Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 301

Thread: Holyrood Gardens | Residential | Proposed

  1. #101

    Default

    People who are good for business can be all ages. Wasn't calling for yuppies. Sustainable development all the way. This looks good if council and zoning gets it right.

  2. #102
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    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.
    Regency didn't spend tens of millions of dollars to acquire the properties just to sit on them. That said, I wouldn't expect anything to start happening for a couple years.

  3. #103

    Default

    ^^^^I don't think the number of towers is too crazy - it's not like the 7th tower will have any more impact than the first and second would, and they have a long enough bit of land that they could string 7 in a row while leaving twice the distance in between that downtown towers are supposed to have. This would be nothing like an icons-century-fox wall.

    The heights they've proposed, on the other hand, are a real stretch. They're asking for towers up to 300' tall that would be just 100' or so from people's front yards across the street, and about the same from back yards across the lane. For heights I would guess the same - they might get approval to top out around 20 floors, with most of the "towers" down in barely-a -tower range, like 12-15 floors.
    There can only be one.

  4. #104
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    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.
    Regency didn't spend tens of millions of dollars to acquire the properties just to sit on them. That said, I wouldn't expect anything to start happening for a couple years.
    Yay, so they spent some money buying the land. Big deal. Its not like Procura bought the old mall at Century Park with the intention of letting the land sit mostly empty for the last decade either... yet there it sits.

    It's not the first time this property has changed hands. Regency has no experience building something of this magnitude. If they can pull it off, great... but I would not be surprised to see this go nowhere.

  5. #105

    Default

    Fair points.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  6. #106

    Default

    I have no doubt that projects like this and Strathearn will go ahead. It's just a matter of when. People are getting really fed up with endless sprawl and long commutes, and are rapidly becoming more amicable towards condo living. Demand for these projects will grow.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  7. #107
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,388

    Default

    I'll let Regency's track record speak for itself as they have executed on every proposal thus far.

  8. #108
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Would someone able to go to the open house be able to take pictures, if they have any site plans or renderings?

  9. #109

    Default

    No kidding. Regency backs up what they say they're going to do.

    Additionally, for the amount Regency paid for the purchase of these properties along with a portfolio from Westcorp, it wasn't to keep it as a rental portfolio...

  10. #110

    Default

    I'm not betting against them, but clearly:

    “The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley.”


    Hope it works out.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  11. #111
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,171

    Default

    I am not betting against them here either. But developments of this scale haven't worked here yet, and only on a lesser scale 30+ years ago, so I am not holding my breath. Only time will tell...

  12. #112

    Default

    I have no doubt that every redevelopment and infill densification plan will eventually come to fruition, I just don't know the timelines.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  13. #113
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,388

    Default

    ^Its a large site, so I would say this is a 7-10 year build out.

  14. #114
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    I went to the meeting last night. I was there at 715 or so and it was quite busy. No massing or models, just a few basic overviews of the lots. Street fronting retail at the corner of 93 ave and 85 st, but nowhere else. Enough for some coffeeshops, salons, cafes, dry cleaners, etc. 3-5 story lowrises the entire length of 85 st. 4x 22-26 story towers north of 93 ave and 3x south. Surface parking for visitors and retail on the east side facing the alley along with some amenity space.

    Der and Associates is the proposed architect. He was there. Looking at his past work, doesn't look too promising. Doesn't appear to have done any towers before. And most of his residential is just stucco and punched windows.

    The main guy from Regency was there. He seemed to indicate construction would likely start in 2 years. They are planning on them being condos. The newer walkups on 95 ave are staying.

    They want 1300 units on the site. Without knowing the mix of townhouses/1BR, 2BR, etc, it's hard to say if that's too much. I indicated that it was unlikely they would get 7 towers at 24 stories each and they mentioned this is what they needed to reach 1300 units without getting too bulky with the massing. I would be fine with 8-10 stories in some areas, maybe around 93 ave, then stepping/terracing down to less for the majority of the length.

    Unfortunately, the impression I get from everyone involved is that this will turn out similar to Edgewater. Shave off a few floors off the towers and copy and paste 3 or 4 times. I think the neighbourhood can do better and the location can support a higher quality/design than that. If they're going to be condos, perhaps they can go with a higher finish on the exterior compared to Edgewater.
    Last edited by nobleea; 10-11-2016 at 10:39 AM.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Der and Associates is the proposed architect. He was there. Looking at his past work, doesn't look too promising. Doesn't appear to have done any towers before. And most of his residential is just stucco and punched windows.
    Another architecture firm with an awful website. Is it a requirement of the trade for architects to have the worst websites in existence? Anyway, totally uninspired work. DER looks like they mostly do institutional work. I agree with nobleea, we'll probably see stucco boxes with some punch windows.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  16. #116
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    It's too early to tell for sure. Maybe they're just going with DER until they get an indication that their plans will be approved in order to save money (as he's obviously cheaper than more inspired firms). His name tag clearly stated that they were thee Preliminary Architecture firm.
    That's my hope at least.

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    I went to the meeting last night. I was there at 715 or so and it was quite busy. No massing or models, just a few basic overviews of the lots. Street fronting retail at the corner of 93 ave and 85 st, but nowhere else. Enough for some coffeeshops, salons, cafes, dry cleaners, etc. 3-5 story lowrises the entire length of 85 st. 4x 22-26 story towers north of 93 ave and 3x south. Surface parking for visitors and retail on the east side facing the alley along with some amenity space.

    Der and Associates is the proposed architect. He was there. Looking at his past work, doesn't look too promising. Doesn't appear to have done any towers before. And most of his residential is just stucco and punched windows.

    The main guy from Regency was there. He seemed to indicate construction would likely start in 2 years. They are planning on them being condos. The newer walkups on 95 ave are staying.

    They want 1300 units on the site. Without knowing the mix of townhouses/1BR, 2BR, etc, it's hard to say if that's too much. I indicated that they were unlikely that it was unlikely they would get 7 towers at 24 stories each and they mentioned this is what they needed to reach 1300 units without getting too bulky with the massing. I would be fine with 8-10 stories in some areas, maybe around 93 ave, then stepping/terracing down to less for the majority of the length.

    Unfortunately, the impression I get from everyone involved is that this will turn out similar to Edgewater. Shave off a few floors off the towers and copy and paste 3 or 4 times. I think the neighbourhood can do better and the location can support more. If they're going to be condos, perhaps they can go with a higher finish on the exterior compared to Edgewater.
    Or how about we applaud the fact that Regency are going ahead and developing an area that sorely could have used development for a long time...

  18. #118
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    ^ Absolutely. Most people at the meeting were not cornering them with a pitchfork.

    But they don't get carte blanche. I'd gladly accept the tower quantities and heights if it means no stucco wallpaper and punched windows.

  19. #119
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    ^Yeah, big upzoning means you should bring some quality.

    I can even handle stucco and punched windows, if you do them nicely (And I too am worried about Der and Associates), and space out your towers. No 6m spacing (Looking at you Fox).

  20. #120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^Yeah, big upzoning means you should bring some quality.

    I can even handle stucco and punched windows, if you do them nicely (And I too am worried about Der and Associates), and space out your towers. No 6m spacing (Looking at you Fox).
    Absolutely agree here. Hopefully Stantec can help guide the design as I cant say I've been impressed with Der's work.

  21. #121

    Default

    Didn't Der do Emerald? I think it looks okayish, given the purse strings on the podium.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  22. #122
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Didn't Der do Emerald? I think it looks okayish, given the purse strings on the podium.
    Thats exactly it, it's just ok. Was the design 'good' enough in exchange for the 'asks' as it pertained to height, density and podium design, well thats up for debate.

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Or how about we applaud the fact that Regency are going ahead and developing an area that sorely could have used development for a long time...
    Is this the same Regency that's left the lot at 105 Ave and 121 Street a fenced dirt pit for the last 8 years? I went over to have a look at the latest incarnation of the development sign (there have been several over the years) but even it has been removed now.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  24. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Didn't Der do Emerald? I think it looks okayish, given the purse strings on the podium.
    Thats exactly it, it's just ok. Was the design 'good' enough in exchange for the 'asks' as it pertained to height, density and podium design, well thats up for debate.

    I'm not debating that. EDC and Planning tried to make it clear that height was the reward for quality.

    But the parkade wasn't exactly Der's fault, he's just filling out the order.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Or how about we applaud the fact that Regency are going ahead and developing an area that sorely could have used development for a long time...
    Is this the same Regency that's left the lot at 105 Ave and 121 Street a fenced dirt pit for the last 8 years? I went over to have a look at the latest incarnation of the development sign (there have been several over the years) but even it has been removed now.
    Yeah, but also the same one that's built Quest, Pearl, Edgewater 1, Edgewater 2. They can't do everything at once for obvious reasons, while they may wait on one parcel or another, it's not at all like they're sitting around doing nothing.

    This section of the City seems ready for some new highrises, and I wouldn't be surprised if Regency could out-hustle the Strathearn guys for down payments, permits, etc.

    I could still see Emerald going first, but as has been said, they bought it for a reason, and based on the area and their handling of the Edgewater project, I'd just plain guess they can find a case for financing one way or the other.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  26. #126
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Didn't Der do Emerald? I think it looks okayish, given the purse strings on the podium.
    Thats exactly it, it's just ok. Was the design 'good' enough in exchange for the 'asks' as it pertained to height, density and podium design, well thats up for debate.
    A very lopsided debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly
    Is this the same Regency that's left the lot at 105 Ave and 121 Street a fenced dirt pit for the last 8 years? I went over to have a look at the latest incarnation of the development sign (there have been several over the years) but even it has been removed now.


    I believe Regency has only owned that site for approximately 2 years. They bought it from Prism (who did the Horizon behind GMac, which is apparently now in receivership, Prism really struggled on that project. That was also a Jim Der design). Not sure how long Prism owned the site. In any case, Regency has been kicking around various designs for that site over the past while. They bought the plans from Prism along with the land, but have been revising since. I would think that site is the next one to go for Regency.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 14-11-2016 at 10:57 AM.

  27. #127
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    ^ What about Emerald or One Twenty One West? I'm sure those might be closer to going first.

  28. #128
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    ^ What about Emerald or One Twenty One West? I'm sure those might be closer to going first.
    I think One Twenty One West and the ex-Prism site at 121 and 105 ave are the same thing.

    Regency was able to do Pearl and Edgewater at essentially the same time. Holyrood would likely be bigger than Edgewater, but if phased, I think they could do 2-3 projects at once.

  29. #129
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    ^ Oh sorry, I thought he was still referring to Holyrood Gardens.

  30. #130
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,986

    Default

    Holyrood Gardens Redevelopment

    http://holyroodcommunity.org/holyroo...redevelopment/

    The next open house is scheduled for January 19, 2017
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  31. #131
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Went to the meeting tonight. Not as busy as the first one, but I was quite early in the evening.

    They have two proposals on layouts and massing. One is decent, the other I'm not a fan of at all.

    Option A




    7 towers of various sizes. 22 near the traffic circle, then dropping down to 15 stories, then 12, then 10 at the north end closer to the existing apartments. Retail in the podium of 15 story buildings on 93 ave, townhouses(26) along 85 st, and low rises behind the towers.

    Option B



    4 towers from 15-20 stories with 3 low rise complexes. More oriented to inner courtyard/parking lots rather than 85st in Option A.

    I think Option B is disjointed and looks like a cobbled together development of suburban buildings. Option A feels far more urban and forward thinking. It also has more open/green space and is less imposing on the houses east of it due to larger separation distances (250 vs 110ft).

    Amenities:
    They've proposed a community amphitheater and a skating rink on the ground. Would be nice, as long as maintenance and upkeep is responsibility of the condo board, but remains a community accessible feature. They'll redo the lane and turn it in to a road, with a sidewalk

    Finish:
    They did include a rough render for what the buildings might look like. I wouldn't put any stock in to it. I was talking with some of the hosts and was mentioning that Der associates had zero experience with this kind of development and didn't think they could do it justice. The hosts didn't disagree and implied that they were doing this leg work and then once approved, someone else might take over.


    The tallest building fronts the current traffic circle, which is already fronted by a 20 storey apt building, low rise apartments, a church, and an ambulance station. It's the most logical location for the tall building. It's a bit too heavy/massy for my tastes. I love the fronting townhouses component in option A along the length of 85 st, save for retail around 83 st.
    I mentioned I would gladly support this project and speak in front of council in favour as long as they commit to use high quality design and materials.

  32. #132
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Downtown isn't the only place that deserves smaller floorplate towers. For tower taller than 10 storeys, nothing larger than 750 sq meters, same as the recent 104th Ave Corridor ARP.

    Thankfully they've respected tower spacing, so far.

  33. #133
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,986

    Default

    ^bingo.

    HUGE density. Good to see.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  34. #134

    Default

    Agree on A being the better choice. Looks like a heck of a lot of surface parking, and that might be the worst bike path ever unless the intent is to allow children who live there a place to learn to ride.

    To me that parking lot face is the weak point, although I suppose resident across the lane might disagree.
    There can only be one.

  35. #135
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Agree on A being the better choice. Looks like a heck of a lot of surface parking, and that might be the worst bike path ever unless the intent is to allow children who live there a place to learn to ride.

    To me that parking lot face is the weak point, although I suppose resident across the lane might disagree.
    I count 157 parking stalls. For sure some are going to be required for the retail component. Some for visitor parking. And 157 surface stalls for 1200 residents isn't the end of the world.
    It is looks like a big surface area, mind you it is a parcel 5 blocks long.

  36. #136
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,171

    Default

    The massings don't thrill me. Wait and see.

  37. #137
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,986

    Default

    Proposal to rezone property in Holyrood
    July 5, 2017

    Residents are invited to a public open house to discuss a proposed new development located at 8310 and 8311 93 Avenue NW, in the Holyrood neighbourhood.

    Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2017
    Time: 5:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. (drop in anytime)
    Location: South East Edmonton Seniors Association, 9350 82 Street NW

    The proposal is to develop a maximum of 1,200 residential units within seven medium and high rise apartment buildings. These buildings range from four to 22 storeys, with ground-floor local commercial uses at the 93 Avenue/85 Street intersection. All required parking would be underground and provided on-site.

    The development will require a rezoning to DC2 (Site Specific Development Control Provision), a zone that allows for a high degree of control over the built form and uses for the site.

    The City is looking for your input on the proposed development. If you cannot attend the open house, you may contact the planner working on this project.

    For more information:
    https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_...-proposal.aspx

    Media contacts:
    Carla Putnam Kerr
    Communications Advisor, Sustainable Development
    780-496-3868
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  38. #138
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Holyrood Development Commitee has posted their 'conclusions' why the current planned development doesn't fit. I never saw an ad looking for volunteers to join this committee, I would have gladly joined. I sent them an email saying I was interested, and supported the development, but they just replied back 'Thanks'.
    Seems to be made of of nimbys. I guess every neighbourhood has them, and it is pretty thorough and researched, which makes the neighbourhood look somewhat competent.
    http://holyroodcommunity.org/holyroo...redevelopment/
    However, I have issues with a few of their conclusions.
    233. Access roads/Traffic. Since the LRT runs right in front, adding additional access roads is going to be very complicated. I would hope a lot of residents here would take the LRT right outside. But for those that drive, getting downtown shouldn't be hard as the roundabout at the top of 98 ave has mostly sherwood park traffic and the 85st entrance is upstream of that, so it wouldn't get backed up. Traffic traveling south should be ok assuming the light timing is proper for the size of th edevelopment. Traffic traveling east will go through the neighbourhood.
    4. Building heights. There's a large apartment tower across the street on the 90ave traffic circle. And something like 28 stories planned for Strathearn. And who knows what for Bonnie Doon mall redevelopment.
    5. Of course evening sun is going to be blocked by high rises.
    6. Building community goals. I don't know how they can list this one as a 'conclusion' when no data is available to draw such a conclusion. If no details have been provided to date on units rented/sold, and BR breakdown, I don't know how you can come to a conclusion that the proposal won't accommodate the goals.
    7.Again, they conclude that the financial contribution is not met, but then they say it's not been addressed. How is that a conclusion?

  39. #139
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    The open house last night had a very good turnout. I was probably the only one present who offered any kind of tangible support for the proposal.

    People were complaining about the usual things. My sunsets will get blocked. Think about the children. Too many people. Lose character. etc.

    I will say that there's been no traffic study done yet, and that needs to happen before any serious consideration of the proposal can happen. With the LRT right out front and a development that's proposed to double the population of the neighbourhood, traffic could be a big issue. 75 st, 98 ave and connors road are all busy thoroughfares, so getting on to them might be challenging. Not everyone is going to take the LRT.

    The usual gripes were heard. A few people mentioned they should sell their houses before this happens. Unless you back right on to the proposal, this is going to be a big net positive for the neighbourhood as a whole.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ning-1.4202581
    Last edited by nobleea; 13-07-2017 at 09:30 AM.

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    The open house last night had a very good turnout. I was probably the only one present who offered any kind of tangible support for the proposal.

    People were complaining about the usual things. My sunsets will get blocked. Think about the children. Too many people. Lose character. etc.

    I will say that there's been no traffic study done yet, and that needs to happen before any serious consideration of the proposal can happen. With the LRT right out front and a development that's proposed to double the population of the neighbourhood, traffic could be a big issue. 75 st, 98 ave and connors road are all busy thoroughfares, so getting on to them might be challenging. Not everyone is going to take the LRT.


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ning-1.4202581
    Hi! I am on the Holyrood Development Committee. Our job is to make sure that the community's voice is heard by the developer and the city, and to ensure that the community knows the plans and is able to respond to them.

    First, I would like to let you guys now that we are not all "NIMBY's, we are in support of the proposal, but the majority of the resident feedback we have heard is that the density is too high, and that they would like to see lower towers. We have to represent the community, so that is what we put on the flyer...it was to let the community know about the things that we have found from dealing with Regency and the City thus far, to try to get people up to speed with the problems that we have heard identified by community members. A lot of people didn't know about the Open house, so our main priority was to get the community out to talk to the developer and the city. We had a great turnout last night and I think it was because of the flyer.

    I am just a volunteer, other members are more familiar with technical terms and the development process. If you have questions, or would like to join the committee, PLEASE contact us! We would love to have you, we're a very small volunteer run group and it's been very hard to get all this information to the community with such a small group. you can email [email protected] and I will let you know when the next meeting is. I'm not going to lie, it's a pretty big time commitment, but it's worth it IMO! I'm sorry if you received a negative impression of the community league from your past email interactions with them...I do know they recently went through a league change with new members on the board, so there was a bit of a lack of communication from their communications person during that time. I don't know exactly what happened there, but I do know we would love to have you if you are interested in joining the Development Committee.

    Secondly, there HAS been a traffic study done, but it has only been shared with the city and the developer, when we have requested it (multiple times) they have said that the final draft won't be ready until September. At the last meeting with the developer and the city, a representative was present from the company Stantec has hired to do the traffic study. She answered a few of our questions but kept stating that these were only rough guesses as she didn't bring any of the actual results with her. Traffic Impact Assessments are no longer made available to the public because of perceived publicmisinterpretation of technical information.They were projecting about 7,200 trips daily through the neighbourhood with a 20% increase in local traffic. They suggested between 20-30% of the neighbourhood will use transit. These numbers were all based off of the current population of Holyrood's Traffic counts, which are available online through the city. Frankly, as the developer keeps changing the unit numbers and density pockets around, I think it's been really hard for TransEd, and the City of Edmonton, and this TIA company to make any full projections.

    As I mentioned previously, I am just a communications volunteer, and there are a lot of great people on the committee that have a lot more technical knowledge about massing, density, traffic, etc, that would be more than happy to share the information they have collected with you all. Please email us, and let us know if you are interested in joining the committee!

  41. #141

    Default

    Assuming the traffic study isn't too negative, does anyone expect council to give in much to the NIMBY complaints? I would really hope they don't, this development just seems so near perfect as it's been proposed.
    Last edited by Aaron_Lloyd; 13-07-2017 at 12:43 PM.

  42. #142

    Default

    It's within a ten to fifteen minute walk of: schools, shopping and groceries, major bus routes, LRT, major recreational facility proposed next to Vimy Ridge. For local residents I would encourage them to direct their uneasiness of increased traffic in their neighbourhood to forcing the developer and the City as a requirement of its success to improve and increase pedestrian safety and slow local traffic flow/speeds by making infrastructure adjustments considering the projected density/increase in residents. Could be as simple as making the laneway more of a woonerf or minor roadway with improvements.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  43. #143
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    The open house last night had a very good turnout. I was probably the only one present who offered any kind of tangible support for the proposal.

    People were complaining about the usual things. My sunsets will get blocked. Think about the children. Too many people. Lose character. etc.

    I will say that there's been no traffic study done yet, and that needs to happen before any serious consideration of the proposal can happen. With the LRT right out front and a development that's proposed to double the population of the neighbourhood, traffic could be a big issue. 75 st, 98 ave and connors road are all busy thoroughfares, so getting on to them might be challenging. Not everyone is going to take the LRT.

    The usual gripes were heard. A few people mentioned they should sell their houses before this happens. Unless you back right on to the proposal, this is going to be a big net positive for the neighbourhood as a whole.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ning-1.4202581
    Did the Open House refine there previous Option A vs Option B? The photo in the CBC story looks like option B?

  44. #144
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Did the Open House refine there previous Option A vs Option B? The photo in the CBC story looks like option B?
    No, they just had option B presented. Wasn't any further refinement of the plan.

  45. #145
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Did the Open House refine there previous Option A vs Option B? The photo in the CBC story looks like option B?
    No, they just had option B presented. Wasn't any further refinement of the plan.
    Well that's disappointing. Option A was far nicer and more in line with what the neighborhood should push for, rather than pushing against it all together.

  46. #146
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    Assuming the traffic study isn't too negative, does anyone expect council to give in much to the NIMBY complaints? I would really hope they don't, this development just seems so near perfect as it's been proposed.
    In my opinion the focus shouldn't be on traffic or density but down to overall aesthetics and how this development will contribute to establishing a unique sense of place and identity for the community. I believe that if the developer wants Council to grant them the density rights they need to reciprocate by providing a plan that offers a high quality urban design. No half assed 'slab' tower designs.

  47. #147
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,171

    Default

    ^agreed. Option b as seems to be their choice seems like we went back in time 20ish years. This is something that maybe we could have been happy with circa 1998ish. It's 2017 and this doesn't cut it.

  48. #148
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    Are they kidding to demolish all of townhouses in the area ??
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  49. #149
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,157

    Default

    They're in horrendous shape and likely beyond repair. That's not a surprise.

  50. #150
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,986

    Default

    ^bingo.

    I agree ChrisD, we need to reinforce quality, urban design and integration... density is far less of an issue.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  51. #151
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    Assuming the traffic study isn't too negative, does anyone expect council to give in much to the NIMBY complaints? I would really hope they don't, this development just seems so near perfect as it's been proposed.
    In my opinion the focus shouldn't be on traffic or density but down to overall aesthetics and how this development will contribute to establishing a unique sense of place and identity for the community. I believe that if the developer wants Council to grant them the density rights they need to reciprocate by providing a plan that offers a high quality urban design. No half assed 'slab' tower designs.
    Quality and aesthetics are kind of synonymous with density though. If a developer isn't capable of capitalizing on density than that is when you start seeing the removal of amenities such as skating rinks or ampitheatres. Playgrounds get downsized into grassy areas and buildings lose "unnecessary" design features. It's kind of essential that we get away from this fear of big city developments otherwise we will continue to get monolithic and redundant brands of development. It's not good for the city and it's not good for Holyrood.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  52. #152
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    I know. But how do you try and explain that to neighbours who view their neighbourhood as a static thing? I know the houses that back on to the development are going to suffer. No way around that. Regardless of what was going to be built there (and something was), they were going to get the shaft. I would think allowing those lots to be rezoned to RF3 might help in providing a transition. Might help the owners in selling too.

    The neighbourhood doesn't care about playgrounds, skating rinks or amphitheatres. They already have most of that in the heart of the community and those features would only benefit the new residents. Cool local restaurants or cafes, stores. That's something I can dig. Renovating and modernizing our community hall? Now we're talking. Paying for slide/slides in the renovated Bonnie Doon pool? Also good.

  53. #153
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    I know. But how do you try and explain that to neighbours who view their neighbourhood as a static thing? I know the houses that back on to the development are going to suffer. No way around that. Regardless of what was going to be built there (and something was), they were going to get the shaft. I would think allowing those lots to be rezoned to RF3 might help in providing a transition. Might help the owners in selling too.

    The neighbourhood doesn't care about playgrounds, skating rinks or amphitheatres. They already have most of that in the heart of the community and those features would only benefit the new residents. Cool local restaurants or cafes, stores. That's something I can dig. Renovating and modernizing our community hall? Now we're talking. Paying for slide/slides in the renovated Bonnie Doon pool? Also good.
    Cooperation is key. If I'm a developer I would be listening to the needs of the locals and selling them on the merits of this development to which there are many. If I heard the Pool was in rough shape, I would take a visit out of good will and come back with a proposal which is equitable for both sides. Humans treating humans in their own back yard with dignity and understanding is sometimes all you need to get the ball rolling. These things can be beneficial to all.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  54. #154
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    I know the houses that back on to the development are going to suffer. No way around that. Regardless of what was going to be built there (and something was), they were going to get the shaft. I would think allowing those lots to be rezoned to RF3 might help in providing a transition. Might help the owners in selling too.
    Is this really the case? First, run-down town houses will be replaced with brand new high rises and mid rises. Second, the new buildings will be located closer to 85 Street compared to the some of the existing town houses that are located just off the back lane. Finally, for all of the complaints about sun shadows cast by 15 to 20 storey buildings, many of the homes along the west side of 83 Street have mature trees planted in their back yards which already cast more shadows (create more shade) than the high and mid rises will. See here: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.52849...2!8i6656?hl=en

  55. #155

    Default

    Edmonton Journal - Councillor worries Holyrood Gardens will bend rules for development near LRT

    With a 22-storey tower near a row of bungalows, critics worry Edmonton’s new Holyrood Gardens proposal is bending city rules already and could radically shift expectations around neighbourhood-level LRT stations.

    “This is putting towers next to single-family houses (and) that’s a neighbourhood stop,” said Ward 8 Coun. Ben Henderson, worried land prices around other stops will skyrocket if council doesn’t follow the limits in its own guidelines.

    But supporters say this site is unique. Edmonton needs to increase density to justify the billions of dollars it’s investing in LRT, and this is a rare four-hectare site that could see 1,200 new units right beside a station.

    It’s just two stops from downtown, said developer Raj Dhunna. “You don’t run into a (four-hectare) site too often.”

    Regency Developments owns the development site along 85 Street between 90 and 95 avenues, next to the Holyrood station on the Valley Line LRT.
    This proposal would replace aging townhouses with a series of four-storey apartments, two towers up to 16 storeys at the corner of 85 Street and 93 Avenue, and one 22-storey tower next to the traffic circle.

    The site concentrates development to give more open space, said Stantec’s Nancy MacDonald, who is helping with the rezoning application.

    Half the property would be open space — a series of park spaces off the lane to be used for a publicly accessible playground, dog park, amphitheatre, adult exercise park or similar amenities, said Dhunna. The ground floor would be lined with shops along the main streets and townhouses along the green space. Parking would be underground.

    But the 22-storey tower — and its six-storey base stretching back to the lane — is just metres from the property line of an existing row of bungalows.

    City planners said their biggest issue with Regency’s proposal is how close the tower is to the existing homes. They’re trying to negotiate a change before the plan heads to council for a vote in September.

    The guidelines for development near LRT stations do not specify maximum density, but call for planners to be able to draw a line at a 35-degree angle between the neighbour’s property line and the top of the new building.

    That line would barely let Regency’s proposed tower hit 13 storeys, and the tower base would have to be cut as well. But it’s not an exact science, said city planner Michelle Ouellette. “You have to look at this within reason.”

    Community residents are worried about the traffic these 1,200 units would generate, picturing a repeat of Belgravia’s 76 Avenue exit, where residents grow frustrated waiting for the long signal light to cross the Capital Line LRT tracks.

    Holyrood currently has about 1,500 households.

    Residents worry traffic from the new development will head east on local roads past a school through the neighbourhood, said Dave Sutherland, civics director for the Holyrood Community League. He called the process of trying to get more information on this frustrating. “We’re being treated like naysayers.”

  56. #156
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    993

    Default

    If you can't even put density right next to an LRT station the where can you put it? This type of development needs to happen, our LRT stops are very underutilized as it is.

  57. #157

    Default

    ^ Couldn't agree more, and...
    "But supporters say this site is unique. Edmonton needs to increase density to justify the billions of dollars it’s investing in LRT, and this is a rare four-hectare site that could see 1,200 new units right beside a station.

    It’s just two stops from downtown, said developer Raj Dhunna. “You don’t run into a (four-hectare) site too often.”
    "

    Just Downtown and Oliver? Exactly... then what is the justification for billions on LRT if we (Edmontonians) are not able to accept density adjacent to LRT stops/stations. The area next to it is bungalows... but impose/regulate appropriate setbacks and screening. Largely stagnant in height and form in the area for 50+ years, with the exception of Clifton Place? (traffic circle apartment building). Council megaphones "smart density", LRT, walkability, revitalizing mature neighbourhoods and getting families back into these areas to populate older schools... but show me some promise and some commitment.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  58. #158
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,986

    Default

    Indeed, but we also want to have it reasonably compatible. Balance is key here.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  59. #159

    Default

    ^Very true. Setbacks, views, sunlight are key. The issue I see is not the towers, but the 6-storey townhome/podium buildings adjacent to the lane. Set that back to 3, or 3.5 storey. To me, to approach a development of such scale and to go in with 6-storey podiums adjacent to 1-storey bungalows is kind of a waste of time for the developer. I mean, scale back at the lane initially to at least 4 and then bump it back up to 6 as you progress away from the lane. Better initial relation to the community, especially in the infill-sensitive Edmonton-bungalow climate.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  60. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD;837851[/QUOTE
    In my opinion the focus shouldn't be on traffic or density but down to overall aesthetics and how this development will contribute to establishing a unique sense of place and identity for the community. I believe that if the developer wants Council to grant them the density rights they need to reciprocate by providing a plan that offers a high quality urban design. No half assed 'slab' tower designs.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  61. #161
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    From the DC2:

    Mid rise apt. Max height 23m. 10m min set back from east lot line
    Type 1 tower: 23m max podium height, 64m max tower height. 1000m2 max tower floor plate. 25m set back from east lot line
    Type 2 tower: 23m max podium height, 78m max tower height. 1200m2 max tower floor plate. 25m set back from east lot line
    Set backs from 90 ave and 85 st to be between 10-20m.
    At least 1 hectare of publicly accessible parks.
    Max of 1200m2 of non-residential uses. Bar, pubs and restaurants limited to 235m2 each.
    All resident parking within underground garages.
    Max of 20 visitor stalls, surface.
    Something like 350 bicycle parking spaces.
    Min 10m separation space between buildings.
    There's a bunch of info on setbacks for the towers going up in height.
    Wind impact study for all towers.
    Sun shadow study for all towers.

    If they don't start building within 10 years, they only get a max building height of 20m and max dwellings of 420.

    50K each to holyrood and strathearn community leagues. 35K to holyrood school, 15K to SEESA.
    Up to 5% of the units can be purchased by the city at 85% of market value or the developer can provide the equivalent value as cash in lieu to the city.
    Min of 3% of the dwellings (over 30) shall have 3 BR or more.
    Developer has to pay for the alley to be widened and paved.

  62. #162
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Really cutting down on the number of visitors stalls shown in the plans then.

    The amount of community contributions seems pretty low for the size of the development.

    Would prefer for far more than 3% to be 3BR.

  63. #163

    Default

    I've always felt that community contributions were extortion anyway, so I'm fine with that. The city will make bank in taxes on this project. If the city deems doling out funds worthwhile, do so under public scrutiny, not by forcing developers to do so under duress.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  64. #164
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    993

    Default

    I think they are usually fair. As much as I want increased density in our neighbourhoods, there are a lot of effects that they can have on a community. Giving them a financial subsidy to the community isn't much, but it can certainly help reduce the impacts, real or perceived.

  65. #165
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I've always felt that community contributions were extortion anyway, so I'm fine with that. The city will make bank in taxes on this project. If the city deems doling out funds worthwhile, do so under public scrutiny, not by forcing developers to do so under duress.
    Extortion? I guess I never considered if they were required or voluntary. I had originally thought they were voluntary and more like a bribe from the developer.

  66. #166
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Depends on the development. Often times they are required in exchange for the rezoning of a site.

  67. #167

    Default

    It's a lot of give and take on each's part.
    City: You want an extra floor and townhomes instead of commercial at-grade that goes against current site zoning? Ok, either you can reduce that floor, give us $80,000 for infrastructure and traffic light upgrades, or X, Y, Z.
    Developer: We will change some ground floor uses to retail and sending you a letter of support from the community / neighbours / local school.
    City: Sign here please.

    It's all you want this, then show us you can walk the walk. My reasoning in Edmonton is that most land is not crazy expensive and therefore developers of these parcels in these areas can scale back here and there, mainly the adjacent sites to the bungalows. It's when the City starts to implement rezoning rules like Passive House or LEED, family housing unit percentages, social housing percentages, rental percentages... that developers on more expensive land with heavy setbacks, angle of light, local-area-improvements, etc. start to feel a squeeze and push back and then just built higher end condos...

    I love this project. I just want a better exterior, articulation, and setbacks.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  68. #168
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    is there a live stream of this available? this was scheduled for this afternoon, but there was talk of it getting pushed back til Wed.
    I did my part and wrote a letter in support of the change, as a resident of holyrood.

  69. #169
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    is there a live stream of this available? this was scheduled for this afternoon, but there was talk of it getting pushed back til Wed.
    I did my part and wrote a letter in support of the change, as a resident of holyrood.
    Sounds like it will be pushed back to the November meeting to allow the city and the applicant to address drainage construction that needs to get started prior to full LRT construction in the area.

  70. #170
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,986

    Default

    ie. post election.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  71. #171

    Default

    The drainage easement discussion is Wednesday 9:30. But the public hearing has been postponed till November. They separated the motion.

  72. #172
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    634

    Default

    Wierd, sounds as though the councilors didn't want to work "OT" to resolve this last night....give me a break...are they that busy not to just finalize this thing here and now? If only these councilors worked in the real world where stuff needs to get decided immediately.....no sense of urgency....

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maclac View Post
    Wierd, sounds as though the councilors didn't want to work "OT" to resolve this last night....give me a break...are they that busy not to just finalize this thing here and now? If only these councilors worked in the real world where stuff needs to get decided immediately.....no sense of urgency....
    I feel lIke this jeopardizes the whole plan, since no water line and sewer connections can happen once LRT construction begins very shortly.

  74. #174
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by maclac View Post
    Wierd, sounds as though the councilors didn't want to work "OT" to resolve this last night....give me a break...are they that busy not to just finalize this thing here and now? If only these councilors worked in the real world where stuff needs to get decided immediately.....no sense of urgency....
    I feel lIke this jeopardizes the whole plan, since no water line and sewer connections can happen once LRT construction begins very shortly.
    They have until March 1 to get the sewer trunk in or whatever it is. That's plenty of time. Its weird that no one brought this up during the LRT planning, but perhaps no one should be surprised.

    If they started the discussion and debate on Holyrood Gardens it probably wouldn't have wrapped up til 3 in the morning. They weren't going to start until 930p and there was something like 40 people registered to talk.

  75. #175

    Default

    Edmonton Journal - Public hearing into Holyrood development delayed until November

    A public hearing into the Holyrood Gardens project scheduled for Monday night at Edmonton City Council has been postponed until after the election and will now take place in November.


    Councillor discussions about the project didn’t start until just before the session was supposed to be adjourned at 9:30 p.m., the last of 29 agenda items to be addressed on Monday’s long public hearing agenda.


    Council had the choice to either come back to the issue late this week — forcing at least one councillor to fly back from meetings in eastern Canada and others to cancel speaking engagements — or postpone a decision to November.


    At issue however was that a delay until November may impact the developer’s ability to get its water and sewer connections done in Holyrood before the LRT comes through, which they say, could jeopardize the whole project.
    Those connections need to cross the tracks, but LRT contractor TransEd is shutting down the right-of-way March 1, Raj Dhunna, of Regency Developments, told council.


    Stantec’s Simon O’Byrne, representing the developer Regency Developments, urged councillors to have the issue resolved this week but with 45 speakers registered to speak for and against the project and time against everyone, city administrators instead proposed a two-part motion.


    Firstly, to postpone the public hearing until council resumed in November and secondly to, in the interim, allow developers to work with city administrators to address the connections issues.


    Three councillors who have voted in favour of other large and tall developments — Ed Gibbons, Bryan Anderson and Michael Oshry — are not running again in the election.


    City staff and the developers now have until 9:30 a.m. Wednesday to come up with a workable solution for both parties.


    Dhunna told council Monday night that if approval for the connection work is pushed back to November they will miss the March 1 deadline adding that if they cannot find a resolution between now and November, “the project as identified in its current form could not be built and would not happen and Regency would not build this project.”


    He said a delay to the start of construction could tack on between $3 to $5 million in additional costs to the project.


    The Holyrood Gardens project would see three towers built along 85 Street, one on each side of 93 Avenue and one just north of the 90 Avenue traffic circle. The rest of the street would be lined with four- to six-storey wood-frame condos with public park space along the alley.


    Councillors Michael Oshry, Mohinder Banga, Tony Caterina and Ed Gibbons voted against part one of the motion while councillors Andrew Knack and Mike Nickel voted against the second.

  76. #176
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,912

    Default

    interesting that this delay appeared on the same day the auditor's report tabled concerns about the city's procedures for their own decision making often compromising value and negatively impacting the final cost.

    which is interesting because it would appear that when the risk of proceeding quickly is borne by the city, time is of the essence for the city. but when that same risk is borne entirely by the private sector and those costs have been assumed with knowledge and mitigated to the point where they are less than the risks of additional delay, time no longer seems to matter.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  77. #177

    Default

    ^Very true.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    interesting that this delay appeared on the same day the auditor's report tabled concerns about the city's procedures for their own decision making often compromising value and negatively impacting the final cost.

    which is interesting because it would appear that when the risk of proceeding quickly is borne by the city, time is of the essence for the city. but when that same risk is borne entirely by the private sector and those costs have been assumed with knowledge and mitigated to the point where they are less than the risks of additional delay, time no longer seems to matter.
    When speaking to council late last night Dhunna claimed he only found out about this urgent need to have a drainage easement in place by March 1 yesterday. Administration also claimed to be unaware of the issue. So pox on both their houses. Incompetence, negligence or bullshizzle? Which is it?

  79. #179

    Default

    Even if the developer was slow, if the city truly gives one crap about walking the TOD walk, they'd be sending a delegation to every one of these groups to help work through the bureaucracy so the city gets the development it's been barking about for a decade.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  80. #180

    Default

    Undoubtedly. But Dhunna from Regency worked himself into quite a lather last night bliovating about what he has built (and what won't get built) when it became apparent the public meeting was getting punted to November. If he's claiming to be Captain Infill than the idea that 2200 doors are going to need a bigger sewer pipe than 150 doors should be readily apparent pretty early on in the application process. Does he really need the city holding his hand on this?

  81. #181
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Undoubtedly. But Dhunna from Regency worked himself into quite a lather last night bliovating about what he has built (and what won't get built) when it became apparent the public meeting was getting punted to November. If he's claiming to be Captain Infill than the idea that 2200 doors are going to need a bigger sewer pipe than 150 doors should be readily apparent pretty early on in the application process. Does he really need the city holding his hand on this?
    Is that really his area though? It's city property and city infrastructure. He's not the one who should be telling the city what they need to do. A development of some sort has been planned or contemplated for this site for almost 20 years. For the city not to have the foresight to think that *maybe* they should plan for something during LRT design speaks more to the city's incompetence than Regency's.

    I wonder if the same thing is an issue with Strathearn heights.

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Undoubtedly. But Dhunna from Regency worked himself into quite a lather last night bliovating about what he has built (and what won't get built) when it became apparent the public meeting was getting punted to November. If he's claiming to be Captain Infill than the idea that 2200 doors are going to need a bigger sewer pipe than 150 doors should be readily apparent pretty early on in the application process. Does he really need the city holding his hand on this?
    Is that really his area though? It's city property and city infrastructure. He's not the one who should be telling the city what they need to do. A development of some sort has been planned or contemplated for this site for almost 20 years. For the city not to have the foresight to think that *maybe* they should plan for something during LRT design speaks more to the city's incompetence than Regency's. I wonder if the same thing is an issue with Strathearn heights.
    Agreed. The City should not be creating more problems for a company that is committed to developing in an area that makes a lot of sense.

  83. #183

    Default

    There were a lot of big planning brains at the council meeting last night - from Stantec, Administration, Regency. None of them appeared to be aware of a longstanding deadline for LRT track placement potentially interfering with basic drainage upgrades for a site long-slated for more intense development. A piece of land for which one of the parties paid $7 million or so. Pardon me if this doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in ANY of them or their ability to manage this project.

  84. #184
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    There were a lot of big planning brains at the council meeting last night - from Stantec, Administration, Regency. None of them appeared to be aware of a longstanding deadline for LRT track placement potentially interfering with basic drainage upgrades for a site long-slated for more intense development. A piece of land for which one of the parties paid $7 million or so. Pardon me if this doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in ANY of them or their ability to manage this project.
    Administration is the only one to blame.

    If I want to do a new infill skinny builds in a mature area (in place of one older house), I don't care if the water supply and sewers are already at capacity. That's epcor's business to deal with. If they need to install a larger supply line or drain service in the alley, they can deal with it. And if the place they would be installing the larger water/sewer line was about to be rendered inaccessible by a new LRT, it would be their issue and problem to address, not mine as a home builder. Just like Regency doesn't have to check to see if there's large enough electrical service in the area, or if the storm sewer system will work, or if the water treatment plant can handle the extra people in this district. For all those things, Regency is the customer and the city/Epcor is the provider. If the city wants to see successful infill TOD and continue on its densification push, they need to be proactive on items like this and say, hey this parcel is future ready on our end, we planned ahead when an opportunity arose in prior to LRT construction. Considering it costs $20K to connect a SFH to water and sewer, I can't imagine what Epcor would charge Regency to connect to their services. If Epcor doesn't have the ability to service this parcel that's entirely on them.

  85. #185

    Default

    This is still more or less an enquiry stage, no?

  86. #186
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    There were a lot of big planning brains at the council meeting last night - from Stantec, Administration, Regency. None of them appeared to be aware of a longstanding deadline for LRT track placement potentially interfering with basic drainage upgrades for a site long-slated for more intense development. A piece of land for which one of the parties paid $7 million or so. Pardon me if this doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in ANY of them or their ability to manage this project.
    Administration is the only one to blame.

    If I want to do a new infill skinny builds in a mature area (in place of one older house), I don't care if the water supply and sewers are already at capacity. That's epcor's business to deal with. If they need to install a larger supply line or drain service in the alley, they can deal with it. And if the place they would be installing the larger water/sewer line was about to be rendered inaccessible by a new LRT, it would be their issue and problem to address, not mine as a home builder. Just like Regency doesn't have to check to see if there's large enough electrical service in the area, or if the storm sewer system will work, or if the water treatment plant can handle the extra people in this district. For all those things, Regency is the customer and the city/Epcor is the provider. If the city wants to see successful infill TOD and continue on its densification push, they need to be proactive on items like this and say, hey this parcel is future ready on our end, we planned ahead when an opportunity arose in prior to LRT construction. Considering it costs $20K to connect a SFH to water and sewer, I can't imagine what Epcor would charge Regency to connect to their services. If Epcor doesn't have the ability to service this parcel that's entirely on them.
    that's absolutely not how it works even if you think that's how it should work. for a fee you can connect to what's there. if what's there is inadequate for your needs, you get to upgrade the capacity of the water/sewer/electrical that services that lot as part of your development cost. it's no different than what developers are expected to build at their cost in new subdivisions. the rationale - right or wrong - is that other taxpayers shouldn't paying for your upgrades. with some utilities, some of that is embedded in the regulatory rate structure.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  87. #187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    that's absolutely not how it works even if you think that's how it should work. for a fee you can connect to what's there. if what's there is inadequate for your needs, you get to upgrade the capacity of the water/sewer/electrical that services that lot as part of your development cost. it's no different than what developers are expected to build at their cost in new subdivisions. the rationale - right or wrong - is that other taxpayers shouldn't paying for your upgrades. with some utilities, some of that is embedded in the regulatory rate structure.
    Thanks for this Ken.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  88. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    This is still more or less an enquiry stage, no?
    No. In fact at 9:30 this morning there will be a decision made on a motion regarding when, what kind and who is paying for the easement. Regency would not accept the motion put forward on the easement on Monday because they wanted to consult with their lawyers. Regency has been granted a great deal of latitude and courtesy by this Council and administration.

  89. #189

    Default

    ^^^Especially in a case like this that is well beyond zoned capacity. A suite or a couple skinnys is a whole different beast than this - even if a whole neighbourhood were redeveloped as skinnys with suites there should be capacity, since it's spread out over the whole neighbourhood, and since the original infrastructure was build long before low-flow fixtures were a thing.


    Here they're talking about adding the equivalent of a whole neighbourhood but it's all serviced by one set of utilities down a few block on ones street - it's all going into a single point that could be overwhelmed.

    But the big reason that the cost should be borne by the developer is that the costly civil infrastructure upgrades in the street are not always the only option - for instance, the developer could install a surge tank designed to limit the maximum flow to below what the infrastructure can handle.
    If different people have to pay depending on which solution is chosen then there is no incentive to choose the most efficient option, the incentive is to choose the option that the other party pays for.
    There can only be one.

  90. #190
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    that's absolutely not how it works even if you think that's how it should work. for a fee you can connect to what's there. if what's there is inadequate for your needs, you get to upgrade the capacity of the water/sewer/electrical that services that lot as part of your development cost. it's no different than what developers are expected to build at their cost in new subdivisions. the rationale - right or wrong - is that other taxpayers shouldn't paying for your upgrades. with some utilities, some of that is embedded in the regulatory rate structure.
    We're sort of arguing the same thing Ken. We're not talking about who should pay for it. I never said Regency wouldn't pay for it. We're talking about who should be designing it, responsible for building it and spec'ing it out. And who should've thought about it.
    The DC2 proposal for this has been in the works for some time. Do you think someone in the city or drainage should have put two and two together and said, hey this might be a problem we have LRT construction planned for the area? Is infrastructure capacity checks or constraints not part of the internal process? Thankfully, someone did even though it was literally at the 11th hour.

    Genuine question - who does traffic studies on developments like this? The city transportation group or Stantec?

  91. #191

    Default

    Is this still in a Preliminary Rezoning Application stage for a Large Site Redevelopment? I'm just curious at which stage in the Application Stage they are at?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  92. #192
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    that's absolutely not how it works even if you think that's how it should work. for a fee you can connect to what's there. if what's there is inadequate for your needs, you get to upgrade the capacity of the water/sewer/electrical that services that lot as part of your development cost. it's no different than what developers are expected to build at their cost in new subdivisions. the rationale - right or wrong - is that other taxpayers shouldn't paying for your upgrades. with some utilities, some of that is embedded in the regulatory rate structure.
    We're sort of arguing the same thing Ken. We're not talking about who should pay for it. I never said Regency wouldn't pay for it. We're talking about who should be designing it, responsible for building it and spec'ing it out. And who should've thought about it.
    The DC2 proposal for this has been in the works for some time. Do you think someone in the city or drainage should have put two and two together and said, hey this might be a problem we have LRT construction planned for the area? Is infrastructure capacity checks or constraints not part of the internal process? Thankfully, someone did even though it was literally at the 11th hour.

    Genuine question - who does traffic studies on developments like this? The city transportation group or Stantec?
    both parties "should've thought about it". from my perspective, determining existing service capacity and options should have been part of the developer's and the developer's consultant's due diligence quite early in the process. it should also have been identified in the very early stages by the city's earliest departmental circulation/review.

    in regard to traffic studies, those are done by the developer and should probably be done to some level whether or not requested by the city. if requested by the city, they need to be accepted by the city even though the city doesn't do them. agreement will need to be reached on everything from ingress/egress points to modal splits (which can change over time) to existing and future network capacities. one of the things that might be less straight-forward here is the impact of lrt on these things and who would be responsible for generating some of the data sets to be use. when it comes to traffic, stantec may or may not be the consultant selected by the consultant to do the traffic impact assessment even though they were the lead consultant in dealing with the city although their transit group is clearly capable of fulfilling that role.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  93. #193

    Default

    I am sure that on the TV News last night they said Holyrood Gardens was 95% occupied. The place is deplorable. Whoever runs the complex should be ashamed of it. The sooner it's down the better.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  94. #194

    Default

    While blustering at Council Monday night Dhunna referred to Holyrood Gardens (which he owns and is responsible for) as "derelict". Dilapidated undoubtedly but they are far from abandoned. As you note Gemini they are in actual fact fully rented. Rented by friends of mine, schoolmates of my children, seniors who attend many of the programs at SEESA, kids who attend GreenShack, budget constrained families who choose to live centrally etc. In other words a diverse cross section of citizens which I for one want to see represented/respected in any development proposal for the site.

  95. #195
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,882

    Default

    Yeah, Top_Dawg hears ya aj.

    Top_Dawg knows a recent retiree who moved there from Riverside Towers on east Jasper about ten years ago.

    He can certainly afford better but he wouldn't move anywhere else.

    Loves the location and all the room he has in his townhouse even if it does look run down from the outside.



    To each his own.

  96. #196
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    derelict and dilapidated mean the same thing. Dilapidated refers to a building, while derelict can refer to other things as well. His statement was correct.

    Getting kicked out of rental properties happens all the time due to renovations, owners moving back in, or tear down and redevelopment. Tis a fact of life with renting. As long as lots of advance notice is given, laws are not broken wrt leases and notices, and it's done respectfully, that's all you can really ask for. From the time people move out to the time the low rent units might be available will probably be close to 3 years.

  97. #197

    Default

    I don't go by Holyrood Gardens to often but each time I do it looks more and more decrepit each time I do. It has been like this for at least 5 years. Peeling paint, broken steps, a kind of poverty stricken look. The owners gave up on that place long before the tenants did. The location of the place is great. The people living there deserved better maintenance from the owners than what they got. Looks like a big complex owned by a slum landlord.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  98. #198

    Default

    Seems to be poor, or strategic, due diligence on someone's part. In preliminary stages, before a formal rezoning application, it's in the best interest of the developer, their representative, or one of their consultants to calculate whether utility upgrades and connections are needed not only from a pro forma basis, but a strategic / timeline / cost perspective on developing the site - especially with this increase in density. Usually occurring before public feedback or notification of the actual development and scale.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  99. #199

    Default

    If the interior is the same as maybe 10 years ago then it's not that bad - average for its age. But the outside has been repainted several times in the last 15 years, and never seems to help much. They don't want to sink a lot of money into this due to years of figuring out an inevitable rezoning plan.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  100. #200

    Default

    It seems the 'management' team at Holyrood have been running it on a shoestring budget for years. Once the heard it was being demolished for the LRT going through it was probably the best reason for them to use it as an excuse to do nothing to the place. If the complex has had continually near full capacity they will be taking in a lot of money but not returning it to the complex. People who pay good money to rent deserve better.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 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
  •