Page 44 of 49 FirstFirst ... 34404142434445464748 ... LastLast
Results 4,301 to 4,400 of 4898

Thread: ICE District Developments | Under Construction

  1. #4301
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    In a couple years it will be 4th and 5th.

  2. #4302

    Default

    Test holes being done inside ye ol' Ice District presentation centre. I've never seen that done inside a building before.
    www.decl.org

  3. #4303

    Default

    ^ the old brookfield office? I've always felt that building just needed a brick reclad and add some retail bays to fit right in on the street.

  4. #4304
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Test holes being done inside ye ol' Ice District presentation centre. I've never seen that done inside a building before.
    What the heck is a Test Hole?.. Glory Hole?
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  5. #4305
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,564

    Default

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_sample
    To determine the load bearing quality of the soil.

  6. #4306

    Default

    Test hole? Are they adding on, or is there potentially something more. Very interesting!
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  7. #4307

    Default

    It wouldn't make much sense to add on. More likely whoever owns the property isn't expecting to start construction for at least a couple years yet so they would rather keep the building up and generating revenue while they get their design, permits and sales all in place.
    There can only be one.

  8. #4308

    Default

    I kind of suspected that but only inquire as we don't know if there was problem from the past. A skinny tower would be awesome there.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  9. #4309

    Default

    I'm hearing a tower of some sort. No specifics or timelines.
    www.decl.org

  10. #4310

    Default

    Man, both Google and Bing really need to update their satellite imagery. It looks like a completely different city.

  11. #4311

    Default

    ^^
    Thanks for that insight. A skinny 15-20 stories would be more than suffice. Anything more is a bonus. I would love a concept of two suites per floor with a single penthouse.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  12. #4312

    Default

    A nice little comparison - 6 Months of progress.



    Last edited by S3RI3S; 08-10-2017 at 08:27 PM. Reason: Added a pic

  13. #4313
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,924

    Default

    What a difference!
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  14. #4314
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Great photos. Goodbye Manulife from that angle. Encore and Tower B will fill some gaps in there nicely though.
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  15. #4315

  16. #4316

    Default

    Thanks again to all our photo warriors whom have contributed- phone or good camera.
    Encore and Tower B will just make that view better.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  17. #4317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    A nice little comparison - 6 Months of progress.



    Reminds me of Sim City haha.

  18. #4318

    Default

    Only wish they would build at the sim city speed though lol.

  19. #4319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    ^^
    Thanks for that insight. A skinny 15-20 stories would be more than suffice. Anything more is a bonus. I would love a concept of two suites per floor with a single penthouse.
    Permitted height in HA Zone is 115.0m. Or DC2 application.
    www.decl.org

  20. #4320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    ^^
    Thanks for that insight. A skinny 15-20 stories would be more than suffice. Anything more is a bonus. I would love a concept of two suites per floor with a single penthouse.
    Permitted height in HA Zone is 115.0m. Or DC2 application.
    Speaking of zoning , is there a map readily available of downtown's current zoning?

  21. #4321
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    ^^
    Thanks for that insight. A skinny 15-20 stories would be more than suffice. Anything more is a bonus. I would love a concept of two suites per floor with a single penthouse.
    Permitted height in HA Zone is 115.0m. Or DC2 application.
    Speaking of zoning , is there a map readily available of downtown's current zoning?
    https://maps.edmonton.ca/map.aspx

  22. #4322
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default


    twitter.com/jwmarriottedm
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  23. #4323

    Default

    I saw that an hour go when i zipped by. Rogers
    That would be cool, but the Christmas tree needs to be in the middle imo.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  24. #4324
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Given that is public skate, I doubt the tree would be on the ice surface.

  25. #4325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Given that is public skate, I doubt the tree would be on the ice surface.
    For the duration leading up to and slightly after the holidays, why not? People can do circles around it for a 360 view; and come next year - if legalized- the 240 can loop around the 360 for a better optic
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  26. #4326
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Given that is public skate, I doubt the tree would be on the ice surface.
    For the duration leading up to and slightly after the holidays, why not? People can do circles around it for a 360 view; and come next year - if legalized- the 240 can loop around the 360 for a better optic
    Have you ever been to public skate? Either someone would take out the tree or the tree would take someone out!

  27. #4327

    Default

    Rockefeller ice rink doesnt have their tree in the middle

    https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-g...80419-9016.jpg

  28. #4328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Given that is public skate, I doubt the tree would be on the ice surface.
    For the duration leading up to and slightly after the holidays, why not? People can do circles around it for a 360 view; and come next year - if legalized- the 240 can loop around the 360 for a better optic
    Have you ever been to public skate? Either someone would take out the tree or the tree would take someone out!
    Endless times. I even played hockey and did figureskate and never had a problem. Have you ever been to Manhatten and skated around the famous tree? So people or a tree ca't clash with each other from that position? You hit a tree because you don't pay attention; skates don't steer themselves but people do.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  29. #4329
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    Sometimes I really think people just have zero imagination. "Tree plus ice? There's absolutely no way to make it work. Scrap the idea and burn the rendering because it's heresy."

    How about a temporary round bench seat in the middle that surrounds a Christmas tree? Is that too much of an obstacle? Maybe a little snowy island surrounds the tree so people can't skate close enough to do damage to it or themselves. There are a multitude of ways that this could work if you bother to try to have a positive view of it.

  30. #4330
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,689

    Default

    The still photos folks are generously providing are better - but here are the "official" district cams: http://icedistrictproperties.com/ice...ct/live-feeds/
    ... gobsmacked

  31. #4331
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Sometimes I really think people just have zero imagination. "Tree plus ice? There's absolutely no way to make it work. Scrap the idea and burn the rendering because it's heresy."

    How about a temporary round bench seat in the middle that surrounds a Christmas tree? Is that too much of an obstacle? Maybe a little snowy island surrounds the tree so people can't skate close enough to do damage to it or themselves. There are a multitude of ways that this could work if you bother to try to have a positive view of it.
    It is called looking at it from a legal point of view in terms of liability. Companies/corporate consider these things. Judging from how OEG shuts down bars that use their name in any slight way, I imagine the legal team would be on something like this.

    While I appreciate your positive outtake on everything in life (blue skying is fun after all), not everyone can afford that luxury. It isn't that much of a stretch to put the tree outside of the ice and have it as a nice setting for pictures. Having been to public skate a few times at Rogers in the community rink, people are awful at skating and a giant obstacle in the middle isn't a very good idea, even if it looked nice or pretty. People that play hockey or have figure skated are good skaters, but usually, public skating folks don't have the same acumen of those that have participated in various ice sports.

    Anyway, OEG obviously has plans to bring events to the space. It will be a question of the extent they plan on utilizing the said space. Renders and the imagination are one thing, while in practice is another. This isn't the City of Edmonton we're talking about, so they don't really have a civic duty to have programming in this space year round - they are still a business that wants to make money, and I think people forget that with this project sometimes.
    Last edited by Moodib; 12-10-2017 at 04:54 PM.

  32. #4332

    Default

    So on a different note here, what are the protocols when it comes to a fire evac when highrises share the same podium or parkade? I know of two stage systems, but my knowledge is limited to smaller developments. Do the sibling buildings carry a full alarm after a stage 2 delay?

    Just to stir the pot even more , would that mean rogers place is tied in to the whole complex because of the parkade?

  33. #4333
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Sometimes I really think people just have zero imagination. "Tree plus ice? There's absolutely no way to make it work. Scrap the idea and burn the rendering because it's heresy."

    How about a temporary round bench seat in the middle that surrounds a Christmas tree? Is that too much of an obstacle? Maybe a little snowy island surrounds the tree so people can't skate close enough to do damage to it or themselves. There are a multitude of ways that this could work if you bother to try to have a positive view of it.
    It is called looking at it from a legal point of view in terms of liability. Companies/corporate consider these things. Judging from how OEG shuts down bars that use their name in any slight way, I imagine the legal team would be on something like this.

    While I appreciate your positive outtake on everything in life (blue skying is fun after all), not everyone can afford that luxury. It isn't that much of a stretch to put the tree outside of the ice and have it as a nice setting for pictures. Having been to public skate a few times at Rogers in the community rink, people are awful at skating and a giant obstacle in the middle isn't a very good idea, even if it looked nice or pretty. People that play hockey or have figure skated are good skaters, but usually, public skating folks don't have the same acumen of those that have participated in various ice sports.

    Anyway, OEG obviously has plans to bring events to the space. It will be a question of the extent they plan on utilizing the said space. Renders and the imagination are one thing, while in practice is another. This isn't the City of Edmonton we're talking about, so they don't really have a civic duty to have programming in this space year round - they are still a business that wants to make money, and I think people forget that with this project sometimes.
    Not everyone can afford to look at potential ways that it could work? Do you have a personal stake in it? Unless your answer is yes, you can afford to not be perpetually negative about possibilities here. Realistically there are ways to do it. There are also ways to homogenize it, after which I'm sure the discussion will turn to how boring and cookie cutter it turned out.

    I'm not on their legal team and obviously have no stake in the project. I'm just a guy who isn't content to tear down a potential project because it might be more difficult than the status quo.

  34. #4334
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Sometimes I really think people just have zero imagination. "Tree plus ice? There's absolutely no way to make it work. Scrap the idea and burn the rendering because it's heresy."

    How about a temporary round bench seat in the middle that surrounds a Christmas tree? Is that too much of an obstacle? Maybe a little snowy island surrounds the tree so people can't skate close enough to do damage to it or themselves. There are a multitude of ways that this could work if you bother to try to have a positive view of it.
    It is called looking at it from a legal point of view in terms of liability. Companies/corporate consider these things. Judging from how OEG shuts down bars that use their name in any slight way, I imagine the legal team would be on something like this.

    While I appreciate your positive outtake on everything in life (blue skying is fun after all), not everyone can afford that luxury. It isn't that much of a stretch to put the tree outside of the ice and have it as a nice setting for pictures. Having been to public skate a few times at Rogers in the community rink, people are awful at skating and a giant obstacle in the middle isn't a very good idea, even if it looked nice or pretty. People that play hockey or have figure skated are good skaters, but usually, public skating folks don't have the same acumen of those that have participated in various ice sports.

    Anyway, OEG obviously has plans to bring events to the space. It will be a question of the extent they plan on utilizing the said space. Renders and the imagination are one thing, while in practice is another. This isn't the City of Edmonton we're talking about, so they don't really have a civic duty to have programming in this space year round - they are still a business that wants to make money, and I think people forget that with this project sometimes.
    Not everyone can afford to look at potential ways that it could work? Do you have a personal stake in it? Unless your answer is yes, you can afford to not be perpetually negative about possibilities here. Realistically there are ways to do it. There are also ways to homogenize it, after which I'm sure the discussion will turn to how boring and cookie cutter it turned out.

    I'm not on their legal team and obviously have no stake in the project. I'm just a guy who isn't content to tear down a potential project because it might be more difficult than the status quo.
    You're mistaking me for others on this board. I'm hardly perpetually negative. Just pointing out that people have different perspectives on this and some must​ think more strategically.

  35. #4335
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Nice, tree placement debate lol.

  36. #4336

  37. #4337
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    209

    Default

    ∆∆∆ Great photo (s) as usual @ B.ike. Where did you take that?
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  38. #4338

    Default

    Taken from the UofA Engineering DICE building

  39. #4339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    Speaking of zoning , is there a map readily available of downtown's current zoning?
    https://maps.edmonton.ca/map.aspx?lookingFor=Zoning
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  40. #4340
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Coming off of the Whitemud onto Fox Drive, the JW and Stantec are both quite visible now.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  41. #4341

    Default

    Job No 265568154-002
    Description: To construct temporary tents and mobile structures including temporary outdoor rink (NHL Centennial Fan Tour)
    Location: 10104 - 104 AVENUE NW
    Plan 1425251 Blk 9E Lot 7
    Applicant: OILERS ENTERTAINMENT CANADA CORP.
    Status: In Development Review
    Create Date: 10/31/2017 8:34:25 AM

  42. #4342

    Default

    Tower A has officially surpassed epcor!

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BbDbURij...by=icedistrict
    Last edited by S3RI3S; 04-11-2017 at 01:13 PM. Reason: english

  43. #4343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    Tower A official has officially surpassed epcor!

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BbDbURij...by=icedistrict
    It's the start of a new era.

  44. #4344

    Default

    For a moment I thought this was an image of Calgary.



    Source: http://www.yourtruhome.com/edmonton-...gates-on-117th
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  45. #4345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    For a moment I thought this was an image of Calgary.



    Source: http://www.yourtruhome.com/edmonton-...gates-on-117th
    Other than shutting down the city center airport, moving the rail yard north was a smart move for downtown. Calgary **** the bed there in my opinion.

  46. #4346

    Default

    Here's a short video that compiles the proposed construction progress of the Ice District, from 2014. (Click the image to get to Flickr.) The schedule remains relatively true to this depiction, though seemingly a bit behind.

    I'm not entirely certain who created the individual renderings.


    Edmonton's Ice District - Proposed Construction Schedule (from 2014) on Flickr.

    But I do know we've come a long way, babe.


  47. #4347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Here's a short video that compiles the proposed construction progress of the Ice District, from 2014. (Click the image to get to Flickr.) The schedule remains relatively true to this depiction, though seemingly a bit behind.

    I'm not entirely certain who created the individual renderings.


    Edmonton's Ice District - Proposed Construction Schedule (from 2014) on Flickr.
    Cool find, looks like BIM or something similar https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/bim

  48. #4348
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    So on a different note here, what are the protocols when it comes to a fire evac when highrises share the same podium or parkade? I know of two stage systems, but my knowledge is limited to smaller developments. Do the sibling buildings carry a full alarm after a stage 2 delay?

    Just to stir the pot even more , would that mean rogers place is tied in to the whole complex because of the parkade?
    I guess it will depend where the fire doors/walls are. If they share the same podium or parkade you'd need to evacuate both.

  49. #4349

    Default

    Baccarat temp. parking refused, going to SDAB tomorrow (131 surface stalls)
    www.decl.org

  50. #4350
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Baccarat temp. parking refused, going to SDAB tomorrow (131 surface stalls)
    Interesting. Back story may be more interesting.

  51. #4351

    Default

    ^Not really any back story, I'll find the D.O.'s decision and post. Non-accessory is not permitted along 104 Avenue I believe, or maybe discretionary.
    www.decl.org

  52. #4352
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Baccarat temp. parking refused, going to SDAB tomorrow (131 surface stalls)
    Excellent. One step closer to that Historical Zoning we've all been fighting for.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  53. #4353
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,082

    Default

    Do you mean temporary parking on the site of the Baccarat is refused? Does this mean someone at city hall would rather leave it standing?

  54. #4354
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Baccarat temp. parking refused, going to SDAB tomorrow (131 surface stalls)
    Good. Although I assume that may have been the only decision the DO could have made?

    Hopefully the SDAB doesn't allow this either.

  55. #4355

    Default

    Sorry, 310 stalls not 131. Pertinent info is on page 11 of this SDAB agenda - http://edmontontribunals.ca/docs/November_8_HR2.pdf
    www.decl.org

  56. #4356

    Default

    Hahahaha. Hilarious at how little effort they were going to be putting into their parking lot as proposed.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  57. #4357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Hahahaha. Hilarious at how little effort they were going to be putting into their parking lot as proposed.
    ...no kidding, a pretty embarrassing proposal. A completely gravel lot, with no drainage, no handicapped stalls, minimal trees / landscaping. At least try to make it somewhat appealing, even if temporary.

  58. #4358

    Default

    ^you mean, the design was consistent with 90% of the surface parking in Edmonton? A good decision, I wish the same rules applied to those that already have permits.

  59. #4359
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcr View Post
    ...no kidding, a pretty embarrassing proposal. A completely gravel lot, with no drainage, no handicapped stalls, minimal trees / landscaping. At least try to make it somewhat appealing, even if temporary.



    For who ?

    The skids grazing up to Boyle Street Community Services ?

    Top_Dawg doubts they give a ***.

  60. #4360
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,082

    Default

    Why snazzy it up if excavators are soon to come in and dig a hole for construction of a major tower. You guys would spend a lot of money to fix it up nice just to soon destroy it? I think Katz is smarter than that. That's something the COE would do though.

  61. #4361
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,294

    Default

    Why do they need more parking anyway? Downtown is awash in available parking spaces.
    I would rather they just keep the Baccarat building up until they are ready for phase 2.
    “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

  62. #4362
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,082

    Default

    It could even be leased out. Take the signs off, give it some paint. It would make a good chinese restaurant.

  63. #4363
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Was at the hearing this AM as an observer. Curious to see what the decision will be. Interesting arguments.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  64. #4364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Why snazzy it up if excavators are soon to come in and dig a hole for construction of a major tower. You guys would spend a lot of money to fix it up nice just to soon destroy it? I think Katz is smarter than that. That's something the COE would do though.
    Hey it doesn't have to be the Taj Mahal of parking lots, but at least put the minimum amount of effort in with asphalt & parking lines, minimum amount of trees required. "Soon" in this context is 3 years, they'll make the money back easily in parking revenue.

  65. #4365

    Default

    And make them use it for their concert semis and tour buses instead of parking most of them in the public street.
    There can only be one.

  66. #4366

  67. #4367

    Default



    Must ... not ... drool ...

  68. #4368
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,856

    Default

    5 more?

  69. #4369
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    5 more?
    Hmm. On ICE District Instagram dated November 3rd it was 150.535 m. That leaves approx 42m left. It's been 8 days since.....sigh.I know it's hard to figure out. What a beauty though.
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  70. #4370
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    9 more for the JW if I recall.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  71. #4371

    Default

    Wonder how much units in the Ice District would fetch in 5 years. Hopefully not much more than now. I would invest in the ID right now if I knew for sure what my long-term plans would be. What an amazing project though.

    The next phase is not guaranteed is it?

  72. #4372
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abii View Post
    Wonder how much units in the Ice District would fetch in 5 years. Hopefully not much more than now. I would invest in the ID right now if I knew for sure what my long-term plans would be. What an amazing project though.

    The next phase is not guaranteed is it?
    Depends on the economy. I wouldn't expect the values to increase dramatically considering they're setting the price ceiling downtown and there's lots of competition from other developments coming down the pipeline.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  73. #4373
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Greyhound site will be rental and getting going above grade in Dec.

    Phase 2 north will be late 2018 or early 2019.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  74. #4374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Greyhound site will be rental and getting going above grade in Dec.

    Phase 2 north will be late 2018 or early 2019.
    Is phase 2 actually confirmed? Last a saw was just a render of a resi complex?

  75. #4375

    Default

    What render?

  76. #4376
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,294

    Default

    ^ Possibly referring to this?

    “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

  77. #4377

    Default

    Wow. It'll never happen the way it's depicted of course but that'd be pretty cool.

  78. #4378

    Default

    ^Because it's Edmonton? Council just has to be tough on expectations.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  79. #4379
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,294

    Default

    Please note the "conceptual" wording on the bottom right of that pic
    “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

  80. #4380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ^Because it's Edmonton? Council just has to be tough on expectations.
    No, because it's conceptual.

  81. #4381
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    That land is not going to make a lot of money as is. Their play is development and I cannot wait to see what is in store.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  82. #4382

    Default

    Conceptual only for purposes of rezoning only, however there is discussions with the City about what kind of amenity space they'd like to see.
    www.decl.org

  83. #4383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Conceptual only for purposes of rezoning only, however there is discussions with the City about what kind of amenity space they'd like to see.
    40 lane bike lane // highway right through downtown.

  84. #4384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Conceptual only for purposes of rezoning only, however there is discussions with the City about what kind of amenity space they'd like to see.
    Precisely. The City has options. Just like it did with Brewery District.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  85. #4385

    Default

    "City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Bylaw 18224 on:

    Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:30pm
    Council Chambers, 2nd floor, City Hall

    If approved, the Text Amendment will effectively exempt the Arena and Entertainment District (AED) Zone from the 500 metre alcohol sales separation rule by providing opportunity for alcohol sale to operate, regardless of whether or not other alcohol sales exist within 500 metres.

    City Planning does not support this proposed bylaw."
    www.decl.org

  86. #4386
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    "City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Bylaw 18224 on:Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:30pmCouncil Chambers, 2nd floor, City HallIf approved, the Text Amendment will effectively exempt the Arena and Entertainment District (AED) Zone from the 500 metre alcohol sales separation rule by providing opportunity for alcohol sale to operate, regardless of whether or not other alcohol sales exist within 500 metres.City Planning does not support this proposed bylaw."
    But why?

  87. #4387

    Default

    Why does Ice District get an exemption? Would be real nice if some specialty stores could open up around the city. The 500m rule has effectively forced the creation of crappy power centre warehouses like Wine and Beyond, and almost every new liquor store is a mass chain store. Artificial scarcity allows developers to jack up rents (I would assume, I have no data to support this) for liquor stores. "Oh, you want to put a liquor store here? Well, you'd have a monopoly for the entire area, so how much you gonna pay me?" is how I imagine that goes. That forces out the ma and pa players. I could be wrong. /rant
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  88. #4388
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    In the urban environment, even in the sub-urban one, you generally have to deny these as most would be within the 500m radius. Kinda of a stupid one size fits all rule given scale of neighbourhoods. Given the 'rules', planning likely cannot be supportive either way.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  89. #4389

    Default

    Because they want to sell liquor, and they don't want to ask every time.

    Honestly I don't think that the 500m limit is appropriate downtown or for niche-type stores, but it doesn't make sense to exempt them and make everyone else continue following the rules. If it's still operating, would the off-sales at the grand/crash hotel technically prohibit a liquor store from opening in in almost all of the frozen water district? Kinda sweet justice if so.
    There can only be one.

  90. #4390
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Similar to how a 'craft beer' store wants to open on Jasper/103st but is within 500m of Devine. The little UG liquor store that just opened up in the Cambridge lofts was also impacted by this and had to go to SDAB as they are within 500m of the mall's store.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  91. #4391

    Default

    Is this referring to liquor stores as opposed to dining establishment / bars?

  92. #4392

    Default

    ^Yes, two totally different uses as far as the bylaws are concerned. (Zoning Bylaw 12800, 7.4 Commercial Uses, (30) Major Alcohol Sales and (34) Minor Alcohol Sales)
    Last edited by GreenSPACE; 20-11-2017 at 02:30 PM.
    www.decl.org

  93. #4393
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamantium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    "City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Bylaw 18224 on:Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:30pmCouncil Chambers, 2nd floor, City HallIf approved, the Text Amendment will effectively exempt the Arena and Entertainment District (AED) Zone from the 500 metre alcohol sales separation rule by providing opportunity for alcohol sale to operate, regardless of whether or not other alcohol sales exist within 500 metres.City Planning does not support this proposed bylaw."
    But why?
    the real issue is that this entire 500 m rule is nothing short of stupid for suburban as well as urban locations. if there is an issue in a particular area, then an overlay or something similar can be adopted.

    the other issue is that the aed is special but in areas like this it is no different than the rest of downtown and shouldn't be treated differently than the rest of downtown.

    i'm all in favour of the proposed change, just not in limiting it to the aed. city planning has lost this argument on more than one occasion at sdab and alberta courts. the current workaround that aed is trying to change was only implemented so the city didn't have to abide by the courts' decision.

    what i'm not in favour of is the aed getting their way in areas that would never be approved elsewhere by anyone else (temporary gravel parking lots, private signage on public sidewalks, billboard and advertising on building faces) and now the ability to have different rules than anyone else on liquor store proximity. i have no real issue with some of the amended rules - including this one - per se but rules should apply - in both directions - equally inside and outside the aed.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  94. #4394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamantium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    "City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Bylaw 18224 on:Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:30pmCouncil Chambers, 2nd floor, City HallIf approved, the Text Amendment will effectively exempt the Arena and Entertainment District (AED) Zone from the 500 metre alcohol sales separation rule by providing opportunity for alcohol sale to operate, regardless of whether or not other alcohol sales exist within 500 metres.City Planning does not support this proposed bylaw."
    But why?
    the real issue is that this entire 500 m rule is nothing short of stupid for suburban as well as urban locations. if there is an issue in a particular area, then an overlay or something similar can be adopted.

    the other issue is that the aed is special but in areas like this it is no different than the rest of downtown and shouldn't be treated differently than the rest of downtown.

    i'm all in favour of the proposed change, just not in limiting it to the aed. city planning has lost this argument on more than one occasion at sdab and alberta courts. the current workaround that aed is trying to change was only implemented so the city didn't have to abide by the courts' decision.

    what i'm not in favour of is the aed getting their way in areas that would never be approved elsewhere by anyone else (temporary gravel parking lots, private signage on public sidewalks, billboard and advertising on building faces) and now the ability to have different rules than anyone else on liquor store proximity. i have no real issue with some of the amended rules - including this one - per se but rules should apply - in both directions - equally inside and outside the aed.
    I agree with Ken on this one. I don't think the city should carve out islands of exceptions for the bylaw because it creates an unfair playing field for everyone else.

    At the same time, there are areas of the city that have on over-concentration of liquor stores and this contributes to negative outcomes for these neighbourhoods (107 Ave., Alberta Ave., Stony Plain Road). I used to live near 107 Ave. (Central MacDougall) and I could walk to 3 liquor stores within 5 minutes, but it would take me 15 minutes to walk to a grocery store that sold fresh produce. I think the 500m rule was a blunt instrument used to limit this type of liquor store over-concentration, but it fails to take into account things like population density, specialty liquor stores, and neighbourhood context. Personally, I think it would be great to see a few more craft beer stores downtown that promoted local products; it would be a great way to promote Alberta's craft beers to tourists visiting from out of town as well. However, the liquor store bylaw is in need of a serious overhaul to address these issues that will continue to crop up as the downtown population grows.

  95. #4395
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamantium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    "City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Bylaw 18224 on:Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:30pmCouncil Chambers, 2nd floor, City HallIf approved, the Text Amendment will effectively exempt the Arena and Entertainment District (AED) Zone from the 500 metre alcohol sales separation rule by providing opportunity for alcohol sale to operate, regardless of whether or not other alcohol sales exist within 500 metres.City Planning does not support this proposed bylaw."
    But why?
    the real issue is that this entire 500 m rule is nothing short of stupid for suburban as well as urban locations. if there is an issue in a particular area, then an overlay or something similar can be adopted.

    the other issue is that the aed is special but in areas like this it is no different than the rest of downtown and shouldn't be treated differently than the rest of downtown.

    i'm all in favour of the proposed change, just not in limiting it to the aed. city planning has lost this argument on more than one occasion at sdab and alberta courts. the current workaround that aed is trying to change was only implemented so the city didn't have to abide by the courts' decision.

    what i'm not in favour of is the aed getting their way in areas that would never be approved elsewhere by anyone else (temporary gravel parking lots, private signage on public sidewalks, billboard and advertising on building faces) and now the ability to have different rules than anyone else on liquor store proximity. i have no real issue with some of the amended rules - including this one - per se but rules should apply - in both directions - equally inside and outside the aed.
    I agree with Ken on this one. I don't think the city should carve out islands of exceptions for the bylaw because it creates an unfair playing field for everyone else.

    At the same time, there are areas of the city that have on over-concentration of liquor stores and this contributes to negative outcomes for these neighbourhoods (107 Ave., Alberta Ave., Stony Plain Road). I used to live near 107 Ave. (Central MacDougall) and I could walk to 3 liquor stores within 5 minutes, but it would take me 15 minutes to walk to a grocery store that sold fresh produce. I think the 500m rule was a blunt instrument used to limit this type of liquor store over-concentration, but it fails to take into account things like population density, specialty liquor stores, and neighbourhood context. Personally, I think it would be great to see a few more craft beer stores downtown that promoted local products; it would be a great way to promote Alberta's craft beers to tourists visiting from out of town as well. However, the liquor store bylaw is in need of a serious overhaul to address these issues that will continue to crop up as the downtown population grows.
    to which i would only add two things...

    firstly, the city has the ability to deal with specific areas of overconcentration or concern the same as they do for pawn shops - they introduce a restrictive overlay for the specific problem area.

    secondly, all of the "problem liquor stores" in the "problem areas" are grandfathered by way of their previous permits and licenses so the only areas in the city with exceptions to the limiting distance rules are those very areas that are put forward to justify the limiting distance rules.

    is your head spinning yet?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  96. #4396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamantium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    "City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Bylaw 18224 on:Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:30pmCouncil Chambers, 2nd floor, City HallIf approved, the Text Amendment will effectively exempt the Arena and Entertainment District (AED) Zone from the 500 metre alcohol sales separation rule by providing opportunity for alcohol sale to operate, regardless of whether or not other alcohol sales exist within 500 metres.City Planning does not support this proposed bylaw."
    But why?
    the real issue is that this entire 500 m rule is nothing short of stupid for suburban as well as urban locations. if there is an issue in a particular area, then an overlay or something similar can be adopted.

    the other issue is that the aed is special but in areas like this it is no different than the rest of downtown and shouldn't be treated differently than the rest of downtown.

    i'm all in favour of the proposed change, just not in limiting it to the aed. city planning has lost this argument on more than one occasion at sdab and alberta courts. the current workaround that aed is trying to change was only implemented so the city didn't have to abide by the courts' decision.

    what i'm not in favour of is the aed getting their way in areas that would never be approved elsewhere by anyone else (temporary gravel parking lots, private signage on public sidewalks, billboard and advertising on building faces) and now the ability to have different rules than anyone else on liquor store proximity. i have no real issue with some of the amended rules - including this one - per se but rules should apply - in both directions - equally inside and outside the aed.
    I agree with Ken on this one. I don't think the city should carve out islands of exceptions for the bylaw because it creates an unfair playing field for everyone else.

    At the same time, there are areas of the city that have on over-concentration of liquor stores and this contributes to negative outcomes for these neighbourhoods (107 Ave., Alberta Ave., Stony Plain Road). I used to live near 107 Ave. (Central MacDougall) and I could walk to 3 liquor stores within 5 minutes, but it would take me 15 minutes to walk to a grocery store that sold fresh produce. I think the 500m rule was a blunt instrument used to limit this type of liquor store over-concentration, but it fails to take into account things like population density, specialty liquor stores, and neighbourhood context. Personally, I think it would be great to see a few more craft beer stores downtown that promoted local products; it would be a great way to promote Alberta's craft beers to tourists visiting from out of town as well. However, the liquor store bylaw is in need of a serious overhaul to address these issues that will continue to crop up as the downtown population grows.
    to which i would only add two things...

    firstly, the city has the ability to deal with specific areas of overconcentration or concern the same as they do for pawn shops - they introduce a restrictive overlay for the specific problem area.

    secondly, all of the "problem liquor stores" in the "problem areas" are grandfathered by way of their previous permits and licenses so the only areas in the city with exceptions to the limiting distance rules are those very areas that are put forward to justify the limiting distance rules.

    is your head spinning yet?
    I am aware of how overlays work and I know how grandfathering works, hence the high concentration of liquor stores in older parts of the city where their permits pre-date the current bylaw. I have a somewhat decent grasp of the regulatory framework governing municipal bylaws under the Municipal Government Act.

    My point was really that the current bylaw is inadequate to address the growing demand for specialty liquor stores in downtown and other parts of the city. I don't know exactly how a new bylaw should be written to account for this, but factors such as neighbourhood population density, operating hours, and scale of operation should be taken into consideration.

  97. #4397
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamantium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    "City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Bylaw 18224 on:Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:30pmCouncil Chambers, 2nd floor, City HallIf approved, the Text Amendment will effectively exempt the Arena and Entertainment District (AED) Zone from the 500 metre alcohol sales separation rule by providing opportunity for alcohol sale to operate, regardless of whether or not other alcohol sales exist within 500 metres.City Planning does not support this proposed bylaw."
    But why?
    the real issue is that this entire 500 m rule is nothing short of stupid for suburban as well as urban locations. if there is an issue in a particular area, then an overlay or something similar can be adopted.

    the other issue is that the aed is special but in areas like this it is no different than the rest of downtown and shouldn't be treated differently than the rest of downtown.

    i'm all in favour of the proposed change, just not in limiting it to the aed. city planning has lost this argument on more than one occasion at sdab and alberta courts. the current workaround that aed is trying to change was only implemented so the city didn't have to abide by the courts' decision.

    what i'm not in favour of is the aed getting their way in areas that would never be approved elsewhere by anyone else (temporary gravel parking lots, private signage on public sidewalks, billboard and advertising on building faces) and now the ability to have different rules than anyone else on liquor store proximity. i have no real issue with some of the amended rules - including this one - per se but rules should apply - in both directions - equally inside and outside the aed.
    I agree with Ken on this one. I don't think the city should carve out islands of exceptions for the bylaw because it creates an unfair playing field for everyone else.

    At the same time, there are areas of the city that have on over-concentration of liquor stores and this contributes to negative outcomes for these neighbourhoods (107 Ave., Alberta Ave., Stony Plain Road). I used to live near 107 Ave. (Central MacDougall) and I could walk to 3 liquor stores within 5 minutes, but it would take me 15 minutes to walk to a grocery store that sold fresh produce. I think the 500m rule was a blunt instrument used to limit this type of liquor store over-concentration, but it fails to take into account things like population density, specialty liquor stores, and neighbourhood context. Personally, I think it would be great to see a few more craft beer stores downtown that promoted local products; it would be a great way to promote Alberta's craft beers to tourists visiting from out of town as well. However, the liquor store bylaw is in need of a serious overhaul to address these issues that will continue to crop up as the downtown population grows.
    to which i would only add two things...

    firstly, the city has the ability to deal with specific areas of overconcentration or concern the same as they do for pawn shops - they introduce a restrictive overlay for the specific problem area.

    secondly, all of the "problem liquor stores" in the "problem areas" are grandfathered by way of their previous permits and licenses so the only areas in the city with exceptions to the limiting distance rules are those very areas that are put forward to justify the limiting distance rules.

    is your head spinning yet?
    I am aware of how overlays work and I know how grandfathering works, hence the high concentration of liquor stores in older parts of the city where their permits pre-date the current bylaw. I have a somewhat decent grasp of the regulatory framework governing municipal bylaws under the Municipal Government Act.

    My point was really that the current bylaw is inadequate to address the growing demand for specialty liquor stores in downtown and other parts of the city. I don't know exactly how a new bylaw should be written to account for this, but factors such as neighbourhood population density, operating hours, and scale of operation should be taken into consideration.
    i didn't mean to imply that you were not aware of how overlays work or how grandfathering works. i was my intent to show how those things the city uses to justify trying to maintain minimum distances doesn't work when and where it should - and why - and to point out that they have appropriate surgical tools at their disposal without having to rely on the use of inappropriate bludgeons on the entire city.

    as for neighbourhood population density, operating hours and scale of operation, those aren't taken in to account now and aren't deemed to be an issue. overall municipal requirements in these areas seem to be adequate for restaurants and bars and night clubs and gas stations and convenience stores and welding shops and manufacturing plants etc. as for how the new bylaw would be written, i'm not sure a liquor store needs to be treated any differently than a 7/11 or a neighborhood pub...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  98. #4398

    Default

    Forgive me if this is in the wrong spot but I have noticed that recently the impark lot to the north of Baccarat is closed. Does this mean that the casino is actually close to being demolished and the area re-purposed?

  99. #4399

    Default

    ^Temporary fencing went up last week, my guess is demolition is imminent. Last meeting we had of the advisory group was that it was to be demolished this past fall.
    www.decl.org

  100. #4400

    Default

    No idea if this is going to be surface parking or not, no decision from Nov. 8 SDAB hearing has been posted online.
    www.decl.org

Page 44 of 49 FirstFirst ... 34404142434445464748 ... 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
  •