14 on Kingsway, current home to the Alberta Aviation Museum, has formal historic designation (both at the Provincial and Municipal levels), and is adjacent to, but not actually located on, the Blatchford redevelopment site. " So. we have ONE hanger preserved.. but NOT specifically on the Blatchford site...is this what this is about? $22 milllion because it's 500 meters away??

  66. #2666
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    ^Ken, what in heaven's name does this have to do with the old Coliseum? Apples and Oranges. What exactly is the upside of spending $22 million to REBUILD this shed...it's not even a restoration...check link #2650 and read the supporting documents. Even if we accept the dollar figures you state, we end up with a restored airplane hanger...to what purpose?? I've enjoyed this debate but that's all I have to say.
    Last edited by buildings; 24-08-2018 at 09:29 PM.

  67. #2667
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    ^Ken, what in heaven's name does this have to do with the old Coliseum? Apples and Oranges. What exactly is the upside of spending $22 million to REBUILD this shed...it's not even a restoration...check link #2650 and read the supporting documents.
    just a general frustration with our priorities and our choices on how and when we do or don’t spend our money...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  68. #2668
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    well, it's not really "our money", or I'd be rich....np, see you in the Fringe beer tent.

  69. #2669

    Default

    How about moving the hangar to where the museum is to double the size of the museum.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  70. #2670
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    McConnell will move anything.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 25-08-2018 at 03:02 AM.

  71. #2671
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    McConnel will move anything.
    Its a 60,000 sq building. It would have to be taken apart and reassembled. That might be in the millions. And at that point, once on trucks, you might as well relocate to Villeneuve where it would have use for the air show and a museum. Maybe a community fund raiser might make the move possible - but would Board at EIA want that out there given it still needs money to bring it up to some standard for hanger use.
    Last edited by EdmTrekker; 25-08-2018 at 03:08 AM.

  72. #2672
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    They're planning a major renovation soon but is the hanger too large for Fort Edmonton park?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  73. #2673
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    McConnel will move anything.
    Its a 60,000 sq building. It would have to be taken apart and reassembled. That might be in the millions. And at that point, once on trucks, you might as well relocate to Villeneuve where it would have use for the air show and a museum. Maybe a community fund raiser might make the move possible - but would Board at EIA want that out there given it still needs money to bring it up to some standard for hanger use.
    no no no no no....absolutely not. Keep that thing away from me. Why? because for...

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    according to the RJC report, the hanger would require $14.6 to $22 million (…)
    I'd rather take the low end of that estimate and show you what a real hangar, ramp space, and a runway extension looks like. I've already lived the "bring it up to code" hell of a donated building...I'd rather build new thanks...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  74. #2674
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    McConnel will move anything.
    Its a 60,000 sq building. It would have to be taken apart and reassembled. That might be in the millions. And at that point, once on trucks, you might as well relocate to Villeneuve where it would have use for the air show and a museum. Maybe a community fund raiser might make the move possible - but would Board at EIA want that out there given it still needs money to bring it up to some standard for hanger use.
    no no no no no....absolutely not. Keep that thing away from me. Why? because for...

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    according to the RJC report, the hanger would require $14.6 to $22 million (…)
    I'd rather take the low end of that estimate and show you what a real hangar, ramp space, and a runway extension looks like. I've already lived the "bring it up to code" hell of a donated building...I'd rather build new thanks...
    I knew you would post. Message received loud and clear lol. I guess it will be demolished and materials recycled.

  75. #2675
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Personally, I would like $0 of taxpayers money going to restoring an aircraft hangar. There are better uses of funds that could be directed to more worthwhile causes.

  76. #2676
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post

    I knew you would post. Message received loud and clear lol. I guess it will be demolished and materials recycled.
    I hope someone does do something prudent. It just won't be me. I'm done with trying to fix other's mistakes.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  77. #2677
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    Edmonton city council to discuss fate of rare WWII-era hangar

    Edmonton's executive committee will discuss the fate of one of Canada's last hangars from the Second World War on Monday.
    Hangar 11, located just west of NAIT, is one of the last surviving structures of its kind. But the 80,000 square-foot building sits on the Blatchford re-development site, and might be torn down as a result.
    Barbara Hilden, chair of the Edmonton Historical Board, said demolishing the building would be a mistake.
    "Stories are intangible," Hilden said. "And this is one of those rare examples of a physical thing we have that can help tell the story of Edmonton's contributions in World War II."
    Hangar 11 was built in 1942 and served as part of the U.S's Lend-Lease program, where North Americans supplied airplanes to Russian allies. Hilden said the planes were flown from Edmonton to Alaska before making their way to Russia.
    Last year, the building was put on a list of the Top 10 Most Endangered Historic Places in Canada, compiled by the National Trust For Canada, a charity focused on preserving older buildings.
    The hangar is now vacant and deteriorating, after years of not being used.
    A city report says the roof needs to be replaced, while the interior has extensively water-damaged floors, walls and ceilings. The mechanical and electrical systems are also outdated.
    The city is considering demolishing the building to make way for a carbon-neutral neighbourhood on Blatchford, the old City Centre Airport land. The city report notes the land the hangar sits on would be sold to NAIT, which is set to expand its campus, and is keen on acquiring land clear of buildings.
    But there are two other options: restore and maintain the hangar or hold off on making a decision until the city conducts additional studies, identifying a way to potentially re-purpose the building.
    The report says restoration would cost between $14 million and $20 million.
    Hilden said a full restoration isn't practical. She said the Edmonton Historical board has been advocating for the building to be protected from further deterioration while the community discusses the hangar's significant past — and potential future.
    "It could be integrated in a meaningful way into the Blatchford redevelopment to give a sense of community to this otherwise brand new development," she said, noting the hangar could be converted into a library or community centre.
    "It tells the longer, deeper history of what happened at that site — Edmonton's contributions on a provincial, national and even international scale."
    The city report notes Hangar 11 is on Edmonton's inventory of historic resources, which lists significant sites, but doesn't provide official historic designation.
    "It is believed to be one of the last remaining buildings of its kind in western Canada, possibly in the nation, and is one of the most significant historic structures in Edmonton," the report reads.
    But Mayor Don Iveson said that doesn't mean the city is guaranteed to save it. He noted the hangar doesn't fit with the street grid or utility plan for the Blatchford redevelopment, a project that has been in the works for almost a decade.
    "So we'd have to drastically alter our development plans and we would have to invest considerable money. And quite frankly our resources are very tight right now," Iveson said on Sunday.
    The city hasn't been too keen to preserve historic buildings in the past, Hilden said.
    "We're losing so many of them. Edmonton doesn't have a great track record of taking care of its buildings. In particular, some of the more pedestrian and unimpressive, for lack of a better word, buildings," she said, noting Hangar 11 isn't a beautiful structure, but is still valuable.
    But for Iveson, a building's age won't necessarily spare it from the wrath of a wrecking ball.
    "It's critical that the city act to preserve structures, but we pick the most important churches, not all churches — the most important aviation historical buildings," he said, pointing to the Alberta Aviation Museum, which has formal historic designation.
    The museum is located on a site adjacent to Blatchford.
    "We save buildings, but we have to be selective about which ones we save."
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  78. #2678

    Default

    I'm all in favour of preserving historic buildings, but a hangar? Don't see much value in that.

  79. #2679
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    The hanger is not in good shape in parts anyway, and like mentioned bove would cost way too much money to preserve it.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  80. #2680
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    I would call Le Donald and tell him to come get his shite back - but am afraid he might actually send the US airfarce in to dismantle it as he might see the hanger as a US National Security Risk to leave it where it is. Anyway Le Donald is busy today trash talking Canada on other matters. Maybe the best thing to with it considering the source is blow it up. Anyway that is how I feel today after watching the King of the USA on the news.

  81. #2681
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...why is Trump being brought into this?...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  82. #2682

    Default

    This Hanger is very significant, and every successful redevelopment plan I've seen around the world has some kind of tie to history in terms of existing buildings that are saved. There are so many possibilities.
    www.decl.org

  83. #2683

    Default

    There are always possibilities... infinite possibilities... practical possibilities less so. $14-20 million to turn an big old shed into a big new shed doesn't seem a very practical possibility.

    Perhaps if history fans had started a decade or so ago it would have been a practical possibility back then.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  84. #2684

    Default

    $14 - 20 million to renovate a building the size of Hangar 11 seems like an excellent deal to me. Katz group doesn't have any covenants related to that building like they do with the Colosseum. I still think the best solution would be to move it to the Alberta Aviation Museum. We could get provincial and federal funding for the museum, and the US government might be willing to donate something towards it as well.
    Last edited by ThomasH; 27-08-2018 at 07:52 PM.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  85. #2685
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    There are always possibilities... infinite possibilities... practical possibilities less so. $14-20 million to turn an big old shed into a big new shed doesn't seem a very practical possibility.

    Perhaps if history fans had started a decade or so ago it would have been a practical possibility back then.
    you’re making the assumption - and it’s wrong - that history fans haven’t been been lobbying for a decade or more. it also needs to be noted that the costs involved when they started - and probably every year since - would have been considerably less than what they might be today if anyone had listened to what was being said. you can point your finger at lots of people and groups of people for being at fault for the current situation but the history fans aren’t one of them.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  86. #2686

    Default

    But that's the Edmonton way. Leave the buildings until it's no longer financially reasonable to save/renovate and the shrug our shoulders and say "Are we supposed to spend a bunch of money on a building in this condition?".

    There are exceptions like Ken is doing but by and large, we really don't care about our heritage buildings. For some it's because they don't compare to older cities like Halifax or many European cities. But, if we don't save what we've got then out heritage buildings will be from the 50s and then the 60s and we'll say that they're not old enough once again.

  87. #2687

    Default

    What I wanted to see was the trusses and construction. This report (page 18 pdf) was the first time I saw a glimpse of the trusses that cannot be seen by most people.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  88. #2688
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    So the vote tonight was to study uses over the next year. The article mused about possible use as a train / LRT Station. I think that would be a great use and perhaps a year round farmers market right in there with it and some cafes. Could be quite the happening community centre.

    https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/201...ther-year.html

  89. #2689

    Default

    From The Journal

    Hangar 11 to live another day: Committee votes to keep building, study reuse

    Hanger 11 is a 7,400-square-metre building with a huge open span that was built in 1942 by the United States Army Air Force. It’s made of B.C.-sourced, old-growth Douglas fir, which becomes incredibly hard as it ages. Based on an initial analysis, it appears the structure is solid, and any damage from a past leaky roof is cosmetic.


    The open span is the real strength of the building, making it ideal for many different uses, said Coun. Ben Henderson. “Coming from a theatre background, that kind of space is gold because you just don’t get it anymore.”

    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...ng-study-reuse

  90. #2690
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    $14 - 20 million to renovate a building the size of Hangar 11 seems like an excellent deal to me. Katz group doesn't have any covenants related to that building like they do with the Colosseum. I still think the best solution would be to move it to the Alberta Aviation Museum. We could get provincial and federal funding for the museum, and the US government might be willing to donate something towards it as well.
    That won't happen. The second you remove that building from its foundations, it is not going to be easy to reassemble. It would cost significantly more than one could ever justify, and trust me, the Province, Feds, and even the US government have zero to less than zero interest in moving this, let alone expanding the AAMA. The Province has its museum in Wetaskiwin, the Feds in Ottawa, and the US has the Smithsonian and a gaggle of others. The AAMA has other problems it needs to tackle long before this should be a spark of a thought in anyone's eye.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  91. #2691

    Default

    Is the hanger sprinkered?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #2692

    Default

    More from the EJ

    “It’s a very significant building,” said private heritage consultant Donald Luxton, who paid for his own flight from Vancouver just to plead for its preservation. It’s listed among Canada’s top 10 most endangered heritage buildings by the National Trust for Canada.

    The hangar is a tangible reminder of Edmonton’s war effort, where it formed a critical link in the resupply chain that turned the tide and helped the Allies win the war. It’s also a great example of the kind of heritage building that is easily repurposed, bringing additional value and character to a new development.


    City officials said it would cost between $14 million and $20 million to fully restore the hanger, but heritage advocates weren’t asking council to commit those dollars today. All they wanted was for Edmonton to maintain the facility for a few more years while studying the options.
    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...ng-study-reuse


    Look at it from this way.

    The building is not being used. On the face, it would have a value of zero. To make it go away, it would cost a few million to demolish.

    Now if we spend $14-$20M for a huge building to be totally renovated, we are getting a huge asset with a clear span. 80,000 ft2 total for lets say $25M

    That is the same cost as a funicular and stairway.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  93. #2693

    Default

    The history of Hangar 11 - CBC Player

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1307319363915



    Hangar 8 and Hangar 11, Blatchford Field | Hangar 11 in Edmo… | Flickr

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/wherezjeff/44213591352/

    https://blog.mastermaq.ca/2018/08/26...ugust-26-2018/
    Last edited by KC; 28-08-2018 at 08:14 AM.

  94. #2694

    Default

    “Airplane hangars are one of the most repurposed types of property on the commercial market. Even Costco started out in one, proving how easy they are to modify for your changing needs.


    15 Facts about Airplane Hangar Designs that Will Keep You up at Night

    13. You can repurpose hangars as warehouses, commercial buildings and stores. Property value can have a big impact. Have no fear. Airplane hangars are one of the most repurposed types of property on the commercial market. Even Costco started out in one, proving how easy they are to modify for your changing needs



    And more . . .

    14. Their energy-efficient airplane hangar designs can save you even more money over time. Because few spaces in a hangar are wasted, you aren’t using energy to heat and cool spaces you don’t need. This no-frills design can help you save on costs and your use of energy.

    https://www.peaksteelbuildings.com/a...angar-designs/


  95. #2695
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hangars are just a large warehouse, designed to accommodate planes. Repurposing them is not a big issue. They could have done it with the majority of the hangars on site, and the old PWA hangars would have made an excellent auditorium. This is not news.

    ...it just didn't fit with whatever desire was on this site. Not an editorial comment...just fact.


    Disassembly, moving, and rebuilding is not the best way. It is far cheaper to rebuild what is essentially (and as your articles admit) just a big box. Yes, this one has historic significance, so that is the new wrinkle.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  96. #2696

    Default

    Well, a whole lot of historically significant buildings have been demolished in Edmonton over the years. I don’t think many citizens ever spend a second thinking about the losses. Plus we’re a city growing through immigration so there won’t be direct family connections with the past.

    Maybe all this going through the motions is mostly a waste of time and effort if an alternative use isn’t already waiting in the wings.
    Last edited by KC; 28-08-2018 at 09:05 AM.

  97. #2697

    Default

    Leave the Hanger as is until such time there's money to do something with it. I don't see how that is so complicated. Is the roof leaking? Maybe we can get some money for that at minimum. You look to other cities and it's super simple. Maybe in a few years there's a bit of money to allow some groups to use the space as is (baring fire code etc). You really don't have to do anything to it. The Mayor seems to think we do, I don't get that. Because we can't see what to do with it now doesn't mean it needs to be demolished.

    The fact that this hanger was not incorporated into the plans speaks volumes of our priorities as a city.
    www.decl.org

  98. #2698

    Default

    We used a hangar on the site to host music and art events. The old armoury near Kingsway is used for markets. Granville Island is used for a variety of purposes in old warehouses. Toronto's brewery district. Victoria's old HBC building. The hangar has a use, even as a shell, to put other structures inside / configuration.

    Enclosed plaza / LRT station anyone? Anything has a second life.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  99. #2699
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    If the hanger isn't in the way of developing the site, then why tear it down?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  100. #2700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Leave the Hanger as is until such time there's money to do something with it. I don't see how that is so complicated. Is the roof leaking? Maybe we can get some money for that at minimum. You look to other cities and it's super simple. Maybe in a few years there's a bit of money to allow some groups to use the space as is (baring fire code etc). You really don't have to do anything to it. The Mayor seems to think we do, I don't get that. Because we can't see what to do with it now doesn't mean it needs to be demolished.

    The fact that this hanger was not incorporated into the plans speaks volumes of our priorities as a city.
    "The Mayor seems to think we do" (demolish). I have said before he has nothing to show for his time in office. He is quick to support removing things - but he is no visionary and cares less about Edmonton's history. Even his backhanded comment that if the hanger is saved then thats it for $$ for other heritage buildings - it was like a threat. He would call it a matter of fact and I would say it's a matter of priorities - and he has failed to save our historical legacy's by not seeing this as a priority.

    (Another example will be evident shortly - when he wants to bulldoze the Northlands Park Casino and Stands - and with nothing planned to replace them. Instead of asking for public inout on potential uses for that venue - how it can re re-sued, renovated etc. - we will see City staff offer an opinion. I think it will serve outdoor concert goers well, Heritage Festival with a main stage, lots of potential uses) ... ask the people.
    I don't understand why the preservation and maintenance of this was not integrated into the Blatchford redevelopment from the beginning. It seems to me logically that the funding for it would come from the money the city would get from the redevelopment of the site, not from general revenue.

    Did the city administration drop the ball here once again and miss this or were they keeping this info from city council so they would approve the Blatchford redevelopment based on a rosier financial projection?

    Our current mayor is falling into the tear it down trap that past mayors and councils have here and then everyone wonders why Edmonton is bland - because it has so little memorable or unique and it looks like our city has no history before the 1970's.

Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •