Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 301

Thread: Holyrood Gardens | Residential | Proposed

  1. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    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.
    Given that we have a dedicated Derelict Building Team in Edmonton, I think the hair-splitting is entirely warranted.

    https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_...buildings.aspx
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  2. #202
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    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.
    When Westcorp (the prev owner) made a proposal for the site 20 years ago, the community ruthlessly opposed it. Right or wrong, Westcorp said f-it we're not doing sht with this property anymore, let it rot.

  3. #203
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    To be clear, Westcorp owned the property up until approx. 2 years ago, when the Dhunna's/Regency purchased it.

  4. #204

    Default

    What was the result of the 9:30 decision? Kick the can yet again?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  5. #205

    Default

    Quite the opposite. An MOU had been struck in the intervening hours between Monday night and Wed. morning regarding payment and scheduling of the work. Of course Council had to be asked to table the MOU along with the motion so it could become public - not their first instinct apparently.

    Mr. Dhunna appeared quite pleased with the outcome as the agreement contractually formalizes an arrangement between the city and Regency in these early stages. Momentum builds.

    And it was so thoughtful of city manager Linda Cochrane to reassure poor Mr. Dhunna with an effusive and apologetic hug prior to the start of the meeting - being so put out by the process and all.

  6. #206
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Here's the news release:

    City Signs Memorandum of Understanding with
    Regency Developments

    http://myemail.constantcontact.com/N...id=2gXqdNE8Emw
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  7. #207
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Quite the opposite. An MOU had been struck in the intervening hours between Monday night and Wed. morning regarding payment and scheduling of the work. Of course Council had to be asked to table the MOU along with the motion so it could become public - not their first instinct apparently.

    Mr. Dhunna appeared quite pleased with the outcome as the agreement contractually formalizes an arrangement between the city and Regency in these early stages. Momentum builds.

    And it was so thoughtful of city manager Linda Cochrane to reassure poor Mr. Dhunna with an effusive and apologetic hug prior to the start of the meeting - being so put out by the process and all.
    the more you watch and work with this lady - and some of us have been doing that for a long time - the more you have to like and respect her for the kind of person she is as well for the job she does well.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #208

    Default

    I'm sure she's a wonderful, respectable woman. Exceedingly kind to animals and children alike.

  9. #209
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,428

    Default

    Hugging ruthless developers - what is this City coming to. I bet Ken got his share of hugs to.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Quite the opposite. An MOU had been struck in the intervening hours between Monday night and Wed. morning regarding payment and scheduling of the work. Of course Council had to be asked to table the MOU along with the motion so it could become public - not their first instinct apparently.

    Mr. Dhunna appeared quite pleased with the outcome as the agreement contractually formalizes an arrangement between the city and Regency in these early stages. Momentum builds.

    And it was so thoughtful of city manager Linda Cochrane to reassure poor Mr. Dhunna with an effusive and apologetic hug prior to the start of the meeting - being so put out by the process and all.
    the more you watch and work with this lady - and some of us have been doing that for a long time - the more you have to like and respect her for the kind of person she is as well for the job she does well.
    Exactly. Vinegar vs honey argument. I may not be as seasoned as some on here, but I've learned to make it a point in my regular interactions with clients to try and be the best part of their day. Sunshine, rainbows, smiles. I'm not much for deep personal relationships so I don't make phony small talk about their kids or other crap I don't care about, but I genuinely try to bring an exceedingly positive vibe to every interaction. It's rewarded me well. Appears it's done her no harm either.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  11. #211
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    And it was so thoughtful of city manager Linda Cochrane to reassure poor Mr. Dhunna with an effusive and apologetic hug prior to the start of the meeting - being so put out by the process and all.


    Top_Dawg thinks that's just awkward and....creepy.





    At least she didn't donald him.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    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.
    When Westcorp (the prev owner) made a proposal for the site 20 years ago, the community ruthlessly opposed it. Right or wrong, Westcorp said f-it we're not doing sht with this property anymore, let it rot.
    Well Westcorp certainly lived up to their threat then the new owners just got stuck with the problem. Regency probably (and rightly) thought what's the point of doing anything with this complex when it is coming down anyway.
    I have conversed with the worst kind of hectoring, bully pulpit smart-a**e*; dripping with virtuous self-aggrandizing sanctimony.................. and that's just on this forum.

  13. #213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    At least she didn't donald him.
    Given the right conditions she could've donaled him like Laura Ingalls fetchin' the morning washing up water. What is with the incredibly tight and slightly too short dress pants? They don't look comfortable at all.

  14. #214

    Default

    Ben Henderson's deferral motion on the Holyrood Gardens Development passed 8 to 5. https://twitter.com/estolte/status/935314829287419904

    Iveson said all the right things - about time. Moe Banga should resign. Most interestingly, Walters did not vote in favour of the deferral - his reasons were sound (and he's frankly right, very little is going to change) but it was surprising nonetheless.

  15. #215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Ben Henderson's deferral motion on the Holyrood Gardens Development passed 8 to 5. https://twitter.com/estolte/status/935314829287419904

    Iveson said all the right things - about time. Moe Banga should resign. Most interestingly, Walters did not vote in favour of the deferral - his reasons were sound (and he's frankly right, very little is going to change) but it was surprising nonetheless.
    Good. There's no chance it will ever be built now IMO. High rises should be downtown only, not residential areas, even if it would be by the LRT.

  16. #216

    Default

    That is most definitely not the opinion of council or the majority of surrounding residents. Don't kid yourself, something is getting built and it will likely greatly resemble the proposal on the table at present. It was only a 90 day deferral.

    The central problem expressed as a headline: Right Location, Wrong Developer

  17. #217
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Ben Henderson's deferral motion on the Holyrood Gardens Development passed 8 to 5. https://twitter.com/estolte/status/935314829287419904

    Iveson said all the right things - about time. Moe Banga should resign. Most interestingly, Walters did not vote in favour of the deferral - his reasons were sound (and he's frankly right, very little is going to change) but it was surprising nonetheless.
    Rational for the deferral? Not particularly impressed with that unless there is something I am missing here.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  18. #218

    Default

    Blatant contravention of both TOD guidelines and large infill development guidelines in several areas. The deferral specifically references sun shade angle, traffic study, floor plate and moving the proposal to EDC. There were also major concerns about process but of course that is a broader policy discussion. Iveson shared some of those concerns and worries about precedent for other developments.

  19. #219
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    High rises should be downtown only, not residential areas
    Why?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  20. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    High rises should be downtown only, not residential areas
    Why?
    As council told the developer, towers just don't fit between one and two story homes.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-drawing-board

  21. #221

    Default

    ^It seems to do just fine in virtually every other large city in North America...

  22. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    ^It seems to do just fine in virtually every other large city in North America...
    Edmonton city council doesn't want towers though, unless they're downtown. I think it has to do with the fact that people in Edmonton view those in towers as poor which will lead to more congestion and crime. Unlike other cities where housing is more expensive and living in a tower is not frowned upon by residents.

  23. #223
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    ^It seems to do just fine in virtually every other large city in North America...
    Edmonton city council doesn't want towers though, unless they're downtown. I think it has to do with the fact that people in Edmonton view those in towers as poor which will lead to more congestion and crime. Unlike other cities where housing is more expensive and living in a tower is not frowned upon by residents.
    Why was Strathearn a mere 3 blocks away approved then?
    This is a really inaccurate view of both what Council wants and what the view regarding high rise buildings are. The issue is that the geometry of the property does not allow for the set backs required by the City guidelines when introducing taller buildings.
    Ironically, one of the reasons the LRT was routed over to 85th street was to support the redevelopment of this property as a higher density TOD. This property actually attracted a developer that wanted to move ahead in a timely fashion, opposite of Nearctic as Strathearn who have gone stale over the past 10 years, and now they put this back into the blender and the TOD concept is at risk IMO. Hopefully, Regency and the City can find a workable solution that isn't a mess of generic 4 story stick frame boxes.

    Other fun counter facts to what you asserted:
    There has been a high-rise operating in Bonnie Doon that will be within 2 blocks of the south end of this development for over 30 years.
    There has been a mid-rise operating in Strathearn for almost 35 years.
    Last edited by DanC; 28-11-2017 at 09:55 AM.

  24. #224
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    ^It seems to do just fine in virtually every other large city in North America...
    And Oliver, Grandin, Bonnie Doon, Glenora, Windsor Park, Ambleside, Westmount...

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    High rises should be downtown only, not residential areas
    Why?
    As council told the developer, towers just don't fit between one and two story homes.


    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-drawing-board
    Do you even live here??? Perhaps you should go look at google earth and see how many other towers are near or next to one and two story homes ALL OVER EDMONTON

  26. #226
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    ^It seems to do just fine in virtually every other large city in North America...
    Edmonton city council doesn't want towers though, unless they're downtown. I think it has to do with the fact that people in Edmonton view those in towers as poor which will lead to more congestion and crime. Unlike other cities where housing is more expensive and living in a tower is not frowned upon by residents.

    Thanks for the chuckle......

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    High rises should be downtown only, not residential areas
    Why?
    As council told the developer, towers just don't fit between one and two story homes.


    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-drawing-board
    Do you even live here??? Perhaps you should go look at google earth and see how many other towers are near or next to one and two story homes ALL OVER EDMONTON
    Then why didid council shoot down this Regency development?

  28. #228
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Then why didid council shoot down this Regency development?
    They didn't shoot it down. They just said bring us some more studies and we'll look at it again in 3 months. Which is darn fast in city speed.

    The studies will highlight a few issues, the developer will make small tweaks, council will look pleased that they've satisfied resident concerns and it will get approved.

    It could get approved tomorrow for all I care. All I want is for the entire development to fall under EDC.
    I live in Holyrood.

  29. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Then why didid council shoot down this Regency development?
    They didn't shoot it down. They just said bring us some more studies and we'll look at it again in 3 months. Which is darn fast in city speed.

    The studies will highlight a few issues, the developer will make small tweaks, council will look pleased that they've satisfied resident concerns and it will get approved.

    It could get approved tomorrow for all I care. All I want is for the entire development to fall under EDC.
    I live in Holyrood.
    We'll see if Regency comes back or not. I've heard they're ******.

  30. #230
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    We'll see if Regency comes back or not. I've heard they're ******.
    That's what happened to the last developer. They got frustrated from the nimbyism and let the property rot for a decade or two.
    I can't see Regency doing that. I just hope we don't get 5 blocks full of this:
    http://121westcondos.ca/

  31. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    ^It seems to do just fine in virtually every other large city in North America...
    Edmonton city council doesn't want towers though, unless they're downtown. I think it has to do with the fact that people in Edmonton view those in towers as poor which will lead to more congestion and crime. Unlike other cities where housing is more expensive and living in a tower is not frowned upon by residents.
    I didn't know that's what all Edmontonians thought...thanks for speaking for us!

  32. #232

    Default

    Yes, developers walk away from investments of millions of dollars because they're "frustrated". I didn't realize you were such an optimist nobleea - to think you have such faith in the power of a small, dedicated group of citizens to "frustrate" to the point that development firms would forgo making money.

    You might be on one side or the other of the vote to defer but if a 90 day delay is make or break on a project of this magnitude forces other than "nimbyism" are in play.

  33. #233
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    We'll see if Regency comes back or not. I've heard they're ******.
    It happens to all of us at times, but with all due respect, you sir do not know what you are talking about.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  34. #234

    Default

    Isn't the referral simply on these grounds: "The group voted 8-5 on a referral motion to redesign the project, forcing it to comply with existing city guidelines on the width of the towers and recommended transitions between tall buildings and existing low-density neighbourhoods."?
    Last edited by GenWhy?; 28-11-2017 at 02:44 PM.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  35. #235

    Default

    The City simply needs a better process prior to going to council. This should all be internally done by staff, then a pre-application open house with the community, then back to staff with changes, then to EDC, then to Council for a vote.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  36. #236
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Yes, developers walk away from investments of millions of dollars because they're "frustrated". I didn't realize you were such an optimist nobleea - to think you have such faith in the power of a small, dedicated group of citizens to "frustrate" to the point that development firms would forgo making money.

    You might be on one side or the other of the vote to defer but if a 90 day delay is make or break on a project of this magnitude forces other than "nimbyism" are in play.
    Westcorp made money just sitting on the property. They wanted to make more and develop it, but the community put up roadblocks. So they let it rot, or 'deferred maintenance' and minimized capital upgrades. Maybe we dodged a bullet there given the abortion they put up in Malmo recently. Even though they had a 'GNA' Good Neighbour Agreement with the neighbourhood.

    Not sure what you're talking about on the 90day defer. It's not a make or break. If the developer is forced to drop heights, then we get communist low rise blocks for 5 blocks and that benefits no-one.

  37. #237

    Default

    Towers overshadowing houses are majestic examples of capitalism made real, while low-rises that fit with the existing neighbourhood are dirty communists.

    Hilarious.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #238

    Default

    From Elise Stolte: '@doniveson said the fact Holyrood had to hire own expert to get a detailed sun/shadow study says a lot. “Perhaps this application is a great design but it’s really hard to tell from the level of detail.”'

    Great point. Shocking to hear that a Regency project is poorly designed.

    I also don't think it's absurd for someone in a house not to want a 26 storey tower next door. The few images in the Journal story about this suggest that they could easily achieve workable densities with mid-rise buildings.

  39. #239
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Towers overshadowing houses are majestic examples of capitalism made real, while low-rises that fit with the existing neighbourhood are dirty communists.

    Hilarious.
    Not sure where the capitalist vs communist part came from. You're reaching.

    I would love to see smaller floorplates (especially the southermost tower) and have them go higher.

  40. #240
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    I also don't think it's absurd for someone in a house not to want a 26 storey tower next door. The few images in the Journal story about this suggest that they could easily achieve workable densities with mid-rise buildings.
    But then it's going to be 'it's too many people'. Then 'but the traffic and parking'.

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    But then it's going to be 'it's too many people'. Then 'but the traffic and parking'.
    Oh look, the slippery slope fallacy.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  42. #242
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    But then it's going to be 'it's too many people'. Then 'but the traffic and parking'.
    Oh look, the slippery slope fallacy.
    I went to every open house. Those were the top comments on those little sticky notes that nobody records but passes as 'community input'.
    The development committee sent around flyers with images they staged showing what the parking and traffic backup would be like. I think it was an 8 car lineup at one of the intersections.

  43. #243

    Default

    Central neighbourhood. Major bus routes. Proximity to major shopping centre. LRT station adjacent. On an arterial road. Schools with falling enrollment. Equals some towers akin to the one at the traffic circle are too much people and traffic for the design of the neighbourhood and streets. This level of density has to be appropriate somewhere, and everyone needs to acknowledge its place in Edmonton and the structures in Policy and Zoning and Staff/Council to make that a reality going forward.

    The design isn't perfect (20+ is huge adjacent to SF homes), but the argument about traffic is always interesting.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    From Elise Stolte: '@doniveson said the fact Holyrood had to hire own expert to get a detailed sun/shadow study says a lot. “Perhaps this application is a great design but it’s really hard to tell from the level of detail.”'

    Great point. Shocking to hear that a Regency project is poorly designed.

    I also don't think it's absurd for someone in a house not to want a 26 storey tower next door. The few images in the Journal story about this suggest that they could easily achieve workable densities with mid-rise buildings.
    It's disturbing how mismanaged this has been by Regency. And to the person who thinks this is a good place for density, I don't. I live near Holyrood, and I'm worried about the potential congestion of having towers. I will never support them. Maybe five or ten stories max. Certainly not 20+ like Regency wants.

  45. #245
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    It's disturbing how mismanaged this has been by Regency. And to the person who thinks this is a good place for density, I don't. I live near Holyrood, and I'm worried about the potential congestion of having towers. I will never support them. Maybe five or ten stories max. Certainly not 20+ like Regency wants.
    1200 people generally cause the same amount of congestion whether they're in towers or a bunch of mid rises.

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    It's disturbing how mismanaged this has been by Regency. And to the person who thinks this is a good place for density, I don't. I live near Holyrood, and I'm worried about the potential congestion of having towers. I will never support them. Maybe five or ten stories max. Certainly not 20+ like Regency wants.
    1200 people generally cause the same amount of congestion whether they're in towers or a bunch of mid rises.
    Maybe. I don't know. I'm curious about how Regency will scale it back.

  47. #247
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Edmonton city council doesn't want towers though, unless they're downtown.
    Don't tell that to people in Strathcona (Whyte Ave). Two for sure, maybe three (?) towers have recently been approved by the city.

    There are some towers out Jasper Place way, a couple in Windermere, Century Park area.

    So, true not a lot spread out all over the city, but it's not like a huge pyramid (a structure that Edmonton is in love with).
    ... gobsmacked

  48. #248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ...Schools with falling enrollment. ...
    That's not true. Holyrood elementary has seen a steady increase in enrolment over the last five years. Gabrielle Roy School was experiencing such growth they had to split into two, take over a vacated catholic elementary and create Michaelle Jean for 9 - 12.

  49. #249
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ...Schools with falling enrollment. ...
    That's not true. Holyrood elementary has seen a steady increase in enrolment over the last five years. Gabrielle Roy School was experiencing such growth they had to split into two, take over a vacated catholic elementary and create Michaelle Jean for 9 - 12.
    Agreed. The schools in the area are quite healthy now. Holyrood is the only french immersion (public) elementary in the east. There's lots of kids in the area.

  50. #250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ...Schools with falling enrollment. ...
    That's not true. Holyrood elementary has seen a steady increase in enrolment over the last five years. Gabrielle Roy School was experiencing such growth they had to split into two, take over a vacated catholic elementary and create Michaelle Jean for 9 - 12.
    Agreed many schools in the area have had to manage themselves as more specialized to entice more students from other parts of town. the past 7 years has made some changes in the area from when I lived there. Avonmore faced great challenges when it's Junior High program was shut down, almost faced closure, and hosted Nellie McClung Jr. High. The Catholic Schools in the area combining.

    If density for this lot means 3-4 structures that are roughly 14-storeys tall, built over a decade or something... will that really be an immense difference from 2-3 18 or 20-storey buildings? I agree setbacks need work and traffic studies need to comply, but a range of 8-14 is acceptable for the area, as a former resident of Bonnie Doon. The reality is where do we initiate new zoning for mature neighbourhood density. What targets do we set and foresee/plan for. What are the consequences of more dense or less dense plans over 20-40 years?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  51. #251

    Default

    Regency was asking for/planning on a 10 year build out for the current proposal anyway. The are seeking flexibility so the development can "respond to market conditions".

    Listen, I didn't write the TOD/large infill development guidelines. If Regency can't make it work within the existing guidelines (which I assume were written with some consideration for the very concerns the neighbourhood is raising) than perhaps they need to get out of the way and let someone who knows how to build TOD have at it. Regency's margins of profitability are not my concern. All of this fealty towards developers in Edmonton has led to the very mediocrity many around here decry.

    Is Edmonton a growing, thriving city where vast PUBLIC investments in PUBLIC infrastructure should be respected with high-quality private developments intended to improve quality of life for all citizens? OR, is Edmonton a city so desperate for private investment we accept the first thing put on the table regardless of whether or not it meets stated policy goals, and follows established guidelines?

  52. #252

    Default

    The mattyw wants commieblocks instead of highrises. In North America, this kind of apartment building degrades into slums more often than not. Be careful of what you wish for...

    le luth : gennevilliers by NiCoLaS OrAn, on Flickr
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  53. #253
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    From Elise Stolte: '@doniveson said the fact Holyrood had to hire own expert to get a detailed sun/shadow study says a lot. “Perhaps this application is a great design but it’s really hard to tell from the level of detail.”'

    Great point. Shocking to hear that a Regency project is poorly designed.

    I also don't think it's absurd for someone in a house not to want a 26 storey tower next door. The few images in the Journal story about this suggest that they could easily achieve workable densities with mid-rise buildings.
    Isn't the tallest tower 22 storeys, not 26? And its in the corner of the development adjacent to the traffic circle?

    Surprised about your comment that Regency projects are poorly designed. The Pearl, Quest and Edgewater developments strike me as among the better designed towers in our city. And unlike some developers, Regency has a decent track record of actually delivering on their projects and getting them built.

  54. #254

    Default

    A walk around Edgewater and the shortcomings quickly become apparent. There is a nice little corner store in one of the bays finally.

    And what is the obsession with "green spaces"? The city planning department seems similarly concerned that we have swaths of grass surrounding these kinds of developments. As if anyone, including residents, ever use them for anything other than shortcuts to get somewhere else. In the case of Holyrood Gardens none of the principals did any kind of suitable audit of green spaces within short walking distance of the proposal.

  55. #255

    Default

    Sounds like Regency might pull out. They have to start again consulting with the community, and I for one know no one in the community that will agree to more density. I would be pretty happy if they cancelled the project. I'm not against development, but not in this neighbourhood. Maybe a series of lower cost low-rise apartment's on that block might be better here than towers that create density and shade issues.

    "Selling off the Holyrood lands may be Dhunna’s next step."

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...developer-says

  56. #256

  57. #257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    NIMBY.
    Yup, and I'm proud that standing up for my community looks like it'should going to work.

  58. #258

    Default

    "My wishes over the health of the city overall" is always a great thing to be proud of.

  59. #259

    Default

    What a mess by council here.

  60. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    What a mess by council here.
    Council's just listening to residents and representing their wishes. Which is exactly what their job is.

  61. #261

    Default

    I look at the plans that they've issued so far and I see issues that should be fixed, mostly in the site plan and edges, along with potentially pedestrian access through the site. Neither of their proposed massing models are ideal, somewhere between the two should be better.

    Oddly, that's not what I see for neighbourhood complaints. Instead it's mostly "density!" or "height!" or "I'm not against development but not at this site".
    There can only be one.

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    What a mess by council here.
    Council's just listening to residents and representing their wishes. Which is exactly what their job is.
    Regency has already gone through this exercise with administration. Why would another developer want to take on the risk if this is what can be expected to occur.

  63. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    What a mess by council here.
    Council's just listening to residents and representing their wishes. Which is exactly what their job is.
    Council should be doing what's best for the city overall... and not bending to small minority groups. Old neighbourhoods need better land use and certainly this area needs a good kick in the pants. Why should the rest of the city pick up density, but not holyrood?

  64. #264
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    "One possibility is that a series of 13 walk-ups could be built there. That might please those in the community opposed to the taller towers, but perhaps not the neighbours next door who will then be right up against walls instead of parks.

    Of course, a stubby development of walk-ups with no green space doesn’t sound like top urban design. It sounds like what happens when city council doesn’t have clear rules and doesn’t trust architects, urban designers, developers and its own experts to get it right."

    This is the most likely outcome. Sad, as no one wins that way.
    There were many in the neighbourhood who were for the development and indicated as much to council, but it's always the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
    It bothered me that the Holyrood Development Committee was supposed to be a non-partisan place where information could be shared, and was not supposed to take sides. They definitely did and sent out template forms that people could fill in the blanks and send to council to register their disapproval of the plans. I asked for a template letter for people who might support the development, but oddly they didn't have one. I asked earlier on if there was room on the committee for someone who was in favour of development in general. No answer.

  65. #265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    "One possibility is that a series of 13 walk-ups could be built there. That might please those in the community opposed to the taller towers, but perhaps not the neighbours next door who will then be right up against walls instead of parks.

    Of course, a stubby development of walk-ups with no green space doesn’t sound like top urban design. It sounds like what happens when city council doesn’t have clear rules and doesn’t trust architects, urban designers, developers and its own experts to get it right."

    This is the most likely outcome. Sad, as no one wins that way.
    There were many in the neighbourhood who were for the development and indicated as much to council, but it's always the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
    It bothered me that the Holyrood Development Committee was supposed to be a non-partisan place where information could be shared, and was not supposed to take sides. They definitely did and sent out template forms that people could fill in the blanks and send to council to register their disapproval of the plans. I asked for a template letter for people who might support the development, but oddly they didn't have one. I asked earlier on if there was room on the committee for someone who was in favour of development in general. No answer.
    I mean I guess that's better than towers? But it would be sooo ugly.

  66. #266

    Default

    I'm not against development, but not in this neighbourhood.
    That's pretty classic NIMBY.

    Yes if I lived immediately adjacent myself, I'd be opposed (who wouldn't), but I have no idea why the rest of the community is so against it.
    I think density here is great for the community. You're going to have new retail within walking distances, more people in the community, more eyes on the street.
    Best of all, gets rid of those crumbling rowhouses with gravel parking lots.

    I don't know why the number one issue for everyone is traffic. If you don't want traffic, live on an acreage. You chose to live in a city. There's going to be traffic.

    This being a TOD orientated development will make use of central bus routes and the LRT. If you put this development in say Gainer industrial, there's your traffic because all of a sudden, you have 1500 cars trying to get downtown and taking 85street and connor's road.

  67. #267

    Default

    OMG towers.

    *runs in NIMBY fear*

    won't they think of the children?!

  68. #268

    Default

    Actually, it looks like the city sending it back to for design improvement was fairly reasonable.
    From Daveography on Skyrisecities:

    "Motion to refer to proposal back to the developer and admin for rework passed 8-5. The motion instructs them to fix the sightlines and stepbacks with the towers to conform to the Large Site Infill Guidelines, to fix the parkade/pedestrian interfaces on 93 Ave., and to submit the proposal to EDC for review."

    That doesn't sound like wholesale rejection, or a NIMBY response, more like due diligence.
    There can only be one.

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Actually, it looks like the city sending it back to for design improvement was fairly reasonable.
    From Daveography on Skyrisecities:

    "Motion to refer to proposal back to the developer and admin for rework passed 8-5. The motion instructs them to fix the sightlines and stepbacks with the towers to conform to the Large Site Infill Guidelines, to fix the parkade/pedestrian interfaces on 93 Ave., and to submit the proposal to EDC for review."

    That doesn't sound like wholesale rejection, or a NIMBY response, more like due diligence.
    Definitely not unreasonable, there are a lot are minor architectural and urban design tweaks that can be made to make this great. Setbacks will be key in this area. This will be good to see the actual usefulness of the City large site guidelines and to see if Staff and Council can work on large site infill in a TOD.

    Open Space: It's my understanding that townhomes open up to much of the park space?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    The central problem expressed as a headline: Right Location, Wrong Developer
    Agreed. I'm glad city council fcked Regency over. That company needs to know how putting money into a project and then getting bent over feels like.

  71. #271
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    I'm not familiar with the construction of the buildings in the existing Holyrood apartments but a lot of buildings of that era and type were concrete block and very solid.
    If that's the case, why not redo the windows, and exteriors, do a renovation and put them into service as housing for the "hard to house".
    It would also be an ideal location for a safe injection site. It's away from, but close to downtown and will have excellent LRT connections.
    It's a win all around, it would be a "shovel ready" project for the new federal housing initiative, move some of the social issues away from downtown, and the neighbors wouldn't have to worry about shadows from high rises.

  72. #272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Actually, it looks like the city sending it back to for design improvement was fairly reasonable.
    From Daveography on Skyrisecities:

    "Motion to refer to proposal back to the developer and admin for rework passed 8-5. The motion instructs them to fix the sightlines and stepbacks with the towers to conform to the Large Site Infill Guidelines, to fix the parkade/pedestrian interfaces on 93 Ave., and to submit the proposal to EDC for review."

    That doesn't sound like wholesale rejection, or a NIMBY response, more like due diligence.
    Definitely not unreasonable, there are a lot are minor architectural and urban design tweaks that can be made to make this great. Setbacks will be key in this area. This will be good to see the actual usefulness of the City large site guidelines and to see if Staff and Council can work on large site infill in a TOD.

    Open Space: It's my understanding that townhomes open up to much of the park space?
    It's an abnormal site for the large site guidelines since it's so narrow. The setbacks from the west are probably the issue, they should chop the east end of the mid-rise down to 4 stories and make up some of the density on the west side where there's a long distance from their nearest neighbour.
    There can only be one.

  73. #273
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    I'm not familiar with the construction of the buildings in the existing Holyrood apartments but a lot of buildings of that era and type were concrete block and very solid.
    If that's the case, why not redo the windows, and exteriors, do a renovation and put them into service as housing for the "hard to house".
    It would also be an ideal location for a safe injection site. It's away from, but close to downtown and will have excellent LRT connections.
    It's a win all around, it would be a "shovel ready" project for the new federal housing initiative, move some of the social issues away from downtown, and the neighbors wouldn't have to worry about shadows from high rises.
    except it's not about the density or even the height, it's about the additional traffic remember?

    and this would just trade one kind of traffic for another that's not likely to be any more welcome.

    i also pretty sure these ones are all just wood frame and in pretty poor to terrible condition. the cost of the land plus the cost of making the units habitable long-term even for the "hard to house" would likely make them much more expensive than it would be to develop the same number of units on a site elsewhere that could provide at a reasonable density. as demonstrated by what the edmonton homeless commission is already managing to do within their portfolio on sites in other neighborhoods outside of the core, they could make much better use of the same money that would be required to try and replicate those units here.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  74. #274
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    I think the icing on the cake here is that the LRT incurred additional cost and road disruptions to service this site DIRECTLY and now there is a real possibility that instead of the LRT opening in parallel with a TOD style development that this project goes stale, just like the Strathearn rejuvenation, the other reason the LRT was routed over to 85st.

    It's been about 20 years those Holyrood apartments have needed to be torn down and the community is working hard to make sure they never are.

  75. #275

    Default

    You guys are all talking out of your backsides. In fact, a safe injection site was raised by the community as a possibility for this proposal. As was seniors housing, below market housing, hard to house residences. All broad policy concerns for the city none of which are even close to being met by this proposal. Everyone (outside of a few cranks) sees the potential in this site.
    The city: potential to finally have a TOD somewhere other than on paper
    The developer: potential for vast profit on the back of large public investment
    The neighbourhood: potential for an invigorated community with greater retail options, vibrancy etc.

    And BTW, there are legit concerns regarding traffic increase and flow. Have a little walk around some day and take a look at the intersections and alleyways making up the bulk of egress. Now imagine a train running through it. Magical thinking at its worst. Oh, I forgot, in the most autocentric city in NA all residents will suddenly decide to take the train. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh riiiiiiiight!

  76. #276
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    You guys are all talking out of your backsides. In fact, a safe injection site was raised by the community as a possibility for this proposal. As was seniors housing, below market housing, hard to house residences. All broad policy concerns for the city none of which are even close to being met by this proposal. Everyone (outside of a few cranks) sees the potential in this site.
    The city: potential to finally have a TOD somewhere other than on paper
    The developer: potential for vast profit on the back of large public investment
    The neighbourhood: potential for an invigorated community with greater retail options, vibrancy etc.

    And BTW, there are legit concerns regarding traffic increase and flow. Have a little walk around some day and take a look at the intersections and alleyways making up the bulk of egress. Now imagine a train running through it. Magical thinking at its worst. Oh, I forgot, in the most autocentric city in NA all residents will suddenly decide to take the train. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh riiiiiiiight!
    and btw??? btw you're going to get the train and its impact on traffic and on those intersections and alleyways whether this project and/or the strathearn project go ahead or not. that horse has already left the barn...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  77. #277

    Default

    That's why community input regarding the style of housing should have been integral to the process. Seniors, hard to house, low incomes all vastly more likely to take the train (and not have a car) than the two bed, two bath condo set who are integral to making more money.

  78. #278
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    What a mess by council here.
    Council's just listening to residents and representing their wishes. Which is exactly what their job is.
    If council only listened to the wishes of the loudest residents, the city of Edmonton would be a quarter parking lots, a quarter malls, and the rest would be pristine roads with no one to drive on them. It's important to take into account input from the community, but you still have to balance that with the goals of the city to intensify land use around transit stations. There is a balance, which is why this has been delayed (not cancelled).

  79. #279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Actually, it looks like the city sending it back to for design improvement was fairly reasonable.
    From Daveography on Skyrisecities:

    "Motion to refer to proposal back to the developer and admin for rework passed 8-5. The motion instructs them to fix the sightlines and stepbacks with the towers to conform to the Large Site Infill Guidelines, to fix the parkade/pedestrian interfaces on 93 Ave., and to submit the proposal to EDC for review."

    That doesn't sound like wholesale rejection, or a NIMBY response, more like due diligence.
    Definitely not unreasonable, there are a lot are minor architectural and urban design tweaks that can be made to make this great. Setbacks will be key in this area. This will be good to see the actual usefulness of the City large site guidelines and to see if Staff and Council can work on large site infill in a TOD.

    Open Space: It's my understanding that townhomes open up to much of the park space?
    It's an abnormal site for the large site guidelines since it's so narrow. The setbacks from the west are probably the issue, they should chop the east end of the mid-rise down to 4 stories and make up some of the density on the west side where there's a long distance from their nearest neighbour.
    Exactly, and precisely what I was saying earlier about the east-side setbacks. Kinda what the policy states, what Council would be able to bite, and the only real adjacent setback issues for neighbours. I think the community and City need to see a design that responds to setbacks designed for a neighbourhood of SF homes that will unlikely be upzoned in the near future and especially anything beyond 4 stories.

    Bang on about it being a large site under the guidelines but it's quite narrow. Guess we'll see after the charade is over and the design comes back with revisions. The best part about development is the charade at times. Westbank and Henriquez do a good game.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  80. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    You guys are all talking out of your backsides. In fact, a safe injection site was raised by the community as a possibility for this proposal. As was seniors housing, below market housing, hard to house residences. All broad policy concerns for the city none of which are even close to being met by this proposal. Everyone (outside of a few cranks) sees the potential in this site.
    The city: potential to finally have a TOD somewhere other than on paper
    The developer: potential for vast profit on the back of large public investment
    The neighbourhood: potential for an invigorated community with greater retail options, vibrancy etc.

    And BTW, there are legit concerns regarding traffic increase and flow. Have a little walk around some day and take a look at the intersections and alleyways making up the bulk of egress. Now imagine a train running through it. Magical thinking at its worst. Oh, I forgot, in the most autocentric city in NA all residents will suddenly decide to take the train. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh riiiiiiiight!
    Then it should be policy. Tough to mandate when there is no policy. They could tie it to the rezoning, but to what degree? The traffic this community is worried about will be the same if this project is halved, in my opinion. The future of this community in 25 years - after LRT, after more infill, after citizens change commuting habits and older people in the area relocate or retire... you cannot design neighbourhoods like Holyrood out of their current "traffic problems" with roads or only permitting density double of that of the current adjacent SF homes. It's bold but in 30 years it's a 20/20 outlook, maybe. Perceptions change. Habits change. Commuting patterns and living arrangements change. The design isn't perfect. The process not great.

    But the question is: how much density per site in the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay, and where?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  81. #281
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    You guys are all talking out of your backsides. In fact, a safe injection site was raised by the community as a possibility for this proposal. As was seniors housing, below market housing, hard to house residences. All broad policy concerns for the city none of which are even close to being met by this proposal. Everyone (outside of a few cranks) sees the potential in this site.
    The city: potential to finally have a TOD somewhere other than on paper
    The developer: potential for vast profit on the back of large public investment
    The neighbourhood: potential for an invigorated community with greater retail options, vibrancy etc.

    And BTW, there are legit concerns regarding traffic increase and flow. Have a little walk around some day and take a look at the intersections and alleyways making up the bulk of egress. Now imagine a train running through it. Magical thinking at its worst. Oh, I forgot, in the most autocentric city in NA all residents will suddenly decide to take the train. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh riiiiiiiight!
    The last land owner had a proposal with no towers, less density.
    Same thing happened as this time.

    Change is always rejected by a dedicated group who make more noise than every other group combined.

  82. #282
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Actually, it looks like the city sending it back to for design improvement was fairly reasonable.
    From Daveography on Skyrisecities:

    "Motion to refer to proposal back to the developer and admin for rework passed 8-5. The motion instructs them to fix the sightlines and stepbacks with the towers to conform to the Large Site Infill Guidelines, to fix the parkade/pedestrian interfaces on 93 Ave., and to submit the proposal to EDC for review."
    Because the site is long and fairly narrow, applying the sightlines and stepbacks of the Large Site Infill Guidelines could make the project non-viable. I can also see why Regency is balking at submitting its proposal to the EDC at the rezoning stage. Why would they go to the time and expense of preparing detailed drawings for EDC review without even knowing what the allowable heights and density for the site will be? What would they even submit?

  83. #283
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    What a mess by council here.
    Council's just listening to residents and representing their wishes. Which is exactly what their job is.
    Cynicism is frequently the loudest voice. A skilled politician should be able to separate the vocal minority from otherwise positive or beneficial developments, but then again this is Edmonton, so...

  84. #284
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    This is Edmonton so.....Just bulldoze these neglected buildings and leave it a gravel parking lot for at least twenty years to appease everyone.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 29-11-2017 at 10:41 PM.

  85. #285
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    I'm not familiar with the construction of the buildings in the existing Holyrood apartments but a lot of buildings of that era and type were concrete block and very solid.
    If that's the case, why not redo the windows, and exteriors, do a renovation and put them into service as housing for the "hard to house".
    It would also be an ideal location for a safe injection site. It's away from, but close to downtown and will have excellent LRT connections.
    It's a win all around, it would be a "shovel ready" project for the new federal housing initiative, move some of the social issues away from downtown, and the neighbors wouldn't have to worry about shadows from high rises.
    How about converting Grandin Park Plaza to house for the hard to house with a safe injection site. That site was never suitable for the purposes for which it was intended anyway.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  86. #286
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    That's a great idea except Grandin Park Plaza was demolished a year or so ago.
    Darn, another wasted opportunity.

  87. #287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    You guys are all talking out of your backsides. In fact, a safe injection site was raised by the community as a possibility for this proposal. As was seniors housing, below market housing, hard to house residences. All broad policy concerns for the city none of which are even close to being met by this proposal. Everyone (outside of a few cranks) sees the potential in this site.
    The city: potential to finally have a TOD somewhere other than on paper
    The developer: potential for vast profit on the back of large public investment
    The neighbourhood: potential for an invigorated community with greater retail options, vibrancy etc.

    And BTW, there are legit concerns regarding traffic increase and flow. Have a little walk around some day and take a look at the intersections and alleyways making up the bulk of egress. Now imagine a train running through it. Magical thinking at its worst. Oh, I forgot, in the most autocentric city in NA all residents will suddenly decide to take the train. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh riiiiiiiight!
    The last land owner had a proposal with no towers, less density.
    Same thing happened as this time.

    Change is always rejected by a dedicated group who make more noise than every other group combined.
    I wasn't around for the last proposal so I can't speak to the opposition at that time. If you're implying an equivalency - that's up to you to defend.

    Again, I raise the same point: if you really think that the dedicated volunteer efforts of a minority of community stakeholders is what is standing between Raj Dhunna and his zoning approval you are either painfully naive or purposefully obtuse.

  88. #288
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Actually, it looks like the city sending it back to for design improvement was fairly reasonable.
    From Daveography on Skyrisecities:

    "Motion to refer to proposal back to the developer and admin for rework passed 8-5. The motion instructs them to fix the sightlines and stepbacks with the towers to conform to the Large Site Infill Guidelines, to fix the parkade/pedestrian interfaces on 93 Ave., and to submit the proposal to EDC for review."
    Because the site is long and fairly narrow, applying the sightlines and stepbacks of the Large Site Infill Guidelines could make the project non-viable. I can also see why Regency is balking at submitting its proposal to the EDC at the rezoning stage. Why would they go to the time and expense of preparing detailed drawings for EDC review without even knowing what the allowable heights and density for the site will be? What would they even submit?
    Submitting drawings for rezoning to EDC is what anyone in the EDC covered areas has to do for a DC2. Your drawings only need to be as detailed as the DC2 requires them to be. Regency has already gone through this process before with other projects, plus their architect will be familiar with it as well.

  89. #289
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    You guys are all talking out of your backsides. In fact, a safe injection site was raised by the community as a possibility for this proposal. As was seniors housing, below market housing, hard to house residences. All broad policy concerns for the city none of which are even close to being met by this proposal. Everyone (outside of a few cranks) sees the potential in this site.
    The city: potential to finally have a TOD somewhere other than on paper
    The developer: potential for vast profit on the back of large public investment
    The neighbourhood: potential for an invigorated community with greater retail options, vibrancy etc.

    And BTW, there are legit concerns regarding traffic increase and flow. Have a little walk around some day and take a look at the intersections and alleyways making up the bulk of egress. Now imagine a train running through it. Magical thinking at its worst. Oh, I forgot, in the most autocentric city in NA all residents will suddenly decide to take the train. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh riiiiiiiight!
    The last land owner had a proposal with no towers, less density.
    Same thing happened as this time.

    Change is always rejected by a dedicated group who make more noise than every other group combined.
    I wasn't around for the last proposal so I can't speak to the opposition at that time. If you're implying an equivalency - that's up to you to defend.

    Again, I raise the same point: if you really think that the dedicated volunteer efforts of a minority of community stakeholders is what is standing between Raj Dhunna and his zoning approval you are either painfully naive or purposefully obtuse.
    No, they are what are standing between any land owner, former, current or future and rezoning unless it essentially is redeveloped as status quo.

  90. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    You guys are all talking out of your backsides. In fact, a safe injection site was raised by the community as a possibility for this proposal. As was seniors housing, below market housing, hard to house residences. All broad policy concerns for the city none of which are even close to being met by this proposal. Everyone (outside of a few cranks) sees the potential in this site.
    The city: potential to finally have a TOD somewhere other than on paper
    The developer: potential for vast profit on the back of large public investment
    The neighbourhood: potential for an invigorated community with greater retail options, vibrancy etc.

    And BTW, there are legit concerns regarding traffic increase and flow. Have a little walk around some day and take a look at the intersections and alleyways making up the bulk of egress. Now imagine a train running through it. Magical thinking at its worst. Oh, I forgot, in the most autocentric city in NA all residents will suddenly decide to take the train. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh riiiiiiiight!
    The last land owner had a proposal with no towers, less density.
    Same thing happened as this time.

    Change is always rejected by a dedicated group who make more noise than every other group combined.
    I wasn't around for the last proposal so I can't speak to the opposition at that time. If you're implying an equivalency - that's up to you to defend.

    Again, I raise the same point: if you really think that the dedicated volunteer efforts of a minority of community stakeholders is what is standing between Raj Dhunna and his zoning approval you are either painfully naive or purposefully obtuse.
    No, they are what are standing between any land owner, former, current or future and rezoning unless it essentially is redeveloped as status quo.
    Maybe the other thing standing between Regency and rezoning is the their inability (or, more likely, unwillingness) to hire and/or manage decent consultants! With the exception of the Pearl which is a soft 6 every building they've done is an abomination and the images I saw of this proposal suggest it was no different.

    While I definitely don't think a few people whinging about "congestion" should be enough to derail this project, people in the neighbourhood are going to be dealing with more traffic, shadows, etc., and I don't think it's unreasonable for them to ask for something in return--i.e. a beautiful, well-designed, well-built development. From what I've thus far been able to discern this proposal is not that--it's basically Edgewater squished into a narrower site. I've seen nothing at all that would indicate that this development wouldn't just be mean, cheap, gaudy junk like the almost all of their other projects.

  91. #291

    Default

    I'm unsure if the "beauty" of the design has really come up as an element to hold up this rezoning process.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  92. #292

    Default

    But some of bleppers other points are germane. It is essentially "...Edgewater squished into a narrower site."

    Regency builds towers - vertical gated communities. The proposal on the table shows no skill or understanding of neighbourhood integration or TOD. Building a couple/few towers and "mean, cheap, gaudy, junk..." stick condo's adjacent to a transit station is not TOD.

    Right location, Wrong Developer

  93. #293
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Bleppers comments are valid and I think should be addressed, except that's not the primary arguments against I'm hearing published and apparently the last kick at the can, with a completely different proposal, was more of the "Right location, Wrong Developer" as well?

    There isn't going to be a right developer for a vocal group of people for any redevelopment site unless the redevelopment just repeats what is there.

    I'm hopeful this 90 period provides an improved design that satisfies council and addresses the outstanding concerns that Bleppers expressed and it moves forward. That will not however, in my opinion, make silent the vocal objections.

  94. #294

    Default

    There needs to be better policy concerning side/rear/front yards, setbacks, height and density adjustments, and ground-orientated uses. in zoning and general City policy. I think this further reflects that. Good rules. Decent design off the bat with minimal confusion.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  95. #295
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    From the meeting minutes, here is the actual wording of the referral motion approved by Council in the 8 to 5 vote:

    That the September 11, 2017, Urban Form and Corporate Strategic Development report CR_5108 be referred back to Administration to return with a proposal that generally meets the large site guidelines for the 35 percent plane, the tower floor plate size, and work with the community on potential road closures to mitigate traffic cutting back into the community including concerns about ramp design and pedestrian access on 93 Avenue and refer the revised proposal to the Edmonton Design Committee.
    I was confused about what proposal Regency would submit to the EDC. The referral motion at least answers that question. It would either have to be a downsized proposal with fewer units, or a lower more dense development with the same number of units but less green/open space.

  96. #296
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    I assume the planned development of Holyrood Gardens (and the LRT) has pushed other locations in the area to be developed.

    There is a rezoning application in with the city to rezone four lots from RF6 to DC2. These back on to the north end of the Holyrood Gardens development.
    Address is 9412-9430 - 83 St. Each currently has a duplex on it in poor condition.

    Proposed is a 5 story, 50 unit building. 10 rowhouses on the lower floor and apartments above.
    Very basic sketches were offered, but they looked alright for your standard wood walkup. Sounds like the community development committee gave it their blessing.

    Don't know who the developer is. Stantec is doing all the legwork. They've already got the sun/shadow studies completed.

  97. #297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    I assume the planned development of Holyrood Gardens (and the LRT) has pushed other locations in the area to be developed.

    There is a rezoning application in with the city to rezone four lots from RF6 to DC2. These back on to the north end of the Holyrood Gardens development.
    Address is 9412-9430 - 83 St. Each currently has a duplex on it in poor condition.

    Proposed is a 5 story, 50 unit building. 10 rowhouses on the lower floor and apartments above.
    Very basic sketches were offered, but they looked alright for your standard wood walkup. Sounds like the community development committee gave it their blessing.

    Don't know who the developer is. Stantec is doing all the legwork. They've already got the sun/shadow studies completed.
    Good to see the Bonnie Doon development will likely go ahead with tall towers, as it's set back a bit from houses, unlike the Hollywood development which was killled.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...nnie-doon-mall

  98. #298
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,686

    Default

    The Holyrood development was not killed. It was sent back to admin. Council did not deny the rezoning.

  99. #299
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    The Holyrood development was not killed. It was sent back to admin. Council did not deny the rezoning.
    Nice damage control. That is what would be in some FAQ email to any stakeholder in this project. It wasn't exactly praised either.

  100. #300
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,686

    Default

    I'm just saying that it's not completely dead. It's going to come back to council at some point.

Page 3 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
  •