Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 301 to 400 of 447

Thread: Holyrood Gardens | Residential | Proposed

  1. #301
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    I did understand the concerns of the neighbors across from the site. However if we want a denser city with more TOD eventually we'll need to approve higher, denser development.

  2. #302
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    New Holyrood?


    @cityofedmonton
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  3. #303
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,237

    Default

    All the stucco.
    I hope there is lots of work left on the final product.

  4. #304

    Default

    "OK guys, we've got six different styles to choose from. Which one do you like best?"

    "Oh I can't decide. How about all of them?"

    Great idea!"

  5. #305

    Default

    It just wouldnít be an Edmonton proposal without crudely and arbitrarily applied sections of mustard yellow and salmon pink.

  6. #306
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,792

    Default

    Look what's there now though, it's right out of a National Geographic third world ghetto layout. I say get started.

  7. #307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Look what's there now though, it's right out of a National Geographic third world ghetto layout. I say get started.
    "I don't care what they put up here because it's better than the old buildings that are there now." is how we end up with crap.

  8. #308
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parkview
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson View Post
    It just wouldn’t be an Edmonton proposal without crudely and arbitrarily applied sections of mustard yellow and salmon pink.
    I honestly think Mr. Der must be colour blind, if you've seen any of his other work.
    Edmonton is a very exciting place to be right now.

  9. #309
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    If the developer can't get the height, then the quality is going to suffer.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  10. #310
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    Revisions include:
    six 17 story towers (3 towers had height reduced, 3 additional towers added)
    Floorplates have been reduced to 750m2, which makes them slimmer
    30% family oriented units, whatever that means
    transit plaza at 93 ave/85 st
    Revised to 1450 units total.

    Would love to hear what EDC has to say about it.

    It would be nice if someone would post the image below for those of us that don't have access to twitter through work.

  11. #311
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Look what's there now though, it's right out of a National Geographic third world ghetto layout. I say get started.
    "I don't care what they put up here because it's better than the old buildings that are there now." is how we end up with crap.
    I just don't think it's that bad. The blue parts are glass, not paint or stucco. It would get a bit of tuning yet after the critics.

  12. #312
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    Give me my box of childhood LEGO and Iíll build the forum an accurate model of the development.

  13. #313
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,679

    Default

    With all that stucco going to look like a ghetto 5 years after completion.

  14. #314
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Look what's there now though, it's right out of a National Geographic third world ghetto layout. I say get started.
    "I don't care what they put up here because it's better than the old buildings that are there now." is how we end up with crap.
    I just don't think it's that bad. The blue parts are glass, not paint or stucco. It would get a bit of tuning yet after the critics.
    Exactly! It's fine - anything besides the 3rd world ghetto slum, shanty-town, favala, parasitic engulfed, not-fit-for-human-habitation cess pool that exists there now......

  15. #315

    Default

    these look a point better than our parents home.

  16. #316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    "OK guys, we've got six different styles to choose from. Which one do you like best?"

    "Oh I can't decide. How about all of them?"

    Great idea!"
    OMG yes. It's such classic Edmonton.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  17. #317

    Default

    The design, massing etc., for the most part is decent. But the colour and material inconsistency are just baffling. I donít even care if they use stucco here and there just keep it to one consistent colour. How hard is it to not include those ugly accent colours?

  18. #318
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson View Post
    How hard is it to not include those ugly accent colours?
    I think that's part of Regency's corporate vision.

  19. #319
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    If the developer can't get the height, then the quality is going to suffer.
    Bullsh*t straight up.

  20. #320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    If the developer can't get the height, then the quality is going to suffer.
    I've done social housing and reduced rate rental that looks 10 times better than this at 6-storeys on a 12,000 sf site....

    This is both tall and crap design.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  21. #321

    Default

    ^^ Good to see some pushback on Stevey_G's outrageous claim.

    And to the rest of you ragging on the present condition of Holyrood Gardens could we spare a moment's concern for the tenants there presently? While they may not meet your aesthetic standards they are someone's home, eh? Third world, you say? Favela? You need to get out more.

  22. #322
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    I guess I should have put a smiley in there. That was a tongue in cheek remark.

  23. #323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson View Post
    It just wouldnít be an Edmonton proposal without crudely and arbitrarily applied sections of mustard yellow and salmon pink.
    Perhaps this is where the 80's went to die. Personally, I think it would look much better and actually not too bad without all the randomly applied weird colours, but perhaps it was bring your kid to work day at the architecture firm.

  24. #324
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    If the developer can't get the height, then the quality is going to suffer.
    Bullsh*t straight up.
    Bingo.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  25. #325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    ^^ Good to see some pushback on Stevey_G's outrageous claim.

    And to the rest of you ragging on the present condition of Holyrood Gardens could we spare a moment's concern for the tenants there presently? While they may not meet your aesthetic standards they are someone's home, eh? Third world, you say? Favela? You need to get out more.
    Amen, could not have said it better.

    Re: the new design, surprise surprise Regency has sent another absolute dud down the pipe. This is completely embarrassing, these guys are jokers. Hire a decent consultant for god's sake.
    Last edited by bleppers; 01-05-2018 at 09:46 PM.

  26. #326
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    ^^ Good to see some pushback on Stevey_G's outrageous claim.And to the rest of you ragging on the present condition of Holyrood Gardens could we spare a moment's concern for the tenants there presently? While they may not meet your aesthetic standards they are someone's home, eh? Third world, you say? Favela? You need to get out more.
    Amen, could not have said it better. Re: the new design, surprise surprise Regency has sent another absolute dud down the pipe. This is completely embarrassing, these guys are jokers. Hire a decent consultant for god's sake.
    Yeah sure, whatever - "someone's home" no doubt - but the "newly minted Canadians" calling this ghetto home - don't even want to call it their home. But companies like Mainstreet have a monopoly on providing cheap gov't subsidized housing to the impoverished masses. So yeah, someone's home - only a home as long as it's better than living on the street.

  27. #327
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    ^ He's got a point, I used to have to work in homes ranging from 2 million dollar homes to these rental shacks. I'll tell you, people are only there because they cannot afford to be elsewhere. It's oftentimes a story similar to that of a mother of three who's father abandoned them. So the companies that manage these buildings in my opinion, need a higher degree of accountability. Those to me, were kind hearted people and they deserved better than what I oftentimes saw.

    This brings up another issue, is this a case of bad gentrification? We're displacing residents whom will have limited options on where to go after being displaced. Many of these people are dependent on things like transit routes, local shopping, schools, etc to make things work. How is it going to impact them when the only rent they can find is across the street from the Dover Hotel?
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  28. #328

    Default

    First off, neither of you know what you're talking about. "Newly minted Canadians" make up a minority of residents of the Gardens. I personally know a couple tenants who have been there longer than 20 years. The tenant mix is primarily working class or work-out-of-towners. Lots of single moms, some seniors. Yes, there's a pretty healthy rotation of people new to the city who move on after getting acquainted with Edmonton. As for Mainstreet properties, well that's your beef.

    Here's a thought that might blow your mind. Working class people recognize "location efficiency" just like all the urbanista dandies flanuer-ing around our fair streets these days. Hey Janey, this place is close to a mall, shops and services, has good transit connections and is just across the way from the kids school. And it's not that expensive. That sounds like a good place.

    Park your assumptions somewhere else.

  29. #329
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    737

    Default

    How'd you know my wife's name is Janey???!

  30. #330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    ^ He's got a point, I used to have to work in homes ranging from 2 million dollar homes to these rental shacks. I'll tell you, people are only there because they cannot afford to be elsewhere. It's oftentimes a story similar to that of a mother of three who's father abandoned them. So the companies that manage these buildings in my opinion, need a higher degree of accountability. Those to me, were kind hearted people and they deserved better than what I oftentimes saw.

    This brings up another issue, is this a case of bad gentrification? We're displacing residents whom will have limited options on where to go after being displaced. Many of these people are dependent on things like transit routes, local shopping, schools, etc to make things work. How is it going to impact them when the only rent they can find is across the street from the Dover Hotel?
    Some other people on this forum really, really need to get out of their first world bubble. Yes, there are companies that serve the niche of housing for less well off people. It can be a lot of hassle dealing with late payments, property damage, etc.. A lots of companies don't want that hassle, so there is not a lot of competition and the need definitely exists. However, getting rid of one run down building is not going to solve any real problem - the people who live there will just have to move elsewhere that may not be as well located or affordable and of course moving will cost social and be disruptive for them personally. However if you are only concerned about having prettier buildings to look at, I suppose it might satisfy you.

    I think we also need to distinguish between run down - the carpet is old, the fixtures are out of style, it hasn't been painted in a while and something that is truly a health or safety issue. If your concern is really on the later, call someone in the government first, don't just vent on this forum.

    However, I also agree the site could probably be better used for something more high density. I also hope it could be developed in a way to somehow accommodate those people there who can not easily find something else as affordable or well located.

  31. #331

    Default

    Which is why every new project needs to include some units that are affordable. Not "X% below market rate" nonsense. That just leads to the most expensive properties still being cut off to the people on the bottom teir.

    We don't need entire projects for low income people. We need projects that integrate them into the city at large.

  32. #332

    Default

    I've never see any decent justification for building "some units that are affordable" that makes any sense. Everyone of those new "affordable" units is affordable because it dumps costs onto the market units in the same project, drives up the cost of building new housing and on the margins will increase the costs of housing for everyone - so more people need subsidized housing.

    If subsidized housing is needed let's subsidize it from taxes. Even better, let's not try to solve income problems with housing.
    There can only be one.

  33. #333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I've never see any decent justification for building "some units that are affordable" that makes any sense. Everyone of those new "affordable" units is affordable because it dumps costs onto the market units in the same project, drives up the cost of building new housing and on the margins will increase the costs of housing for everyone - so more people need subsidized housing.

    If subsidized housing is needed let's subsidize it from taxes. Even better, let's not try to solve income problems with housing.
    The justification is simple. If we don't have affordable housing we have more people living in run down housing or in the streets. I suppose we could become like some third world countries with fancy shiny high rises for the rich and fairly well to do and squalid slums for the poor and not much in between. I really don't think Edmontonians aspire for our city to become more like Rio de Janeiro.

  34. #334
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    Getting a bit off topic here.

    Has anyone seen the comments from EDC on the proposal? Was supposed to be held yesterday.

  35. #335

    Default

    "Let's wait until we manage to solve income equality before we worry about substandard housing for people" Yeah, that'll work. Look at the howls of outrage over the increase to the minimum wage. And if the UCP gets back in, you can be sure that it won't move again until they're turfed once more.

  36. #336
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    Iím not saying we should stop the development because of the need these properties serve, Iím just saying there should be support for the people being displaced.

    It is difficult for that mother of three to uproot and move north away from the schools their kids goto and the transit the area provides. There are options absolutely, Iím just wondering if more needs to be done to make sure they arenít crippled by redevelopment. The cost to move for some is relative and difficult.

    You donít need to agree with me, I am simply concerned for some of the people Iíve met during those years.

  37. #337

    Default

    ^^^^No, the Actual justification is:

    People who own existing homes don't want to pay for it.
    People who want to buy new single family houses don't want to pay for it.
    They make the majority, so they just make people developing/buying new condos and apartments pay for it, and reap the "benefits" in the form of increasing equity in the homes they own, while all renters get higher rents.

    If new "affordable" housing is worth building it should be paid for by all of us, via broad-based taxes.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 02-05-2018 at 02:29 PM.
    There can only be one.

  38. #338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    No, the Actual justification is:

    People who own existing homes don't want to pay for it.
    People who want to buy new single family houses don't want to pay for it.
    They make the majority, so they just make people developing/buying new condos and apartments pay for it, and reap the "benefits" in the form of increasing equity in the homes they own, while all renters get higher rents.

    If new "affordable" housing is worth building it should be paid for by all of us, via broad-based taxes.
    Most importantly, you forgot on your list "taxpayers do not want to pay higher taxes", so it then goes back to new home buyers to finance. Is it fair? Is it the best way to do it? Good questions sure, but really no one wants to pay for it, so it ends up being the only option.

  39. #339

    Default

    Taxpayers include renters and new condo buyers who would be better off paying for it though taxes and might be more willing to pay if the costs were transparent. But yes, the majority of taxpayers are homeowners/ potential new home buyers who prefer to place the responsibility on someone else.
    There can only be one.

  40. #340

    Default

    Building below market rent units (even social housing) in the same building as market rate rentals is easy and is done quite often without rents of the market rate units being raised substantially - after all, as a developer you're not going to have rents that no one will pay. The largest factors is "expensive" rents are land costs, building costs, and restrictive zoning. More units and less parking can equal more profit for the developer when working within a program that dictates rent caps or income-tied rents. These programs work, when paired with relaxations.

    Coupled with better protections for renters who are forced to relocate due to renovations or new development, and having a 1 for 1 rental replacement - even of similar rent and allowing old tenants first pick of a new unit in the build that displaced them - are all tools Edmonton will need to work on as it gets bigger and more projects like this come along. Land in Edmonton is cheap. We can design better programs and rules to protect those that currently live at sites like this.

    Too bad this project is butt ugly.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  41. #341

    Default

    If restrictive zoning is the problem then it should be changed, and without asking developers to bribe the city with "affordable housing". Less restrictive zoning, lower construction costs (including by not requiring excess parking or subsidized units, and not requiring "amenity space"(balconies) and lower land costs through reduced/improved regulation would make for more affordable housing. Requiring un-economic "affordable" housing sometimes will result in nothing being built at all- see that 81ave/105st development for an example. Then each apartment not built means more competition for every single other apartment in the city, meaning higher rents for all.

    Natural affordable housing is old housing that's made a few steps down market, and everything we do that restricts the supply of new housing means less affordable housing in the future.
    There can only be one.

  42. #342
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Holy!!!!! Bottom line = entire area is a GHETTO EYESORE - SMASH ALL OF IT DOWN and BUILD SOMETHING NEW!

  43. #343

    Default

    Developers have the right to do develope their land, but this entire complex is hardly a ghetto. Get over yourself already snob!
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  44. #344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    If restrictive zoning is the problem then it should be changed, and without asking developers to bribe the city with "affordable housing". Less restrictive zoning, lower construction costs (including by not requiring excess parking or subsidized units, and not requiring "amenity space"(balconies) and lower land costs through reduced/improved regulation would make for more affordable housing. Requiring un-economic "affordable" housing sometimes will result in nothing being built at all- see that 81ave/105st development for an example. Then each apartment not built means more competition for every single other apartment in the city, meaning higher rents for all.

    Natural affordable housing is old housing that's made a few steps down market, and everything we do that restricts the supply of new housing means less affordable housing in the future.
    This sort of logic is used to justify regulatory changes favourable to the development industry but I'm not aware of a city that's been able to build its way into affordability. The untold thousands of dwelling units constructed in Vancouver over the last 25 years, for example, don't seem to have done much to reduce rents or purchase prices.

    I agree with some of the comments above, my sense is that the only way to create high quality affordable housing on a large scale is public subsidy in some form.

  45. #345
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,854

    Default

    This is worse than what Homeward Trust builds.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  46. #346

    Default

    A city grant for the construction of the affordable unit along with a reduction in property tax for the portion of the property given over to affordable units would solve the problem. You also wouldn't have the fights for large affordable projects in the various neighbourhoods. You'd have new projects in the outlying areas as well as in the inner portion of the city. Units get spread though the city without being lumped into large complexes all together.

  47. #347
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    Went to the open house last night. Just massing images and shade studies.

    General impression from everyone walking around was that this proposal is worse than the first one. More units, more towers. Less greenspace.

    I don't mind the extra towers, especially now that they have smaller floorplates.

    Haven't heard exactly what EDC said, but the word around the meeting was that it wasn't positive.

    If they continue with Der as their architect, I am not hopeful on this project.

  48. #348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    If restrictive zoning is the problem then it should be changed, and without asking developers to bribe the city with "affordable housing". Less restrictive zoning, lower construction costs (including by not requiring excess parking or subsidized units, and not requiring "amenity space"(balconies) and lower land costs through reduced/improved regulation would make for more affordable housing. Requiring un-economic "affordable" housing sometimes will result in nothing being built at all- see that 81ave/105st development for an example. Then each apartment not built means more competition for every single other apartment in the city, meaning higher rents for all.

    Natural affordable housing is old housing that's made a few steps down market, and everything we do that restricts the supply of new housing means less affordable housing in the future.
    This sort of logic is used to justify regulatory changes favourable to the development industry but I'm not aware of a city that's been able to build its way into affordability. The untold thousands of dwelling units constructed in Vancouver over the last 25 years, for example, don't seem to have done much to reduce rents or purchase prices.

    I agree with some of the comments above, my sense is that the only way to create high quality affordable housing on a large scale is public subsidy in some form.
    Vancouver has high land, construction, trades costs, they also have restrictive zoning in multi-family zones and over about 60-70% of Vancouver proper is single family homes. Parking restrictions are minimal, there is not a lot of focus on reduced rent units but instead market rental and social housing with some income-tied units only now... Vancouver has a rental problem because a few of the issues are low density on most land, large underground parkades in rental buildings, a long permitting process, expensive hard costs. Edmonton needs to learn from that.

    Edmonton is behind and cold get into trouble and projects like this are an example that mixed-income and diverse rules for rezonings and parking reductions and bonus density for affordable units need to be developed now.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  49. #349

    Default

    From the Edmotnon Journal: "
    Sutherland said the community would like to see something that is low to mid-rise, which is about four- to six-storey buildings, with a greater commitment to affordable housing, more family-oriented housing, and more traffic impacts mitigation by reducing the number of traffic stalls.
    "
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  50. #350

    Default

    Maybe the community can chip in money as well to help them develope the project as it is always ME ME ME... I'm getting tired of this community league crap.

  51. #351

    Default

    city has rules that should apply to this site - rules for large-lot redevelopment that have actual numbers for how tall a building can be how far from adjacent property. The rules are not old.

    Thanks to the linear nature of the site asking for 6 floor buildings is pretty much just asking the city to respect it's own planning.
    There can only be one.

  52. #352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Maybe the community can chip in money as well to help them develope the project as it is always ME ME ME... I'm getting tired of this community league crap.
    Maybe if the developer wants taller buildings it should buy a site where those taller buildings are allowed to be built - or they could put offers in on all the houses across the alley to make their desired 15+ floor buildings fit within the rules.
    There can only be one.

  53. #353
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    city has rules that should apply to this site - rules for large-lot redevelopment that have actual numbers for how tall a building can be how far from adjacent property. The rules are not old.

    Thanks to the linear nature of the site asking for 6 floor buildings is pretty much just asking the city to respect it's own planning.
    I believe the current version is in now in compliance with the rules and guess what, it sucks, mostly driven by being put into a prescriptive box IMO.

  54. #354

    Default

    Thanks, I didn't know that.

    Edit: I read the article more closely this time. so the form follows what's allowed but I have to wonder about the 20% increase in number of units.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 03-05-2018 at 01:28 PM.
    There can only be one.

  55. #355

    Default

    How about the developer stack all those towers into one and start a south-of-river rivalry for tallest highrise?
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  56. #356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Maybe the community can chip in money as well to help them develope the project as it is always ME ME ME... I'm getting tired of this community league crap.
    Maybe if the developer wants taller buildings it should buy a site where those taller buildings are allowed to be built - or they could put offers in on all the houses across the alley to make their desired 15+ floor buildings fit within the rules.
    The central core will always change as the city grows. This is central...
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  57. #357

    Default

    Pleased to see this got panned at EDC.

    Below image from Journal story is a pretty accurate summary of proposal in its current form:




    Proposal seems to be on the way to rejection by council, which I think is hugely positive. It suggests to me that the standards here are finally elevating to the extent that council won't just approve any junk proposal for fear of losing out on development. Particularly as they watch the Bonnie Doon Mall TOD proposal sail toward likely approval, I hope it will also be a good lesson for Regency and similar penny-wise pound-foolish developers who have made a business out of hiring consultants willing to work for slave wages because that's all they needed to do and they didn't care to do more.
    Last edited by bleppers; 19-05-2018 at 01:06 PM.

  58. #358

    Default

    As I said in another post, this plan is dead no matter what changes they make. I don't want density in my neighbourhood, this isn't downtown. It doesn't matter if there's an LRT station there, this area is far too residential.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...ns-development

  59. #359

    Default

    " They will ruin family lives..." If that was a joke, it had to be a desperate one. If families are destroyed by this, they have life too good and need a bit destruction to wake them up from this rotten spoiled lives they're leading.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  60. #360

    Default

    ^^^I don't know about council rejecting this proposal. When I count the (expected) votes this passes. Regency has too much leverage.

  61. #361
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    As I said in another post, this plan is dead no matter what changes they make. I don't want density in my neighbourhood, this isn't downtown. It doesn't matter if there's an LRT station there, this area is far too residential.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...ns-development
    They're proposing a bunch of residential. Just dense residential.

    Sure the current design sucks, but there are good dense designs.

    I don't think you get to by NIMBY about density.

    edit: Also from the EDC minutes

    The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
    ouch. (started at 4pm)
    Last edited by Channing; 19-05-2018 at 07:58 PM.

  62. #362
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,854

    Default

    I think the current Hollyrood buildings are getting near the end of their lifespan. If the taller buildings are around 93 Ave/85 Street, much of the evening shade will fall on the park east of 83 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  63. #363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    ^^^I don't know about council rejecting this proposal. When I count the (expected) votes this passes. Regency has too much leverage.
    You could be right but my guess is that this is toast. It's just such a pathetically bad effort that by many accounts is getting worse, and as I said I don't think they're being helped by the Bonnie Doon proposal which is of vastly higher quality. Unless something drastic changes I think council will have a hard time approving it. What's their leverage?

  64. #364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    ^^^I don't know about council rejecting this proposal. When I count the (expected) votes this passes. Regency has too much leverage.
    You could be right but my guess is that this is toast. It's just such a pathetically bad effort that by many accounts is getting worse, and as I said I don't think they're being helped by the Bonnie Doon proposal which is of vastly higher quality. Unless something drastic changes I think council will have a hard time approving it. What's their leverage?
    Agreed. I really like the Bonnie Doon approval, so I fully expect that the approved Holyrood Gardens plan will be on the same scale.

  65. #365
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,792

    Default

    Bonnie Doon proposal is reminding me of Heritage Mall proposal. Tear it down and build something great. Cant these guys find a piece of land to build on instead of tearing down Bonnie Doon, a historic mall and dear to many. Im beginning to think Regency should start looking for another place to build their project too and just fix up the existing townhouses to look nice. Maybe along 41ave SW somewhere or 50st towards Beaumont. There is lots of land and few complainers.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 21-05-2018 at 12:01 AM.

  66. #366

    Default

    Bonnie Doon mall has been dying for years. Meadowlark & Westmount would probably benefit from a similar redevelopment. Meadowlark will be on the Valley Line, just like Bonnie Doon. A few towers with some low rise and a smattering of retail & services would be a better use of that space.

  67. #367
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Windermere
    Posts
    1,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Bonnie Doon, a historic mall and dear to many.
    Are you serious?

  68. #368
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,524

    Default

    I don’t think so.
    ďCanada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,Ē-Marshall McLuhan

  69. #369
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  70. #370
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,512

    Default

    ^I agree with the EDC. The (Regency) need to up their commitment to ensure that this project will be high quality - buildings, private/public realm, etc.

  71. #371
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    So they're going to try one more redesign and then if that doesn't fly, then probably put it up for sale?

  72. #372
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post


    Have we reached peak NIMBY melodrama?

  73. #373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    ^I agree with the EDC. The (Regency) need to up their commitment to ensure that this project will be high quality - buildings, private/public realm, etc.
    Since you are in development, and if you up the game, how will that translate into the price range for buyers?

    I can't comment much on uping the game as I need to see a full schematic of how they arranged the layout. From what I have seen in the vague render shown, it is definitely not Ultima, but it looks respectable. Yes it has stucco, but who are this developer targeting? High or medium income? If it is your medium income catchment they're looking at, we can't expect quality any higher than that. That said, if uping the game means, play with what they're going to use, but have designers with more creative skills to rearrange that then I agree.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  74. #374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post


    Have we reached peak NIMBY melodrama?
    More like the peak of day-time soaps. I can see this become the Bronx/Harlem's worst ghetto area in the near future if DEVELOPERS give up on this site. These structures has another 15 years of lifespan before it becomes problematic.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  75. #375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    Have we reached peak NIMBY melodrama?
    Not wanting to have a ghastly 35 storey tower next door to their bungalow doesnít make someone a NIMBY

  76. #376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    If it is your medium income catchment they're looking at, we can't expect quality any higher than that.
    We absolutely can, which is what I hope (and it seems) council is finally starting to realize

  77. #377

    Default

    How so, in terms of material? People dont get into business for charity. If that was the case, every house in this city should be multi million dollar homes. Interms of artistic value, that could be done. How is highrise living any different than home living? You still have audiences with diffferent medians of income and expectation. Not everyone has the ability ar the same price point. You cant expect those that cant afford luxury to have the same look and quality in a luxurious tower-externally and internally
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  78. #378
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    Have we reached peak NIMBY melodrama?
    Not wanting to have a ghastly 35 storey tower next door to their bungalow doesn’t make someone a NIMBY
    By definition, it is NIMBY. But I think being a NIMBY doesn't always have to be a bad thing. If a development is truly insensitive to its surroundings, I think people have every right to fight it. Usually people blow things out of proportion though. However I do believe this development is insensitive to its surroundings and that Regency should go back to the drawing board. Or maybe sell it off to another developer that will be more sensitive to their neighbours.

  79. #379
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    Have we reached peak NIMBY melodrama?
    Not wanting to have a ghastly 35 storey tower next door to their bungalow doesnít make someone a NIMBY
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the revised proposal says the developer agreed to reduce the maximum tower height from 78 metres (22 storeys) to 60 metres (18 storeys). Nor are any of the residential towers being built next door to bungalows.

    https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_...ant_Boards.pdf

  80. #380
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,792

    Default

    Are these people aware they are living in the middle of a city of a million people? They are getting high rises next door and their dear neighborhood mall is getting torn down to make way for highrises. The "subway system" is coming through. You would think they'd have gotten the hint by now. Sell and move to Beaumont already.

  81. #381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    How so, in terms of material? People dont get into business for charity. If that was the case, every house in this city should be multi million dollar homes. Interms of artistic value, that could be done. How is highrise living any different than home living? You still have audiences with diffferent medians of income and expectation. Not everyone has the ability ar the same price point. You cant expect those that cant afford luxury to have the same look and quality in a luxurious tower-externally and internally
    Itís possible for something to be nice without being luxurious. Requires only a developer and consultant who are competent and give a sh1t. Happens regularly in many cities (and sometimes here).

  82. #382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    Have we reached peak NIMBY melodrama?
    Not wanting to have a ghastly 35 storey tower next door to their bungalow doesn’t make someone a NIMBY
    By definition, it is NIMBY. But I think being a NIMBY doesn't always have to be a bad thing. If a development is truly insensitive to its surroundings, I think people have every right to fight it. Usually people blow things out of proportion though. However I do believe this development is insensitive to its surroundings and that Regency should go back to the drawing board. Or maybe sell it off to another developer that will be more sensitive to their neighbours.
    Agree, I just think the term ďNIMBYĒ carries additional implications of being unenlightened, excessively self-interested, etc.

  83. #383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron_Lloyd View Post
    Have we reached peak NIMBY melodrama?
    Not wanting to have a ghastly 35 storey tower next door to their bungalow doesnít make someone a NIMBY
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the revised proposal says the developer agreed to reduce the maximum tower height from 78 metres (22 storeys) to 60 metres (18 storeys). Nor are any of the residential towers being built next door to bungalows.

    https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_...ant_Boards.pdf

    The sections in your link show the bungalows next to these towers, but youíre right about the height. I will therefore revise my statement:

    Not wanting to have a ghastly 18 storey tower next door to their bungalow doesnít make someone a NIMBY

  84. #384
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,602

    Default

    ^Across a busy roadway/LRT ROW from bungalows is not next door. Across a back lane from bungalows is also not next door.

  85. #385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Are these people aware they are living in the middle of a city of a million people? They are getting high rises next door and their dear neighborhood mall is getting torn down to make way for highrises. The "subway system" is coming through. You would think they'd have gotten the hint by now. Sell and move to Beaumont already.
    It is fairly central but not quite the middle of the city. It was a nice quiet residential area before the LRT recently pushed its way through the area. I know someone who did sell and move to a more suburban location, who had lived there for many years. Perhaps it was easier for him as he was retired and his children were grown, he actually moved closer to where they live now. However, not everyone is at that stage of live and does not want to uproot a family or move further away from work.

    While there may be some NIMBY, I think the bigger problem is the current proposed design sucks. It seems to get worse with each iteration. If the developers made an effort to design something to fit into the neighbourhood better they would face a lot less opposition. Its like they are not even pretending to try at this point.

  86. #386
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    It is fairly central but not quite the middle of the city. It was a nice quiet residential area before the LRT recently pushed its way through the area.
    IT's pretty darn close to central. Its like an 8 min drive downtown. Similar to Bonnie Doon, Strathearn, Strathcona. Closer than Glenora. All of which have new high rises planned or under construction (all of the proposed developments are nicer than this one mind you).
    Ive lived here for 10 years. Aside from the traffic circle and 85st, the LRT construction is invisible and has had no effect.

    We're not going to get a Westblock here, but I think we can do better than what's currently proposed. I don't care about heights, 20 stories is fine with me, as long as they are slender and well executed with classy finishes. I'm sure Regency has the ability to do so, but Der Architects certainly does not.

    IT is still a nice, very quiet residential area. Lots of tear downs and infill happening, organically.

  87. #387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    How so, in terms of material? People dont get into business for charity. If that was the case, every house in this city should be multi million dollar homes. Interms of artistic value, that could be done. How is highrise living any different than home living? You still have audiences with diffferent medians of income and expectation. Not everyone has the ability ar the same price point. You cant expect those that cant afford luxury to have the same look and quality in a luxurious tower-externally and internally
    Itís possible for something to be nice without being luxurious. Requires only a developer and consultant who are competent and give a sh1t. Happens regularly in many cities (and sometimes here).
    Which I statd in my comment... Creative value can be achieved yes. From my personal observations, i think the party that is involved with their design is quite weak- that individual or company. They need a better architect firm, or find a talented individual that see color and the ability to coordinate color much better than that to represent Regency.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  88. #388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    From my personal observations, i think the party that is involved with their design is quite weak- that individual or company. They need a better architect firm, or find a talented individual that see color and the ability to coordinate color much better than that to represent Regency.
    On this we agree

  89. #389
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    The re-updated design is to be presented to council tentatively on July 9.

    Side note the rezoning of a few lots just east of the Holyrood gardens area was approved. Nice little walkup with townhouses along 83st. 50 units.
    https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/n...yrood-property
    https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_...sign-brief.pdf

    Urbis Developments has an even smaller walkup planned across the street from that on 95 ave. Townhomes facing 95 ave, 12 units. Urbis does nice stuff - one of the owners lives in the neighbourhood, they've done several infills in Holyrood already. Still pre-application.

  90. #390
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    I can't find a picture to post, but the city did send one out today about the new, final revised plan.
    8 buildings ranging in height from 4 to 25 storeys
    Min 10% affordable housing units and 10% family units (out of 1200)

    The image is, frankly, embarrassing. 8 buildings, completely separate from each other, like they're 8 different developments from 8 different developers.
    The 25 story one looks quite fat and is located at the traffic circle. The rest are probably half that height.

  91. #391
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,755

  92. #392
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,237

    Default

    For a myriad of reasons that's not very appealing. Certainly not trying to win over support with high caliber architecture.

  93. #393

    Default

    Nope nope nope. I don't want any higher density in my neighbourhood. Never going to happen, and I know the neighbourhood feels the same way and will never approve it. Holyrood is a good neighbourhood, with lots of higher priced, single family homes.

  94. #394

    Default

    You're ascribing motives here man that in my experience are not in play. There remain some legitimate concerns about traffic through the neighbourhood, there will be those departing for various reasons but new homes are being built adjacent to the alley. More people living here will be better full stop. The design, the process these are the things being contested.

    This is and only will become a more desireable neighbourhood. Everyone is aware.
    Last edited by ajs; 24-06-2018 at 12:12 AM. Reason: had a thought

  95. #395
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    I love it!!! Now bring out the bulldozers and start asap with the ghetto removal...and if the NIMBYs get in the way....go Tianamen Square on them too!!!'

  96. #396
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    For a myriad of reasons that's not very appealing. Certainly not trying to win over support with high caliber architecture.
    Without any knowledge of the situation, maybe that is the point?

    Frustrated about the changes they needed to make to appease council/admin/public, maybe they feel like they addressed enough of those comments that council will have no choice but to approve this one even though the architecture is a real "f-you" to those stakeholders.

  97. #397
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    For a myriad of reasons that's not very appealing. Certainly not trying to win over support with high caliber architecture.
    Without any knowledge of the situation, maybe that is the point?

    Frustrated about the changes they needed to make to appease council/admin/public, maybe they feel like they addressed enough of those comments that council will have no choice but to approve this one even though the architecture is a real "f-you" to those stakeholders.
    only a process that is broken would result in this...

    nowhere else that iím aware of would end up with this on an inner city transit oriented development site.

    talk about opportunity lost for the developer, for the neighbourhood and for the city at large if this the sort of thing we end up with as precedent.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  98. #398
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Nope nope nope. I don't want any higher density in my neighbourhood. Never going to happen, and I know the neighbourhood feels the same way and will never approve it. Holyrood is a good neighbourhood, with lots of higher priced, single family homes.
    Sorry but higher density near LRT lines is the direction Edmonton is going
    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...uidelines.aspx

  99. #399
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Nope nope nope. I don't want any higher density in my neighbourhood. Never going to happen, and I know the neighbourhood feels the same way and will never approve it. Holyrood is a good neighbourhood, with lots of higher priced, single family homes.
    What is wrong with density on the perimeter of the neighbourhood to support existing infrastructure, support businesses in the area and compliment the upcoming LRT? This city needs a good amount more density in central areas.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  100. #400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    For a myriad of reasons that's not very appealing. Certainly not trying to win over support with high caliber architecture.
    Without any knowledge of the situation, maybe that is the point?

    Frustrated about the changes they needed to make to appease council/admin/public, maybe they feel like they addressed enough of those comments that council will have no choice but to approve this one even though the architecture is a real "f-you" to those stakeholders.
    only a process that is broken would result in this...

    nowhere else that i’m aware of would end up with this on an inner city transit oriented development site.

    talk about opportunity lost for the developer, for the neighbourhood and for the city at large if this the sort of thing we end up with as precedent.
    To an extent I do agree. The first proposal was beautifully designed architecturally significant buildings. But the issue to a lot of people is that it's too much density. This will result in too much traffic, and too many renters. That's why the towers were rejected when they were proposed.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •