Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 301

Thread: Holyrood Gardens | Residential | Proposed

  1. #1
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default Holyrood Gardens | Residential | Proposed

    Hehe..what happened to that last comment?

    I'm sure this isnt the right place to post this but..does anyone know anything about the Holyrood developments?
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  2. #2
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...split from Strathern thread...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  3. #3

    Default

    Holyrood Gardens & Holyrood Boulevard - Under Construction
    Developer: Westcorp Architect: Location: 85th Street between 90th and 95th Avenue, Number of floors:



    You may also find out about just about any project in Edmonton here ... http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=126429

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    I believe they may be in the process of revising this plan...

  5. #5
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    I am no city planner but I hope the department is assessing redevelopment in its core mature neighbourhoods as a package deal, not one by one. This project will increase units in the complex by 800+ on 95 avenue and 85street. 2 blocks down on 95avenue and 87street we have Strathearn and its potential addition of 1250 units. There is also the addition of roughly 60,000.00 square feet of retail being planned between the two.

    There will be no new roadways available to either of these areas. How can you blend traffic calming on 95th avenue with (whats the stat, 1.5 vehicles per unit?) 3000 new vehicles, not to mention the transient retail traffic.

    I hope the city's perspective is large and long term. We all know that there is some shanty craphole in each older neighbourhood just waiting for the green light to be redeveloped into higher density urban villages. Do we need developers money, yes. Do we need to accept any project they propose as is, no. Developers are dangling pretty carrots as the money is flowing and I hope these projects arent pushed through too hastily without looking at the big picture.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    I am no city planner but I hope the department is assessing redevelopment in its core mature neighbourhoods as a package deal, not one by one. This project will increase units in the complex by 800+ on 95 avenue and 85street. 2 blocks down on 95avenue and 87street we have Strathearn and its potential addition of 1250 units. There is also the addition of roughly 60,000.00 square feet of retail being planned between the two.

    There will be no new roadways available to either of these areas. How can you blend traffic calming on 95th avenue with (whats the stat, 1.5 vehicles per unit?) 3000 new vehicles, not to mention the transient retail traffic.

    I hope the city's perspective is large and long term. We all know that there is some shanty craphole in each older neighbourhood just waiting for the green light to be redeveloped into higher density urban villages. Do we need developers money, yes. Do we need to accept any project they propose as is, no. Developers are dangling pretty carrots as the money is flowing and I hope these projects arent pushed through too hastily without looking at the big picture.
    I honestly dont find traffic in this area all that bad, especially compared with other areas of the city, and even at that, traffic in Edmontons not that bad anyways.

    You seem to be against any sort of densification plans, but you support better stores and better transit and more services. Or at least it would seem in your neck of the woods.

    Do you also support further sprawl in this city?

  7. #7

    Default

    Afairlady - I lived in and around Bonniedoon for most of my time in this city and, though I don't take it during rush hour much these days, I've never seen the Traffic around there anything but very light. Given that it's a four lane roadway, there is room for significant additional traffic. In fact, when I first moved to Edmonton from Britain, I was shocked by the fact that both 90ave and 95st were four lane roadways because they were so sparsely trafficked.

  8. #8
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Opposed to any sort of densification???? I want to see involved careful city planning, neighbourhood input and open minded flexible developers. I totally want to see increased density, I want to see the place upgraded, renewed, new energy. We need it. I dont want to see 21 stories, 19 stories, 17 stories, 17 stories, 17 mid-rise apartment buildings and as many townhomes. Something a little less and Im all in. Its a tasteful and needed project. Thats what i want to see.

    Since youve clearly not bothered to read anything I've said ever...and made massive leaps ..I will defend your "take". I personally hate shopping, I bought in Strathearn because I hate shopping; I take the bus to and from work everyday, I find that bus 112 links me to any bus I need to take to any part of the city, and it runs every 30 minutes all day long, I can also take the #8 that runs every 15 minutes to all ends of the city. I said the neighbourhood will surely enjoy some of the amenities. I would take that bullet for the majority who will enjoy it. I can see why they would. Of course there will be some handy features, but that doesnt mean I'm willing to put up anything a developer comes up with to have that.

    Do I support further sprawl? I hate the bloat we see in the burbs of this city. Its irresponsible and greedy. Clearly city hall loves urban sprawl and its them you should take that snipe to. They continuosly approve 1 acre lots. They permit sprawling 2000 square foot bungalows. They approve zoning. Does that mean I have to support 21 story towers or I support sprawl? Thats pretty black or white.

    I support taking into consideration that we have 623 homes here. You are increasing the number by 1250. Its going to have a massive effect, that coupled with the development 2 blocks down that is adding another 800 units. There has to be an amount of growth that is too much. Appropriate growth, thats what I'd like to see.

    95th avenue is a 2 lane, not 4 lane. Strathearn had been looking at traffic calming measures on 95th avenue for some time.

    I mean doesnt anyone think that there should be some limit on how much, how high? Doesnt anyone think that the neighbourhoods should get some say? Shouldnt we take the time and have a larger plan that incorporates the growth in bordering communities? Do you think we should just say yes to every proposed development? Do you question anything...ever???
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    I am no city planner but I hope the department is assessing redevelopment in its core mature neighbourhoods as a package deal, not one by one. This project will increase units in the complex by 800+ on 95 avenue and 85street. 2 blocks down on 95avenue and 87street we have Strathearn and its potential addition of 1250 units. There is also the addition of roughly 60,000.00 square feet of retail being planned between the two.

    There will be no new roadways available to either of these areas. How can you blend traffic calming on 95th avenue with (whats the stat, 1.5 vehicles per unit?) 3000 new vehicles, not to mention the transient retail traffic.

    I hope the city's perspective is large and long term. We all know that there is some shanty craphole in each older neighbourhood just waiting for the green light to be redeveloped into higher density urban villages. Do we need developers money, yes. Do we need to accept any project they propose as is, no. Developers are dangling pretty carrots as the money is flowing and I hope these projects arent pushed through too hastily without looking at the big picture.
    You can't examine these types of infill / redevelopment proposals on a whole. They must examined individually as each site presents different opportunities and constraints.

    With regards to the Hollyrood development, as much as people may percieve the increased densities to be an issue with respect to traffic, the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) can best determine whether the existing roadway infrastructure has the capacity.

    Fact is, the majority of the roads in Edmonton have the available capacity, people often 'believe' that they don't.

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    Do I support further sprawl? I hate the bloat we see in the burbs of this city. Its irresponsible and greedy. Clearly city hall loves urban sprawl and its them you should take that snipe to. They continuosly approve 1 acre lots.
    I would like to ask you to point out where these '1-acre' lots are popping up within the City of Edmonton? The reality is that the majority of the lots and housing sizes in new neighbourhoods are getting smaller.

    I support taking into consideration that we have 623 homes here. You are increasing the number by 1250. Its going to have a massive effect, that coupled with the development 2 blocks down that is adding another 800 units. There has to be an amount of growth that is too much. Appropriate growth, thats what I'd like to see.
    Yes, increasing the density will 'change' the neighbourhood. But it depends on what one defines as 'change'? Change can refer to more vehicles and potential parking problems, or it can mean increased number of active streets, parks and retail areas. This, much like 'appropriate' growth is a subjective topic.

  11. #11

    Default

    oops, i was referring to 85st, which is the street that I would imagine would be most impacted by increased traffic associated with redevelopment on the Holyrood site.

    Regarding 95th ave, traffic always seemed rather light but I've rarely been on it at peak times. I may be wrong about this but didn't the community league come out against the traffic quietening methods after the initial trial period?

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    95th ave traffic as it stands now is not very heavy. Even during peak hours, there definitly isn't any large backups at any of the entrance/exit points from the neighboorhood.
    The previous attempt at traffic calming here, which was set in for a 1 year trial with temporary blockades, was terrible. I felt it significantly cut down on the safety of the road and certainly caused further headaches with left turns and bus movement.
    I never really understood what the whole experiment was about, I though someone in the community league got bored or something, because I never noticed that many speeders or much heavy traffic.

  13. #13
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    The 1 acre lots are on 200 street and 1st avenue. I have friends who have bought there and built. Makes me puke, they use about 25% of their space. There is also a new development on the north side as I have patients who have bought there (1 acre lots). All within the City of Edmonton.

    I live right on 95th avenue. I think it will be the most impacted. I also think traffic is manageable but I'm not the one assessing the avenue for traffic calming. I think the neighbouhood will be responsible for abosorbing not only 3000 new vehicles, but the 50,000 sq ft of retail parking. I didnt see in the plans where "the transient shoppers" will park. They will be proposing angle parking on 95th avenue im sure. I agree with Dan, previous traffic calming measures were confusing, ugly and dangerous but I did see the need to define wether or not the street was a 2 or 4 lane as I have witness countless near misses at the school crosswalk when cars skirt around others waiting to turn. I do however see lots of speeders and sometimes even racers.

    I do think you need to take bordering communities into consideration when in some cases they are at arms length away. Holyroods development is 2 blocks from STrathearn. Same roadways. I know many Holyrooders who avoid 85st as it ends with a traffic cirlce on both ends.

    I want change, I want to be involved. Period.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  14. #14
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    "I want change, I want to be involved. Period."

    as you, I, and anyone who wants to be should be....


    This location is another RIPE redevelopment opportunity for this city. Underused, under valued, under everything.

    I strongly believe this city needs to reinvest and redevelop existing mature neighbourhoods, but we need to do this right. Strathearn is a great example, IMO, of how to do it right.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    The 1 acre lots are on 200 street and 1st avenue. I have friends who have bought there and built. Makes me puke, they use about 25% of their space. There is also a new development on the north side as I have patients who have bought there (1 acre lots). All within the City of Edmonton.
    Exactly my point. There are few of these types of developments within the City of Edmonton and many are not even within approved Area Structure Plans.

    I live right on 95th avenue. I think it will be the most impacted. I also think traffic is manageable but I'm not the one assessing the avenue for traffic calming. I think the neighbouhood will be responsible for abosorbing not only 3000 new vehicles, but the 50,000 sq ft of retail parking. I didnt see in the plans where "the transient shoppers" will park.
    Parking requirements for these types of developments will have to meet the zoning bylaw. The transportation department will review these and determine the number of parking stalls that are required to satisfy the assumed demand.

  16. #16

    Default

    afairlady - I'm sorry but I can't see how 95th ave will be more impacted by the redevelopment of Holyrood than 85st. Strathearn yes, Holyrood no. The townhouses in Holyrood border and run the length of 85st from 90-95ave. Unless you're going downtown, there is little reason to be heading down 95th ave from Holyrood.

  17. #17
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    I dont see what point youve made. 1st ave and 200 street is still Edmonton city. It is not outskirts, it utilizes city infrastructure and city money. It is within City boundaries. They are obviously continuing to be approved as these are new developments. NEW. Which is exactly my point. I just dont want to hear a city chirping about urban sprawl bla bla as they continue to approve these huge lots all around the city.

    Only using 95 avenue if you were..oh i dunno...going downtown or something odd like that... Almost everyone I know lives in Strathearn and Holyrood because of its proximity to downtown...... How it feels like a family neighbourhood but you can be downtown in 5 minutes. Safe to say people in both Holyrood and Strathearn are going downtown and using 95 avenue.

    So if in your opinion, the Strathearn proposal is done right, what I hear you saying is that the opinions of its residents means jack sh*t to you. That we want higher density and development without that much of a density increase means nothing. I hear you negate that everytime you post that you support it as is. Knowing that there is a large number who dont want to see that much of an increase. That we think its just a little too much. That you think the developer should just get going cause IYO the devlepment is perfect. If thats the case I see a city of people more concerned with pretty'ing up the place than listening to the wants of its local residents and developers more interested in making a buck than working with residents.

    I agree both of these apts need total revamp. They are slummy and our neighbourhoods could use a density increase. Need amenities and all that they bring. They are perfect targets for the Smart Choices Program..which uses lingo like: encouraging development in a way that is complimentary and fitting with the character of the community, consultative process etc.

    Interesting to see how it'll go.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  18. #18

    Default

    Your sarcasm aside, I did not say 95th ave would be unaffected. I stated that only those going downtown would likely choose to use it. My point was that by far the largest impact of Holyrood redevelopment would be on the four lane 85st.

    Oh, that was some nice fallacious reasoning there, you really misrepresented Ian very nicely.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    So if in your opinion, the Strathearn proposal is done right, what I hear you saying is that the opinions of its residents means jack sh*t to you.
    Nope. I just don't give a crap about the knee jerk reactions of NIMBY's that are doing the usual trick of pretending that 'if only it was a little bit smaller, we'd support it', which in my twenty years of participation in municipal politics, has been a lie every single time I've heard it, and no matter how much smaller it gets, the same people say "no, just a bit smaller"... until it's so small it's no longer profitable.

    But, I'm more than a little bit cynical.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    I dont see what point youve made. 1st ave and 200 street is still Edmonton city. It is not outskirts, it utilizes city infrastructure and city money. It is within City boundaries. They are obviously continuing to be approved as these are new developments. NEW. Which is exactly my point. I just dont want to hear a city chirping about urban sprawl bla bla as they continue to approve these huge lots all around the city.
    My POINT, is that there are very few of these 1-acre types of developments within the City of Edmonton. That is fact. The majority of the new housing is suburban small lot.

    If residents want to make a difference in their neighbourhood, don't let emotions get in the way. Assemble an arsenal of facts, city policies and bylaws to support your arguments. That is what people should do. As soon as you step up and start shouting about how the neighbourhood used to be this or that, the more your comments lose merit.

  21. #21
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Ha I'm sarcastic ??? Ok, I am...but get over yourself, I'm hardly the only one. I cant be seperated from my sarcasm,or my emotions for that matter, its who I is. I dont script what I will say here, its chat but when I meet with City hall, I certainly will. I dont care what this neighbourhood used to be, I'm young, I've lived here 7 years and I think we are desperate for change. This city needs to pretty itself up, it needs a giant facelift, I just dont think it needs to be in its heritage neighborhoods. We have many ghetto's, and new suburbs, go there with towers. Do something smaller in mature areas. IMO.

    Edmonton is bananas. When I moved here and lived on Jasper ave and 108, I was like WTF, where are the people? This is a capital city right? So I start hearing "revitalize the downtown core" stuff. And what do i see go up..South Edmonton Common, North Edmonton common, 1000 reasons why you would go to the far reaching areas of the city. Now we want urban villages, bring us back to walkability in our communitys, stay close to home..Make up my mind??? what do we want??? This looks like you say yes to all development all the time, everywhere, with no plan.

    My point was that this city supports urban sprawl, its evident in its suburbs. I meant I didnt want to hear about another person asking me if I support it.

    Misrepresented what now? I beleive that fella says what he means, what are you defending him about? He knows many of us wanted development scaled down.

    We are working daily on defining" Smart Choices" with the support of the city and with all community leagues. We already have a bylaw, a "mature neighbourhood overlay" in this area, we are working on having "certain things" declared as heritage, I have been invited to meet with the city and we have opinions of the people who live here. We thought we had a DC2 with a max of 12 stories. We didnt expect to go to that first meeting and see 23. What will this all mean...probably zilch. I just wanted to be able to say I tried and that I didnt sit on my hands, *****, type in chat blogs, and do nothing.

    Well Monkeyman, your comment has given me hope. Looks like developers often make adjustments and listens to the wants of residents when it comes to height and density of proposed developments. Phew, I will inform the other NIMBYS.

    ps- what is a NIMBY ?(I'm sure I will be sorry I asked )
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    ps- what is a NIMBY ?(I'm sure I will be sorry I asked )
    Not-in-my-backyard = NIMBY.

  23. #23
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    perhaps if we have higher densities in the downtown and surrounding, less people will go out to the burbs and more will choose to shop in their neighbourhood and the downtown...and create a vibrant, efficient, SMART community.

    or we can scale things like this way down, create less options within the city and force people and developers to choose the burbs.

    ...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  24. #24

    Default

    You really need to ratchet things down. I've made one point on this thread and got your snippy little response. I'm sure you're not the only one that uses sarcasm but you are the only one who has directed it at me on this thread.

    Your misrepresentation: "I support this development the way it is" = "the opinion of the Strathearn residents mean Jack s***". I believe that is a classic illustration of the strawman fallacy.

    Did you just call Strathearn a heritage neighbourhood?

  25. #25
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Oh. Thanks for the info. Well then I need some super clever acronym name for support development with community input. I TOTALLY want this in MY back yard, and soon, the sooner the better. I dont even want to wait the 5-7 years. I think we can do it here AND in the sprawling burbs, why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be all or nothing. Why is it support or oppose? I dont think we have to sign off on everything all of the time in fear of developers pulling out or them deciding they are not getting their share of profit. We dont need to pack the core as there really still isnt anything to go downtown for. Is there a thread in here talking about developments that have to do with things to do for locals or visitors (please dont say shopping or eating).

    Dont get so emotional, dont take things so personally....All advice I've been given in here before, you might want to use it.THis is chat, we are chatting, sarcasm, tone, opinion, is what makes us humans, with variety, and thank god for it.

    We wont be getting all of the things that we will need to keep us local, but you used the word "options" and I think thats a good thing.Options to walk to your local market, or options to drive to your nearest walmart. Right now, Strathearn doesnt have options.

    Ya apparently we have many things that make us heritage. Again, I'm not from Edmonton so Im learning. Trees, gardens, something about sidewalks, 1900's farmhomes. This is what I've been told.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  26. #26
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    afairlady - although we may disagree or dispute items of development, I really enjoy you being on here to enlighten us, them, him, her, about what a resident feels or believes.

    cheers.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  27. #27

    Default

    If Strathearn is a heritage neighbourhood, then so is every first and second generation Edmonton suburb (e.g. bonnie doon, highlands, Glenora, Ritchie, Mckernan, Belgravia etc. and so on). Heritage loses it's relevance if you paint with such a wide brush.

    What extra control is it the community is after that heritage designation would give them? I don't know much about this but I don't think it includes density zoning - is it not more about building preservation and design and material standards on new structures?

  28. #28
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    If Strathearn is a heritage neighbourhood, then so is every first and second generation Edmonton suburb (e.g. bonnie doon, highlands, Glenora, Ritchie, Mckernan, Belgravia etc. and so on). Heritage loses it's relevance if you paint with such a wide brush.

    What extra control is it the community is after that heritage designation would give them? I don't know much about this but I don't think it includes density zoning - is it not more about building preservation and design and material standards on new structures?
    mature neighbourhood overlay, which this area DOES HAVE requires new development to be more in touch with what is there, design wise, scale wise, and attention to detail wise.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/zoningmaps/zb_mno.pdf

    Edmonton Zoning Bylaw 12800
    814 Mature Neighbourhood Overlay
    814.1 General Purpose

    The purpose of this Overlay is to ensure that new low density development in Edmonton’s mature residential neighbourhoods is sensitive in scale to existing development, maintains the traditional character and pedestrian-friendly design of the streetscape, ensures privacy and sunlight penetration on adjacent properties and provides opportunity for discussion between applicants and neighbouring affected parties when a development proposes to vary the Overlay regulations.
    814.2 Area of Application

    1.

    This Overlay applies to all Sites zoned RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4 and RF5 within the areas shown on the Appendix to this Overlay.

    814.3 Development Regulations

    1.

    The minimum Front Yard shall be consistent with the Setback of development on adjacent Sites and with the general context of the block face, but shall not be less than 3.0 m and the principal building shall be located at or within 1.0 m of the Front Yard. Separation Space shall be reduced to accommodate the Front Yard requirement where a Principal Living Room Window faces directly onto a local public roadway, other than a Lane.
    2.

    A single Storey Unenclosed Front Porch or Veranda may project a maximum of 2.0 m into a required Front Yard, provided that a minimum of 3.0 m is maintained between the front property line and the projected space and that the Height of the front porch or veranda does not exceed one Storey.
    3.

    A single Storey Unenclosed Porch or Veranda may project a maximum of 2.0 m into a required Side Yard abutting a flanking public roadway other than a Lane, providing there is at least 1.5 m between the property line and the projected space and that the Height of the Porch or Veranda does not exceed one Storey.
    4.

    Where the underlying Zone allows Semi-detached or Row Housing development, the following shall apply:

    1.

    the identity of individual Semi-detached or Row Housing Dwellings shall be defined through the use of architectural features that may include such things as individual rooflines or roofline features, projection or recession of the façade, individual porches or entrance features and other treatments;
    2.

    there shall be continuous frontage of Dwellings along the Site Frontage; and
    3.

    each Dwelling, with street frontage shall have an entrance that fronts onto the street.

    5.

    On Corner Lots the façades of a structure that face the front and flanking public roadways shall have consistent design elements, in terms of building materials and architectural features.
    6.

    Each Dwelling that is adjacent to a public roadway other than a Lane, shall have an entrance door or entrance feature such as a front porch, deck or landing area, at the front of the structure and oriented to the roadway.
    7.

    There shall be no vehicular access from the front or flanking public roadway where an abutting Lane exists, and

    1.

    a Treed Landscaped Boulevard is present along the roadway adjacent to the property line; or
    2.

    the Site Width is less than 15.5 m.

    8.

    If vehicular access is provided from the fronting public roadway, a Garage may protrude a maximum of 1.0 m beyond the front wall of the principal building and have a maximum width of 7.3 m or 35% of the Site Width, whichever is less. In no case shall the Garage be located less than 3.0 m from the front property line.
    9.

    The maximum Height shall not exceed 8.6 m nor 2 1/2 Storeys.
    10.

    The Floor Area of the upper half Storey of a 2 1/2 Storey building shall not exceed 50% of the structure’s second Storey Floor Area.
    11.

    When a structure is more than 7.5 m in Height,

    1.

    dormers shall be recessed from the exterior walls of the structure;
    2.

    there shall be no dormer or gable roof on the side of the structure where a Side Yard is less than 2.0 m; and
    3.

    notwithstanding clauses (a) and (b), above, an exception shall be made to allow a dormer that accommodates a stairwell to the upper 1/2 Storey, provided that the dormer does not exceed the width of the stairway and that it provides only the minimum required headroom for a staircase, as outlined in the Alberta Building Code.

    12.

    the Basement elevation of structures of two or more Storeys in Height shall be no more than 1.2 m above grade. The Basement elevation shall be measured as the distance between Grade level and the floor of the first Storey.
    13.

    Where the Site Width is 12.0 m or less,

    1.

    the minimum for each interior Side Yard shall be 1.2 m, regardless of building Height;
    2.

    the minimum Side Yard abutting a flanking public roadway, other than a Lane, shall be 1.5 m;
    3.

    on a corner Site where the building fronts on a flanking public roadway, other than a Lane, the minimum Side Yard abutting the flanking public roadway shall be 3.0 m, and
    4.

    Separation Space shall be reduced to accommodate the Side Yard requirements.

    14.

    Where the Site Width is greater than 12.0 m and less than 18.3 m, the Side Yard requirements of the underlying Residential Zone shall apply.
    15.

    Where the Site Width is 18.3 m or greater:

    1.

    Side Yards shall total 20% of the Site Width but shall not be required to exceed 6.0 m in total;
    2.

    the minimum interior Side Yard shall be 2.0 m; and
    3.

    on a corner Site, the Side Yard requirements on the flanking public roadway, other than a Lane, shall be in accordance with the requirements of the underlying Zone.

    16.

    Where a structure is two or more Storeys in Height and an interior Side Yard is less than 2.0 m, the applicant may be required to provide information regarding the location of windows and Amenity Areas on adjacent properties, and the windows of the proposed development shall be located to minimize overlook into adjacent properties.
    17.

    The minimum Rear Yard shall be 40% of Site depth. Row Housing not oriented to a public roadway, is exempt from this Overlay requirement.
    18.

    Decks and balconies greater than 1.0 m above grade may project up to 3.0 m into the Rear Yard, provided that privacy screening prevents visual intrusion into adjacent properties.

    Bylaw 12961

    February 4, 2002

    19.

    The minimum distance from the Rear Lot Line to a detached Garage where the vehicle doors face the Lane shall be 1.2 m
    20.

    A rear detached Garage shall be fully contained within the rear 12.8 m of the Site.
    21.

    A principal building shall be separated from a rear-detached Garage by a minimum of 3.0 m.
    22.

    The Development Officer shall have regard for any applicable Statutory Plan and may where a Statutory Plan specifies, notwithstanding subsection 11.4 of this Bylaw, vary the regulations of both this Overlay and the underlying Zone as they affect Height, Density and Floor Area Ratio. In all cases, the variances shall be within the ranges specified in the Statutory Plan. In all such cases, the application shall be a Class B Development Permit and the pre-application consultation provisions shall apply.
    23.

    Where an application for a Development Permit does not comply with the regulations contained in this Overlay:

    1.

    the applicant shall contact the affected parties, being each assessed owner of land wholly or partly located within a distance of 60.0 m of the Site of the proposed development and the President of each affected Community League, at least 21 days prior to submission of a Development Application;

    2.

    the applicant shall outline, to the affected parties, any requested variances to the Overlay and solicit their comments on the application;
    3.

    the applicant shall document any opinions or concerns, expressed by the affected parties, and what modifications were made to address their concerns; and
    4.

    the applicant shall submit this documentation as part of the Development Application.

    Appendix 1 - Mature Neighbourhood Overlay
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  29. #29
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    however....a DC2 application, although would be smart to, does not have to follow this necessarily.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  30. #30
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    See I didnt come up with the stuff in this game on my own. I read the "rulebook". The rules stated that we are in a mature neighbourhood, that we have bylaw overlays to protect scale and character etc. I also didnt invent the zoning, it stated 12 stories or less. I understood that if those were to be challenged, the community would have some say. That pretty much sums up my entire point of view and what I've being trying to get at.

    ps - I personally think the developers should be rewarded somewhat (ie. extra height, density, whatever) for the money and time they will be investing and the stuff we will be getting in return with some flexibility from the community. But thats just me.

    pps- I've never thought that disagreement was fatal to a conversation or friendship. I appreciate the comment IanO.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  31. #31

    Default

    Is there a difference between a heritage neighbourhood (e.g. 104st) and a mature neighbourhood? The terms certainly imply different considerations.

  32. #32
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    Is there a difference between a heritage neighbourhood (e.g. 104st) and a mature neighbourhood? The terms certainly imply different considerations.
    sure are...104st zoned special area "HA (heritage area)" has specific criteria to be followed.....even more demanding than MA (mature).

    Mature is for the central neighbourhoods, HA is for an area downtown, then you get into protected A list or B list stuff which is far far more difficult to do things with, usually for good reason:>
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    I understood that if those were to be challenged, the community would have some say. That pretty much sums up my entire point of view and what I've being trying to get at.
    See, part of the argument is what constitutes the community. Is it just the immediate neighbours? Is it everyone in the city?

    Yes, the community gets a voice, but it's not just the immediate neighbours, and it's not a veto.

    Frankly, having more taxpayers in the inner city where they cost the city least, lowers my tax bill, or at least affords the city more money for services.

    I also have two 20+ storey buildings throw shade on my single storey building during the afternoon, so I am not talking from the point of view that doesn't understand the concerns...
    This is quite literally across the street from me:

    edited to change from generic photo to one taken from my front window today.

  34. #34

    Default

    ^ “Kiwanis” a nice little old seniors building!

  35. #35
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    I have an unexplainable liking for those dreadful old things. My favourite is the one in Glenora on Stoney Plain Road.

  36. #36
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    I dont mind your logic about what constitutes a community. Can be further reaching than just 8 blocks. I woudlnt mind if the entire city paid attention to what we are facing and had input. I would never want a veto situation, from the side of developers, the city, or locals. Thats exactly why I've been trying to gather opinions and what fuels me to talk to people.

    So I have a zillion questions. Was the area zoned for 21 stories or did they apply to have the zoning changed? Was there anything other than single story bungalows there?Did you live there pre-development? Do you own your place and did you have a say? What did the increase in population look like? Has it given you the ability to know more of your neighbours in those buildings? Did it promote young families? Do you have lots of kids playing? Are there more people walking around? Did you get parks, pools out of it? Hows traffic? Hows crime? I cant make out where that is? Could you give me an idea.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  37. #37
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    has it made the area more virbant? has it made neighbouring businesses more viable? has it made transit better used? has it supported current infrastructure? has it enhanced the chance at upgrading to new infrastructure?has it lead to more housing options? has it made the area feel like more of a neighbourhood?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  38. #38
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Dont go gettin all crazy defensive on me now. You know I come from a place of genuine interest. Or you should by now. Those are legitimate questions and if it was your "back yard "you'd want to know all of the same things. I thought he would have some insight.

    Ian I already know the answers to your questions, hence why I didnt ask them. Strathearn couldnt be less vibrant, so the answer has to be yes on that one, 4 of the 8 business have been in our stripmall for atleast 10 years (viable) and the other 4 change (not viable) so the answer to that is depends on the business, Im assuming we will have better choices, so thats kinda win win;as for transit we have a couple of choices, full during peak hours, slow the rest of the time, but can we assume we will get more? More housing options? I'm not sure, we already have bach, one and two, and I see many kidlets around there, will we see the same with towers, who can say, maybe that fella, and its why I asked? More like a neighbourhood, well i can name about 5 people in an area I've lived in for 7 years. Not one of them in the apartments, I'm betting that wont change either. Edmonton is a go home stay home kinda place. What does looking more like a neighbourhood mean? I asked if that fella noticed more people out and about for that reason. I'd also like to know the answer.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  39. #39
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    This Overlay applies to all Sites zoned RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4 and RF5 within the areas shown on the Appendix to this Overlay
    This is the policy statement to remember. It essentially states that the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay applied to zones RF1 through to RF5. Other zones such as DC1, DC2, RF6, RA7 et. al are not subject to the regulations within this overlay.

  40. #40
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    "Edmonton is a go home stay home kinda place."

    is it?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  41. #41
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    You dont think? Maybe I'm totally wrong on that. Maybe its just different than what I'm used to. You know how you talk to people at work, or around you, "What did you do last night" is answered with..."not much" "rented movies" "bought groceries" etc. Someone asked me the other day what there was to do here for people who hate to shop....and I was like DUH. Maybe I need to meet more dynamic people.

    I dont get that overlays point then...It applies to everything in this area but that DC2? It applies to the one story bungalows butted up against it but then 20 feet away..doesnt apply? The more I read about zoning, the less I understand. Whats the point.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  42. #42
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    in other words, the DC2 is to allow for carte blanche.


    as for boring city, to some degree i suppose and in the off seasons such as now yup.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  43. #43
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    You dont think? Maybe I'm totally wrong on that. Maybe its just different than what I'm used to. You know how you talk to people at work, or around you, "What did you do last night" is answered with..."not much" "rented movies" "bought groceries" etc. Someone asked me the other day what there was to do here for people who hate to shop....and I was like DUH. Maybe I need to meet more dynamic people.

    I dont get that overlays point then...It applies to everything in this area but that DC2? It applies to the one story bungalows butted up against it but then 20 feet away..doesnt apply? The more I read about zoning, the less I understand. Whats the point.
    I would agree with that statement about 10 years ago or so, but since then, things have changed. Perhaps you don't go out that often, but restaurants, bars, lounges, etc are busy everyday of the week. Many of my colleagues live very active lifestyles from yoga, to going to movies, taking in a show at the theatre, concerts or after work drinks.

    Yes, the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay only applies to the low density zones, etc. Read the General Purpose of the overlay itself, which states

    "814.1 General Purpose

    The purpose of this Overlay is to ensure that new low density development in Edmonton’s mature residential neighbourhoods is sensitive in scale to existing development, maintains the traditional character and pedestrian-friendly design of the streetscape, ensures privacy and sunlight penetration on adjacent properties and provides opportunity for discussion between applicants and neighbouring affected parties when a development proposes to vary the Overlay regulations."

  44. #44
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Well that is the most pointless overlay ever.

    "The purpose of this Overlay is to ensure that new low density development in Edmonton’s mature residential neighbourhoods is sensitive in scale to existing development, maintains the traditional character "*

    * except if you decide to build towers, in which case, they dont need be at all sensitive in scale to existing development or maintain any of the traditional character*

    So sensitive in scale to existing development? What existing development are they talking about? The apartments as is are 2 stories, and the homes around it are 1. Absolutely every house on the perimeter of that DC2 is part of the overlay. How can that be. We must be sensitive to the overlay, but you, you can do anything you like.

    I find zoning so loosely written truly for what seems like if there was ever to be development, anything would be passable. Neat trick City of Edmonton.

    Ya I meant for those of us who dont go to bars, and I wasnt counting eating or shopping as something to do. You are probably right that I dont go out much.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  45. #45
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    ^trust me, zoning is not easy...especially in mature neighborhoods.

    But recall that a DC2 application, which this is, is essentially the city saying to the prospective group:

    "show us what could be done"

    then the city to take this (as they have done) to the 60m radius and community and say:

    "what do y'all think"

    then the city goes back to the developer with recommendations

    then the developer reproposes

    tweaks it

    addresses some concerns, NOT ALL

    then they submit and hope the city is progressive and supports this.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  46. #46
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Well I'm not as opposed as I might sound. Someone had to come from my point of view, and wouldnt ya know it, I was the perfect person for the job!

    I have done ALOT of arguing, listening and learning about these particular projects. Let me assure you that I am the most stubborn person I know and even I have changed my thoughts. It made me take a long hard look at my area. How un-vital (ya its a word cause I said so)the area has become, how lucky we have been with respect to light traffic and that we can be that close to downtown and feel like we were a million miles away. Its our turn for change. I hope we can embrace it, work with developers and all come out satisified.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  47. #47
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    The purpose of the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay was to prevent the 'monster' home situation that occured as older neighbourhoods experienced gentrification / redevelopment. The City realized that the only way the development officer could address the potential 'size and scale' incompatibilities between the existing and proposed homes was through provisions established under the Overlay.

  48. #48
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    sure, no monster 10 family homes, so 21 story towers? Thats what I dont get.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    quotes are in bold
    My responses as they apply to Victoria follow in plain text.
    My responses as they apply to Edmonton follow in italics.
    The house in Victoria is the tudor building:



    So I have a zillion questions. Was the area zoned for 21 stories or did they apply to have the zoning changed?
    Unsure
    unsure
    Was there anything other than single story bungalows there?
    The abomination in the background is everything that a modern development isn't, and was the first highrise in the area. I am doing my damndest to get more built so it doesnt stand out so much.
    Oliver has been high density for a long time.

    Did you live there pre-development?
    Yes
    No
    Do you own your place and did you have a say?
    Yes, and no
    Yes and yes

    What did the increase in population look like?
    Victoria, at it's low point just before this got built, had less than a thousand residents in the core. This abomination made the core an area dominated by welfare recipients. It took thirty years to recover.
    Oliver seems to have easily absorbed the much nicer residents of these towers.
    Has it given you the ability to know more of your neighbours in those buildings?
    No
    No
    Did it promote young families?
    Not in the sense you mean.
    Nope
    Do you have lots of kids playing?
    Not a lot
    Some
    Are there more people walking around?
    Yes
    Yes
    Did you get parks, pools out of it?
    We got a brand new welfare office....
    Nope.
    Hows traffic?
    Wouldn't be here if it weren't heavy.
    Ditto that.
    Hows crime?
    I live in a jewellery store. I suspect that my experience in anamolous. In ten years, I've had three break ins, an armed robbery, and I was jabbed in my front yard by a Hep-C, HIV positive junkie, and on two occasions people have tried to sell me things that were quite literally bolted to the building and stolen despite that....
    Ask me in another year.

    My experience isn't going to be yours. In Victoria, they put up a low rent tower that is an architectural disaster, a social nightmare, and has single handedly held back development in the city. It is quite literally in my backyard, as it's closer than it appears in the picture.
    In Edmonton, a very similar building in form is housing seniors. I see the same number of ambulances out front, but for slightly different reasons....

    Now, for the things that actually bug me about the towers. Shading is an issue for the squatscraper housing the seniors, and much less of an issue for the taller and thinner Lamplighter. Taller is better. The surface parking by the Kiwanis Seniors home is a block kiler, and the green space on the edge is a waste of urban land. I'd love to see them peel off that area and subdivide it for a series of live/work condos....

    In Victoria, the one tower hasn't brought me jack. The fifteen that followed have brought the following to my neighbourhood:
    Three of the top ten restaurants on Vancouver Island
    The best small grocery store in Victoria
    A liquor store.. which in Victoria is a bigger deal than here.
    London Drugs, and a proper compounding pharmacy
    The political weight to start telling city hall to move some of the social service providers to other areas instead of dumping them ALL on us.

    Towers aren't a bad thing. Even the design of the towers isn't that important. There's an article floating around about two towers in Toronto that are identical. Built at the same time, next to each other. One is a godawful hell-hole, the other one has a waiting list for people wanting to live there. Came down to management.

    These developments of condos will be good for the neighbourhood. They are going to bring more people who are quite literally invested in the neighbourhood. It's well built and well designed, and in some ways will lower the need to leave the neighbourhood if the retail is appropriate. You may be surprised at a drop in vehicular traffic, and see a jump in pedestrian traffic if density is done right.

    Google map link to my Edmonton Location
    Google map link to my Victoria Location

  50. #50
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Holy crapola. Thank you for the time it must have taken you to type all of that and your fair and impartial viewpoints. All things to think about and alot of the stuff I want to know about.

    So thanks again!!!
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    sure, no monster 10 family homes, so 21 story towers? Thats what I dont get.
    There are different regulations within the higher density zones that address land use transitioning, etc.

    DC2 is a specific zoning tool that usually includes provisions that also address land use compatibility, transitioning, etc.

  52. #52
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    Well that is the most pointless overlay ever.

    "The purpose of this Overlay is to ensure that new low density development in Edmonton’s mature residential neighbourhoods is sensitive in scale to existing development, maintains the traditional character "*
    Come to Forest Heights and see the (at least) 5 examples I can point to where a row of quaint single-family homes is broken by some three-story monstrosity that juts 15 feet above the rest. That's what the MNO was designed to curb. The overlay is a way to slow down the so-called "monster home" construction and ensure that new single-family housing is compatible with lot size and surrounding areas. It does not apply to medium- or high-density zoning, nor to commercial zones.

  53. #53
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Well I understand the subtleties of the bylaw now,,,,homeowners must stick to strict rules about the height of new structures in contrast to their neighbours..very thoughtful bylaw .You wouldnt want the house next door, across the alley or across the street to be 3 times the size of the average house in the area.

    In this area, the neighbour will be roughly 19 stories above its neighbours.

    Its a stupid overlay, it applies to everything in this small community of 623 homes, everything except for the plot of land in its centre.....

    Again I'm not debating the proposed height; I'm picking on the overlay.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    Well I understand the subtleties of the bylaw now,,,,homeowners must stick to strict rules about the height of new structures in contrast to their neighbours..very thoughtful bylaw .You wouldnt want the house next door, across the alley or across the street to be 3 times the size of the average house in the area.

    In this area, the neighbour will be roughly 19 stories above its neighbours.

    Its a stupid overlay, it applies to everything in this small community of 623 homes, everything except for the plot of land in its centre.....

    Again I'm not debating the proposed height; I'm picking on the overlay.
    I still don't think you fully understand the purpose of the MNO. Its intent is to curb 'monster' homes in established neighbourhoods, therefore, the overlay achieves this objective.

  55. #55
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Whats to get? I read english. Its truly not that complicated. My comment was that I thought it was stupid.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afairlady
    Whats to get? I read english. Its truly not that complicated. My comment was that I thought it was stupid.
    Without that overlay, monster homes would get built. With it they don't. What's stupid?

    You're criticizing a screwdriver for being a poor hammer.

  57. #57
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Clearly you want to go on and on about it, so go ahead, post another, very clever and enlightening conversation we are having on this topic.

    I realize one is a guideline for homes zoned for one thing and what I am talking about is a zoning arrangement for another type of property, apples, oranges, ya ya I get it. I just thought the contrast between the two was stupid. Thats it, thats all it was, and whats more stupid than the bylaw to me, is this conversation we are having about my opinion.
    Well behaved women rarely make history.

  58. #58

    Question Holyrood Gardens

    Has anyone heard anything about the Westcorp Holyrood Gardens development. It has been in the works for at least 4 years now and still nothing. Obviously, the barracks aren't being maintained.

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Talia View Post
    Has anyone heard anything about the Westcorp Holyrood Gardens development. It has been in the works for at least 4 years now and still nothing. Obviously, the barracks aren't being maintained.
    Westcorp had plans, that were then shelved. A lot of it was due to Community opposition over traffic, density and height.
    Now with Strathearn going ahead, that will have impact on (at least) their traffic studies, and it may be possible the existing plan has to be abandoned.

  60. #60
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Talia View Post
    Has anyone heard anything about the Westcorp Holyrood Gardens development. It has been in the works for at least 4 years now and still nothing. Obviously, the barracks aren't being maintained.
    Westcorp had plans, that were then shelved. A lot of it was due to Community opposition over traffic, density and height.
    Now with Strathearn going ahead, that will have impact on (at least) their traffic studies, and it may be possible the existing plan has to be abandoned.
    maybe they could get edc to help them do a version of what got turned down in highlands and they could turn the old safeway store over for graffiti art...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  61. #61
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Talia View Post
    Has anyone heard anything about the Westcorp Holyrood Gardens development. It has been in the works for at least 4 years now and still nothing. Obviously, the barracks aren't being maintained.
    Westcorp had plans, that were then shelved. A lot of it was due to Community opposition over traffic, density and height.
    Now with Strathearn going ahead, that will have impact on (at least) their traffic studies, and it may be possible the existing plan has to be abandoned.
    maybe they could get edc to help them do a version of what got turned down in highlands and they could turn the old safeway store over for graffiti art...
    Are you following me around where I post to make lame attempts at jokes?

  62. #62
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    A priest, a rabbi, and an Ostrich walk into a bar....
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  63. #63

    Default

    And the bartender says "hey, is this some kind of joke?"

  64. #64
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,907

    Default

    I did a piece on Holyrood Gardens in my latest Edmontonians column. My research suggests that the project is not dead, but merely delayed. The remaining homes in that complex are not in good shape, and will have to be replaced sooner or later. If anything, the Strathearn approval should help it along.
    Last edited by davidnorwoodink; 12-03-2008 at 01:13 PM.
    Almost always open to debate...

  65. #65

    Default

    You can't be referring to the Holyrood Gardens BZKA did... right? or am I missing something here...


  66. #66
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    No... the area of run-down looking townhouses just south of that I believe.

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    No... the area of run-down looking townhouses just south of that I believe.
    That building actually did replace one of the sections of Holyrood Gardens.

  68. #68

    Default

    Ok good. I don't like that building :P; and was wondering what all the hype was about.

    Moving along...

  69. #69
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    183

    Default

    The apartment complexes are called Holyrood Boulevard.
    The townhouses (which are in hideous disrepair) are called Holyrood Gardens.
    Both are owned by Westcorp, and are managed out of the same office.
    As I understand it, the plan is to eventually replace all of the townhouses with apartment complexes
    Last edited by Darkwalker; 12-03-2008 at 11:23 AM.
    Non semper erit aestas

  70. #70
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkwalker View Post
    The apartment complexes are called Holyrood Boulevard.
    The townhouses (which are in hideous disrepair) are called Holyrood Gardens.
    Both are owned by Westcorp, and are managed out of the same office.
    As I understand it, the plan is to eventually replace all of the townhouses with apartment complexes
    You are correct.

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Anyone have any news on this?
    I like the size of the proposal, but wish for it to be classed up a bit. This area has so much potential.

  72. #72
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Proposal is dead, has been for a long time. Community league killed it with traffic concerns.

    No news that anyone has made a move on the property.

  73. #73
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    566

    Default

    At least a little paint on the outside of those places should be done at minimum, i hate looking at those places when I drive by. I bet when the LRT goes by there that property may have some movement then.

  74. #74
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    61

    Default

    A new proposal is currently in the works for the site, now that SE LRT plans are in place. Per TOD, streetfront retail with living space above, centered on the planned station at 93 Av. As is quite clear, Gardens buildings are at the end of their useful life.

  75. #75
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Super excellent!

  76. #76
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    This would be very interesting to see. I really hope that they move forward with this.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  77. #77

    Default

    Suggestion the new design should look more like this (cross referencing thread):

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...017#post421017


  78. #78
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default someday some designer will do this

    "buildings with terraces" google images please
    Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

  79. #79

    Default Any new info?

    Just wanted to see if anyone has heard any more info on this one.

  80. #80
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    I believe they are reconsidering development options given the Stratearn DC2 approval.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  81. #81
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Foster View Post
    You can't be referring to the Holyrood Gardens BZKA did... right? or am I missing something here...

    BZKA strikes again.

  82. #82
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    For clarity, it is BKA.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  83. #83
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Yes, the Z left and formed her own firm.
    Don't feed the trolls!

  84. #84
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    The Z was a he, his daughter is also working with that firm.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  85. #85

    Default

    Apparently Westcorp has sold the development. BCM? Regency? Anyone in the know?

  86. #86
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,976

    Default

    Regency I believe.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  87. #87
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Regency it is...

  88. #88
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    With Regency, it will for sure get done, and fast.

    I hope they think big. Townhouses, mid rise towers. It's a perfect location, as good as Strathearn. They could beat them to the punch.

  89. #89

    Default

    Looks like it's go time: http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...alley-line-lrt

    Stantec hosting a meeting Wednesday Nov. 9, 5 - 8 at SEESA

    A good turnout is required for a responsible development.

  90. #90
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Looks like it's go time: http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...alley-line-lrt

    Stantec hosting a meeting Wednesday Nov. 9, 5 - 8 at SEESA

    A good turnout is required for a responsible development.
    Excited about this one. That complex is an eye sore and really drags the neighbourhood down. Seven towers with an average height of 24 stories? That seems a bit much. 3-4 might be more appropriate. We live in Holyrood, but are several blocks east of this.

    If the design is clean with nice materials and lines, I'd definitely support it.

  91. #91
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Well between Strathearn (if it ever actually happens) and Bonnie Doon Mall (if that ever happens) it would be quite the transformation.
    Oddly there is the one high rise just over by Bonnie Doon that was built long ago. It doesn't really impact the neighborhoods much even though it is has all the wonders of 1970s architecture and urban integration.

    Seven towers seems like quite a bit, especially if it is is all rental. I'm sure there will be a bunch of back and forth on that, but I would hope there is a mix of ownership, type of product and income level.

  92. #92

    Default

    AFAIC, you nailed it DanC. Diverse incomes, age groups, a proper ratio of CRU and most definitely family units.

    You know nobleea, I hear your sentiments a lot. Yes, Holyrood Gardens has not been maintained properly but "dragging the down the neighbourhood" is a bit much. The children of families that live there populate the Holyrood School. Many of them attend the local churches, shop at Bonnie Doon Mall go to the Wired Cup. The affordability and livability of the units is important. You know what doesn't contribute that much to the neighbourhood? The newish, adults only, low rise building on the corner of 85st and 95 avenue. Less of that please.

  93. #93
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    AFAIC, you nailed it DanC. Diverse incomes, age groups, a proper ratio of CRU and most definitely family units.

    You know nobleea, I hear your sentiments a lot. Yes, Holyrood Gardens has not been maintained properly but "dragging the down the neighbourhood" is a bit much. The children of families that live there populate the Holyrood School. Many of them attend the local churches, shop at Bonnie Doon Mall go to the Wired Cup. The affordability and livability of the units is important. You know what doesn't contribute that much to the neighbourhood? The newish, adults only, low rise building on the corner of 85st and 95 avenue. Less of that please.
    I don't mean the people drag down the neighbourhood, I mean the buildings do. Driving down 85st or 90av, if you weren't familiar with the neighbourhood, you would not get a positive image of it. Nobody would think that there are constantly million dollar homes getting built inside, low crime, a healthy school that is growing, etc. It might get passed over as a place to live with a negative association due to the complex (which stretches almost half the length) and people not considering the positives of river valley location, proximity to transportation routes, and downtown being right there.

    I don't mind the newish stucco apartments on 95ave. As far as late 90's walkups go, they're probably one of the nicer looking ones. It takes all kinds. I hope that this new development has lots of family friendly townhomes and 3BR apartments that don't break the bank. We already have a pretty diverse group with a senior's home in the heart, along with SEESA. Plus all the families present and moving in.

  94. #94
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    ^You are right, the physical condition of the existing townhouses do not present a positive image for the community. Redevelopment of this site is long overdue.

  95. #95
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    The article mentions redevelopment plans of this property have been happening for the better part of a quarter century and nothing has happened. I doubt anything will happen this time either. There is only so much demand, yet there are hundreds of these "proposals." Only a handful will ever see the light of day.

  96. #96
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    342

    Default

    This is a prime location that will benefit with great views of Downtown. Redevelopment will happen if the Developer wants it to.
    EDACC-EAD-YEGDT FTW!

  97. #97

    Default

    The most recent proposal that was **** down had intended for a Sobeys (or similar grocer) at the traffic circle corner and a bit more retail... but either the mall called nope, or the community did. This was all before any LRT talk, so maybe finally Edmonton can get some street-orientated TOD development. The taxes alone on this stretch of LRT for TOD from BD Mall to Strathern would be amazing. This is urban populations to service Downtown business and Whyte Ave business.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  98. #98

    Default

    Yes lovely views and street orientated TOD would be great. But "urban populations to service Downtown business and Whyte Ave" is not in the interest of the surrounding neighbourhoods. Sure that would likely happen but as an ancillary benefit to having kids in the local schools, families frequenting the local businesses (BD, the Strathearn development and whatever Regency puts in place) much improved local recreation facilities. A responsible development would NOT be 7 towers of professional singles/couples who want a quick commute out of the neighbourhood.

    Seniors, mixed incomes (way more than the paltry city requirements) lots of family units, a mix of rentals and owners and great podium retail.

  99. #99
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Yes lovely views and street orientated TOD would be great. But "urban populations to service Downtown business and Whyte Ave" is not in the interest of the surrounding neighbourhoods. Sure that would likely happen but as an ancillary benefit to having kids in the local schools, families frequenting the local businesses (BD, the Strathearn development and whatever Regency puts in place) much improved local recreation facilities. A responsible development would NOT be 7 towers of professional singles/couples who want a quick commute out of the neighbourhood.

    Seniors, mixed incomes (way more than the paltry city requirements) lots of family units, a mix of rentals and owners and great podium retail.
    There's no way they get 7 towers. No chance. They're just high balling in order to 'make some sacrifices' later.
    3 towers, maybe only one of them over 20 stories.
    There could certainly be a bit of yuppie/dink population in the development. I could see a benefit in some seniors lodging. There's LOTS of seniors still in their homes in the neighbourhood. They likely want to stay in the neighbourhood and that will free up their antiquatated houses for development. Families and mix of incomes would be welcome.

    It's Regency, so I wouldn't underestimate their ability or desire to complete it and quickly if they decide to.

    The neighbourhood is going to have to be a little accommodating to new development as it bit them in the asz last time. They crapped on Westcorp's proposal so the developer said screw you, we're going to let this place rot. Not the best way to do business, but there you go. The neighbourhood seems to be open to development as there's several skinnies and infills that have gone up without issue. I've only seen two of those nimby "Subdivision not wanted nor needed here" lawn posters.

  100. #100

    Default

    I just hope they beauty up the area. Those current units are just so damn dilapidated.

Page 1 of 4 1234 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
  •