Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 1228

Thread: Symphony Tower| Residential | 27 stories | Under Construction

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default Symphony Tower| Residential | 27 stories | Under Construction

    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    I'm hoping those giant beige surfaces get reworked.

  3. #3

    Default

    ^ I'm sure they will. I suspect this one will turn out nicer than anyone may think. Glass never looks that blue in real life too

    Too bad this wasn't being built right in front of Peregrine Point.

  4. #4
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    too bad this shows how desperately lacking our skyline is of glass and good modern architecture.

    ...looking at you river vista...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  5. #5
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    239

    Default

    When was this one proposed and who's doing it?

  6. #6
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    292

    Default

    That one I really like. This rendering does make the skyline look quite drab. One building at a time though.

  7. #7
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amanzano
    When was this one proposed and who's doing it?

    right now...allan wasnea, he is a mechanical engineer in the building beside this one.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  8. #8
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    I'm hoping those giant beige surfaces get reworked.
    Are you talking about the beige surfaces on the proposed tower? Or all the other cement buildings in the background? LOL, this one could be a fantastic addition. Let's wait and see some more detailed renderings.

  9. #9

    Default

    How does a developer accomplish building/parkade access given the rather busy 105 & 106 streets (?) running parallel?

  10. #10

    Default

    I love the glass on this building!

  11. #11
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by amanzano
    When was this one proposed and who's doing it?

    right now...allan wasnea, he is a mechanical engineer in the building beside this one.
    from Wasnea Mah Engineering?

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by amanzano
    When was this one proposed and who's doing it?

    right now...allan wasnea, he is a mechanical engineer in the building beside this one.
    Does this person have any significant, prior development experience? I get a cold chill down my spine that a market is out of control when completely inexperienced people all of a sudden think that they can pull off something like this.

    Someone help allay my concerns here! One does not become a developer ex nihilo.
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by amanzano
    When was this one proposed and who's doing it?

    right now...allan wasnea, he is a mechanical engineer in the building beside this one.
    Does this person have any significant, prior development experience? I get a cold chill down my spine that a market is out of control when completely inexperienced people all of a sudden think that they can pull off something like this.

    Someone help allay my concerns here! One does not become a developer ex nihilo.
    Does it help if I point out that these inexperienced developers are potentially offering better product than these existing "developers" you speak of?

  14. #14
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by amanzano
    When was this one proposed and who's doing it?

    right now...allan wasnea, he is a mechanical engineer in the building beside this one.
    Does this person have any significant, prior development experience? I get a cold chill down my spine that a market is out of control when completely inexperienced people all of a sudden think that they can pull off something like this.

    Someone help allay my concerns here! One does not become a developer ex nihilo.
    one does not become a developer "from nothing" any more than one gains credibility through anonymous criticism from afar.

    allan has long been associated with the development industry and has lived and worked and invested in edmonton for decades.

    as to getting a cold chill down your spine, try acquiring a site and completing a design and getting approval with your own personal cash and reputation on the line - that's spine chilling.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,237

    Default

    Yea from what little I know of Wasnea he is no rookie.

    His engineering firm does some good work.

  16. #16
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I've heard that Wasnea originally held the Omega Site. Whether he developed plans and then sold, I'm not sure.

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    BLUE GLASS..... ever really looked at Manulife?
    I think that a Black glass surface over the beige/grey would be fantastic .
    It would also be great on the Canterra building (112 + Jasper) top corner section of the curtain wall and over the last bit o' brick on the elevator hut on top

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Wasnea works out of a small house in the bottom right hand corner of the proposed building lot (it's hidden in the trees in the photo). He owns the lot already. I think it's a parking lot right now.

    I like the design concept. The pedway from the building over the back alley to the leg grounds is a nice addition.

    106st is usually pretty dead except at afternoon rush hour when the govt employees leave. City will have to make sure 106 st/98 ave/alley behind building are well plowed and sanded in the winter.

  19. #19
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    I've heard that Wasnea originally held the Omega Site. Whether he developed plans and then sold, I'm not sure.
    no, just land...but he was the mech eng on omega and icon
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  20. #20
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    How does a developer accomplish building/parkade access given the rather busy 105 & 106 streets (?) running parallel?

    105st doesnt apply here.

    106st would be the main entrance with the alley being the parkade ingress and egress.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  21. #21
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    What's Wasnea?

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    allan has long been associated with the development industry and has lived and worked and invested in edmonton for decades.
    Can you provide a list of some of his previous projects? I'd like to know more.
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  23. #23
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    What's Wasnea?
    mechanical engineer firm
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  24. #24
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    allan has long been associated with the development industry and has lived and worked and invested in edmonton for decades.
    Can you provide a list of some of his previous projects? I'd like to know more.
    meaning that you had insufficient information to post what you did and still have any credibility?

    or just an admission that you are unable to make anonymous phone calls with any credibility to acquire the kind of information you should have had before posting what you did in the first place?

    and even if i was prepared to pass on third party information - which i am not - what makes you think i would do it without their knowledge and consent and what makes you think they should be providing it to each and every anonymous poster that is not even prepared to be associated with their own opinions? provide your name and a list of your previous projects and you may be entitled to more.

    in the meantime, don't expect me to fly your kite.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  25. #25
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    someone used bad soy milk in their cereal.

  26. #26

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    allan has long been associated with the development industry and has lived and worked and invested in edmonton for decades.
    Can you provide a list of some of his previous projects? I'd like to know more.
    meaning that you had insufficient information to post what you did and still have any credibility?

    or just an admission that you are unable to make anonymous phone calls with any credibility to acquire the kind of information you should have had before posting what you did in the first place?

    and even if i was prepared to pass on third party information - which i am not - what makes you think i would do it without their knowledge and consent and what makes you think they should be providing it to each and every anonymous poster that is not even prepared to be associated with their own opinions? provide your name and a list of your previous projects and you may be entitled to more.

    in the meantime, don't expect me to fly your kite.
    Ken, my question was uncharged, and your response most unwarranted.

    Please don't take offense. I was only asking for more information.

    The context: "Here's a name I've never heard before, and they're pitching hi-rise multi-res? What's their background and experience?" If I were a lender or an equity participant and did not know the individual, this would be QUESTION ONE.

    In this specific forum context, a simple answer like "this guy has led the charge for 5-6 other similar projects in the last x years" was all I was asking for. I'm not asking you to make calls for me or spills beans. How you ever made that oblique connection escapes me, but I'll let that slide and move on.

    There's a very good reason for my anonymity on forums. For reasons outside of my control, I cannot take the risk that any of my opinions expressed (good or bad) be somehow construed as being my employer's (which can happen whether I like it or not).
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  28. #28
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    292

    Default

    A diploma in urban land economics does not a developer make.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ice Dupree
    A diploma in urban land economics does not a developer make.
    NOW who's jumping to conclusions? When did C2E become the next SSC?
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  30. #30

    Default

    Anyways ... I love the look of that tower and it would be a great addition to our skyline. I'd be happy to see this one actually get built but I'll save my exhuberance until that day.

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Interesting. I like how there seems to be a nice blend of material and parts of the structure (curtain glass one side, balconies, etc). I personally don't see what the big broo-ha-ha over nothing but curtain glass is. A great mix of materials can create a much more stunning effect.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  32. #32
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    allan has long been associated with the development industry and has lived and worked and invested in edmonton for decades.
    Can you provide a list of some of his previous projects? I'd like to know more.
    meaning that you had insufficient information to post what you did and still have any credibility?

    or just an admission that you are unable to make anonymous phone calls with any credibility to acquire the kind of information you should have had before posting what you did in the first place?

    and even if i was prepared to pass on third party information - which i am not - what makes you think i would do it without their knowledge and consent and what makes you think they should be providing it to each and every anonymous poster that is not even prepared to be associated with their own opinions? provide your name and a list of your previous projects and you may be entitled to more.

    in the meantime, don't expect me to fly your kite.
    Ken, my question was uncharged, and your response most unwarranted.

    Please don't take offense. I was only asking for more information.

    The context: "Here's a name I've never heard before, and they're pitching hi-rise multi-res? What's their background and experience?" If I were a lender or an equity participant and did not know the individual, this would be QUESTION ONE.

    In this specific forum context, a simple answer like "this guy has led the charge for 5-6 other similar projects in the last x years" was all I was asking for. I'm not asking you to make calls for me or spills beans. How you ever made that oblique connection escapes me, but I'll let that slide and move on.

    There's a very good reason for my anonymity on forums. For reasons outside of my control, I cannot take the risk that any of my opinions expressed (good or bad) be somehow construed as being my employer's (which can happen whether I like it or not).
    the question was uncharged? in isolation only perhaps, or perhaps only in defense. or perhaps as uncharged as your signature line.

    am i starting to take offense? yes - because YOU were not asking for more information, you were ANONYMOUSLY asking for it, just as the rest of your paricipation by your own choice is anonymous. and is there not a bit of irony in your expection that a response would be forthcoming from a known - rather than an anonymous party - allowing you to rely on the information and opinions you requested.

    and don't twist the context of these discussions. if you were a lender or an equity participant AND ALLAN HAD APPROACHED YOU, you would be certainly be entitled to ask that question of him IN PERSON. and he would know who he was providing the answer to. in the context of these discussions, without knowing who you are, you are not entitled to the same answers and if you are not in a position to provide the same things to him as that hypothetical lender or equity participant would be, perhaps not even then.

    but getting back to this specific forum context, your specific forum question had nothing to do with the project and everything to do with the proponent. the response connection to that is direct, not oblique but i will also defer to your choice to let than one slide and move on.

    your rationization of your need for anyonymity is for you to make but from my perspective it is a choice and not a need. you do not need to post and your election to do so is your choice. once you make that election for yourself for whatever rationalization you elect to make, you are welcome to your anonymity but do not expect the same credibility or respect from others that you do not provide in turn. and it is their choice to discount your opinions and your expectations or right to information based on your choice.

    c2e should be no different than a newspaper. if you want a letter published - IF YOU WANT YOUR OPINIONS CIRCULATED WITH THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FORUM GIVING THEM WEIGHT - they must be yours and you should be prepared to be resonsible for them.

    this thread - and c2e in general - is not about "facts", it is about opinions. facts are inarguable, concrete things - a car's top speed, it's horsepower or price; the size of a hard drive or the responsiveness of a video card; the location of a comet in the sky or yesterday's weather or sports results etc.. discussions surrounding facts can and do regularly take place on an anonymous basis because they do not change based on who is stating them. opinions are different - they do not exist outside of the individual that holds them even though they are subject to influence and change - this is part of what differentiates them from fact. in a forum intended to encourage the exchange of ideas and opinions, unbridled anonymity does not add to the discussion or exchange of ideas, it camouflages them and expecting to be treated as an equal while hiding behind anonymity is in my opinion inappropriate.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  33. #33

    Default



    Excuse me while I grab a bag of popcorn.

  34. #34
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    your rationization of your need for anyonymity is for you to make but from my perspective it is a choice and not a need. you do not need to post and your election to do so is your choice. once you make that election for yourself for whatever rationalization you elect to make, you are welcome to your anonymity but do not expect the same credibility or respect from others that you do not provide in turn. and it is their choice to discount your opinions and your expectations or right to information based on your choice.
    Ken, you need to be over here:

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...=5618&start=50

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Foster


    Excuse me while I grab a bag of popcorn.
    Show's over. Cross your fingers for a temporary reprieve from unfounded insinuation.

  36. #36
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    someone needs to go on vacation. share the popcorn in the mean time--I want to watch a grownup throw a tantrum too.

  37. #37

    Default

    Come on NewFangled, we're waiting!

  38. #38
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Maybe murman could change his signature line to say something positive about one of kcantor's projects that he does like. Perhaps then we could avoid every thread turning into a Station Lands debate?
    Anonymously yours,
    Ice

  39. #39
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    I like that tower - LIGHT YEARS ahead of PP in looks!

  40. #40
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    Ice,
    not that it would, or should, matter as there just may not be one (at least publicly) but completely anonymous praise is just as valuable as completely anonymous criticism. nice to have for what it's worth but you can't eat it and it won't keep you warm.
    publicly yours,
    ken
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #41

    Default

    ^ Choo choo— as in to get this thread back on track after this minor derailment (and yes, the analogy works for the SL project) with no visible injuries or permanent structural damage.

    The Wasnea project… don’t know too much about it (not that that has stopped me before) so will confine my comments to the location.

    Location, location and location makes this an interesting development IMO.

  42. #42

    Default

    Too bad the parking exit will ultimately be this projects ball and chain, which - is sad

  43. #43
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Foster
    Too bad the parking exit will ultimately be this projects ball and chain, which - is sad
    WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!!!

    I wonder when Edmonton Planning/transportation will wake up and understand this is very typical in most cities. When i lived in vancouver 3 condos all over 25 floors has ingress/egress off the lane....a single lane and while it was busy at times, worked fine.

    if this is why the project is rejected/reduced in size...it is another reason to pack my suitcase more.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Foster
    Too bad the parking exit will ultimately be this projects ball and chain, which - is sad
    WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!!!

    I wonder when Edmonton Planning/transportation will wake up and understand this is very typical in most cities. When i lived in vancouver 3 condos all over 25 floors has ingress/egress off the lane....a single lane and while it was busy at times, worked fine.

    if this is why the project is rejected/reduced in size...it is another reason to pack my suitcase more.
    Agreed.

    I don't see the issue here... could you not have a 2 lane backalley?

    I really don't see what the major concern is. There is more than enough room there.

  45. #45
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Foster
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Foster
    Too bad the parking exit will ultimately be this projects ball and chain, which - is sad
    WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!!!

    I wonder when Edmonton Planning/transportation will wake up and understand this is very typical in most cities. When i lived in vancouver 3 condos all over 25 floors has ingress/egress off the lane....a single lane and while it was busy at times, worked fine.

    if this is why the project is rejected/reduced in size...it is another reason to pack my suitcase more.
    Agreed.

    I don't see the issue here... could you not have a 2 lane backalley?

    I really don't see what the major concern is. There is more than enough room there.

    again...this kind of point irks me in that it is common place in most cities, even Edmonton, but we apparently think that a congested/busy downtown is a bad thing.

    alleys are tight and this one has a hill to make things tougher, but it is no different than other situations the world over.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  46. #46

    Default

    It should be a non-issue. This tower doesn't look like it has THAT many units anyways - so the number of parking stalls would be small.

    At least way smaller than ICON - and take a look at the street it backs/fronts onto.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    I wonder when Edmonton Planning/transportation will wake up and understand this is very typical in most cities. When i lived in vancouver 3 condos all over 25 floors has ingress/egress off the lane....a single lane and while it was busy at times, worked fine.
    And the most recently-built projects in this vein have comparably lavish, LANDSCAPED back alley entrances now, with porte cocheres (sic?), direct lobby access and the like.
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  48. #48
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    I wonder when Edmonton Planning/transportation will wake up and understand this is very typical in most cities. When i lived in vancouver 3 condos all over 25 floors has ingress/egress off the lane....a single lane and while it was busy at times, worked fine.
    And the most recently-built projects in this vein have comparably lavish, LANDSCAPED back alley entrances now, with porte cocheres (sic?), direct lobby access and the like.

    porte cocheres should be required IMO...street access is usually impossible for this kind of thing. My old condo, the pinnacle, had one and it was so convenient.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  49. #49
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Foster
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Foster
    Too bad the parking exit will ultimately be this projects ball and chain, which - is sad
    WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!!!

    I wonder when Edmonton Planning/transportation will wake up and understand this is very typical in most cities. When i lived in vancouver 3 condos all over 25 floors has ingress/egress off the lane....a single lane and while it was busy at times, worked fine.

    if this is why the project is rejected/reduced in size...it is another reason to pack my suitcase more.
    Agreed.

    I don't see the issue here... could you not have a 2 lane backalley?

    I really don't see what the major concern is. There is more than enough room there.
    again...this kind of point irks me in that it is common place in most cities, even Edmonton, but we apparently think that a congested/busy downtown is a bad thing.

    alleys are tight and this one has a hill to make things tougher, but it is no different than other situations the world over.
    i don't think it's just the "parking exit" that is of some concern or even the lane access to it - that's pretty common for a lot of the downtown buildings, particularly in the government sector.

    the issue here may be that it is not a "through lane" in either direction and the hill combined with our climate is not in fact "typical the world over". it is not just a matter of width either - it will be the inability to turn or to turn around for delivery trucks of any size, moving vans, emergency vehicles in general and fire trucks in particular. likely not something that can't be resolved but certainly dismissing it as "no major concern" probably isn't that accurate either.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  50. #50
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    ^yes but that lane, which im very familiar with given my walks, is typical as most other than the hill. It empties onto 97,98,and 99avenues and does not have much traffic as is.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    That building going up would result in lanes no busier than any other ones in the surrounding condo areas.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  52. #52
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    That building going up would result in lanes no busier than any other ones in the surrounding condo areas.
    no kidding...heck my lane between 105/106st from 99-100ave is 97% city traffic, not condo.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  53. #53
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Allen Wasnea is the principal at Allen Wasnea Engineering, which is an Edmonton based firm that does the mechanical design of a significant number of the units built in Edmonton. Ones you've heard of are Illuminada II, Icon, Omega, Parliament, Meridian, and numerous other smaller ones.

    So he's got lots of experience on the mechanical side of things, and is a good engineer. Whether that makes him a good developer remains to be seen, I guess, but at least he'd have a practical understanding of the processes involved in building something of this scale. Something most developers in Edmonton are sorely lacking.

    His brother is Dennis Wasnea, who is an electrical consultant with Wasnea Mah.

  54. #54
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    252

    Default

    The traffic concerns have more to do with access, than volumes. When it comes to vehicular movement this site is extremely difficult.

  55. #55
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BDavidson
    The traffic concerns have more to do with access, than volumes. When it comes to vehicular movement this site is extremely difficult.

    true...but nothing that cant be overcome.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  56. #56
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by BDavidson
    The traffic concerns have more to do with access, than volumes. When it comes to vehicular movement this site is extremely difficult.

    true...but nothing that cant be overcome.
    true IanO but i think BDavidson's comments in this instance are more accurate. it is a difficult site and "overcome" is not the same as "overlook".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  57. #57
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,910

    Default

    Does anyone know the actual status of this project? Is it merely a proposal at this point or is it beyond that stage? Has EDC seen it?
    Almost always open to debate...

  58. #58
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink
    Does anyone know the actual status of this project? Is it merely a proposal at this point or is it beyond that stage? Has EDC seen it?
    EDC has seen a pre-consult i believe.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  59. #59
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    252

    Default

    /\Yes

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BDavidson
    /\Yes
    Any word on some of the major comments?

  61. #61
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Parking and access probably can be dealt with. This is not any more complicated than parking and access issues for Founders Ridge combined with the Opus on side by side sites, on a dead end lane and fronting streets with no access.

    No formal rezoning application has been submitted yet, but might be forthcoming after EDC is taken care of.

  62. #62
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Citysource
    Parking and access probably can be dealt with. This is not any more complicated than parking and access issues for Founders Ridge combined with the Opus on side by side sites, on a dead end lane and fronting streets with no access.

    No formal rezoning application has been submitted yet, but might be forthcoming after EDC is taken care of.

    bingo and thank you
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  63. #63
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    I got a notice in the mail on friday for a community meeting on a project at 106st and 97 ave. I assume it is this tower. It mentioned using the existing facades of the house where Wasnea engineering is and the old brick apt building on 97 ave.

    Increase density from 500 to 729/ha and allowable stories from 15 to 29.

    I think the meeting was Dec. 5, but I'll confirm with time and location.

  64. #64
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    ^keep us up to date. I would be interested in attending but im out of the radius by a few yards.

    thanks!
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  65. #65
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Ok, here is the info.

    The project is being developed by Rockwood Management Ltd. The architect is BZKA. Armin Preiksaitis & Associates (urban planning and community consultation) and Bunt & Asssociates (traffic impact assessment) are also part of the team.

    They want to amend the capital city downtown plan with a rezoning application (to DC2 from RMU) for the 0.24 hectare site on the northwest corner of 106st and 97 ave. Purpose is to allow the development of up to 177 dwelling units and 29 stories.

    "development reflects the City's desire to enhance a pedestrian friendly character and streetscape of the area and allows for implementing Council's policy direction of having higher density in the downtown area. ...it preserves the historic facades of the Foot Residences and Parkview Apartment buildings while allows for the comprehensive redevelopment of an underutilized site with residential uses that achieve a high standard of appearance whlie ensuring compatibility with the adjacent area."

    Wed. Dec 5 2007
    7-9pm

    Coast Edmonton Plaza
    10155 - 105 St

  66. #66
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    ^doh! i have the Crosby/Oilers game...

    take notes and post
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  67. #67
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    ^doh! i have the Crosby/Oilers game...

    take notes and post
    I'll take those Oil tickets off your hands. That's just the kind of a nice guy that I am...

  68. #68
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    ^ha
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  69. #69
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Here are a couple more photos from the Open House.






    I live at The Marquis with a west view, so this building if built would destroy my view...



    This building is still minimum 3 years away. Personally I wouldn't mind a 15 story... but 29 seems a bit excessive here...

    The general concensus is taller is better, but it would really dwarf everything else around it.

  70. #70
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    571

    Default

    I quite like the tower design......p[odium doesn;t seem to fit with it though. personally I don;t think there is anything wrong with the height......that area could use some height to block out some of the ugly **** in the neighbourhood.

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    I'm sitting here laughing hysterically that Wasnea is going to keep the little brick house his offices are currently in. He's a good, practical engineer but man I'd be embarassed to have clients see my office it was like that place.

  72. #72
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enek


    I like the black glass better, but the red brick units in the podium don't quite fit.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enek
    Here are a couple more photos from the Open House.

    ...

    I live at The Marquis with a west view, so this building if built would destroy my view...

    ...

    This building is still minimum 3 years away. Personally I wouldn't mind a 15 story... but 29 seems a bit excessive here...

    The general concensus is taller is better, but it would really dwarf everything else around it.
    I attended the development appeal board meeting a few years back for the previous Wasnea condo proposal for this location. The developer was appealing with a (very faint) hope for relaxation of zoning laws. I was bemused by (if I recall correctly) a father and son team that presented in opposition to the developer's appeal. Their primary argument was that the structure would spoil their view.

    Enek - You've stated that your view would be destroyed. Perhaps another way of stating the consequence is that your view of the Legislature Building would be obstructed. My first question is, do you, like the aforementioned father/son team, believe that nearby residents have some innate privilege to unchanging or othewise limited change of views?

    You've further stated that this proposal would dwarf surrounding buildings. Can you describe why you've intimated this is a negative? Is it due to personal loss or might there be some objective reasoning. Is it somehow worse than the area's first 15-story apartment that sprang up next to single family dwellings? If the proposed Wasnea condo is too tall, how might one objectively determine a height limit? Can one reasonably decry the loss of a view while residing in a structure that itself has previously robbed others of their view?

    To be transparent, my belief is that one has no claim to a "view" simply because one was there "first." I also regularly find frustration in the suggestion that a structure is inappropriate for an area simply because it is significantly taller than its surroundings.

  74. #74
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,512

    Default

    @raz0469 - The Wasnea House is a designated Heritage Resource and cannot be torn down. I believe the house should be retained.

    I actually don't mind the podium now, they should have added more green / planting on the rooftops and better transition of materials between the podium and tower.

  75. #75
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    raz0469 The place that " man I'd be embarrassed to have clients see my office it was like that place." may have architectural and historical significance. It's great to see the mix! AND If for nothing else the memory of party held there a long time ago for the Arts Community that had a fantastically attired, roller skating waiter who was bearing VERY good Martinis! By the way, Yes that waiter negotiated the stairs at speed numerous times that night

  76. #76
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Honestly guys, drop by his office sometime. It's comical. The stairs don't even have a railing. Like I said, a good practical engineer, but he's kind of eccentric I guess would be a kind way of putting it.

    Maybe it has some historical significance, I don't know. To me it's a dilapitated old brick house. The apartment building behind I agree is worth keeping, the little house, not so much.

  77. #77
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raz0469
    Honestly guys, drop by his office sometime. It's comical. The stairs don't even have a railing. Like I said, a good practical engineer, but he's kind of eccentric I guess would be a kind way of putting it.

    Maybe it has some historical significance, I don't know. To me it's a dilapitated old brick house. The apartment building behind I agree is worth keeping, the little house, not so much.
    Regardless of the state of the interior, it is one of the few brick houses we have, therefore, it is a designated heritage building.

  78. #78
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    Quote Originally Posted by enek
    This building is still minimum 3 years away. Personally I wouldn't mind a 15 story... but 29 seems a bit excessive here...
    Enek - You've stated that your view would be destroyed. Perhaps another way of stating the consequence is that your view of the Legislature Building would be obstructed. My first question is, do you, [...] believe that nearby residents have some innate privilege to unchanging or othewise limited change of views?

    You've further stated that this proposal would dwarf surrounding buildings. Can you describe why you've intimated this is a negative? Is it due to personal loss or might there be some objective reasoning. Is it somehow worse than the area's first 15-story apartment that sprang up next to single family dwellings? If the proposed Wasnea condo is too tall, how might one objectively determine a height limit? Can one reasonably decry the loss of a view while residing in a structure that itself has previously robbed others of their view?
    Even at 15 storeys my view from The Marquis would be ruined, so my somewhat negative view on the Wasnea proposal isn't completely vain. I'll be out of here to buy a house and start a family before this thing breaks ground anyway... Posting that before/after photo was merely for my own comic relief.

    I think we need taller buildings in the heart of downtown, not all around the borders. There are plenty of vacant lots (parking lots) downtown that we can build massive buildings on. Why would we want to build our tallest buildings around the border of downtown and make downtown look like a fortress? The ring road is essentially doing the same thing, sucking all the life out of the centre and building the outside.

    It makes more sense on the north side of downtown because it can expand more. In the winter the sun is so low that building a wall of tall buildings on the south side of downtown is going to make the downtown core look even more drab in the winter.

    I think the Wasnea building design is attractive... (except for the red brick townhouses). Trying to blend the podium into the historic houses just looks silly. I just think these tall buildings belong closer to the downtown core. Even at the top of the hill (around the Omega) you'll get plenty of great views and have a positive impact on the Edmonton skyline.

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    I attended the development appeal board meeting a few years back for the previous Wasnea condo proposal for this location. The developer was appealing with a (very faint) hope for relaxation of zoning laws. I was bemused by (if I recall correctly) a father and son team that presented in opposition to the developer's appeal. Their primary argument was that the structure would spoil their view.

    Enek - You've stated that your view would be destroyed. Perhaps another way of stating the consequence is that your view of the Legislature Building would be obstructed. My first question is, do you, like the aforementioned father/son team, believe that nearby residents have some innate privilege to unchanging or othewise limited change of views?
    enek, where’s your righteous indignation that ole Spill is clamoring for. Dagnabit – it’s your lost view… uhhh… rather, as Spill would dice it… it’s your obstructed view!

    Ya sees enek, these “build em tall guys” don’t give a tinkers damn about lost quality of life and financial losses… must build tall – cause, don’t ya know, according to Spill, you’ve no “innate privilege to unchanging or otherwise limited change of views.”

    How dare anyone challenge zoning change requests and a developer’s, uhhh… “innate privilege to mess with adjacent residents quality of life and financial well being”. Ha! Can ya just imagine ole Spill’s bemusement at he listens to that father/son team – what maroons, what rubes.

  80. #80
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Wow Jeff, that was constructive!

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Regardless of the state of the interior, it is one of the few brick houses we have, therefore, it is a designated heritage building.
    Do you have any information on the house and it's heritage status? I'm genuinely curious. Personally I don't really see any reason that the house is worth keeping architecturally, but perhaps it has some history to it I'm unaware of. If it's simply an old brick house, I fail to see what about it is worth keeping.

  81. #81

    Default

    The tower is nice.

    The podium is great (thank you townhouses)

    But, they don't fit together well. Modern looking tower with red brick (I assume) townhouses...

    Perhaps you could change the color of the podium brick to grey and add a little bit more glass here and there.

    Loving the proper use of the hill though.

    Needs a little work, but all in all... it's pretty good. The windows lining the south end could go and be replaced with one giant piece of glass

    Maybe like this quick paint:

  82. #82
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    i have had the pleasure of being in the office and it is indeed comical, but there are some amazing old bits of development hanging around.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raz0469
    Wow Jeff, that was constructive!
    ...
    Turns out utter inanity is an innate privilege.

    Thanks to enek for responding. Maybe consider moving in to a west-facing suite at Wasnea. Little chance of losing that view.

  84. #84
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    Thanks to enek for responding. Maybe consider moving in to a west-facing suite at Wasnea. Little chance of losing that view.
    If only life were that easy.

    It sounds like there is a small group in my building that plan to form a grass roots oppose the construction of this building. I have no idea what grounds they plan to oppose but it will likely contain all the typical arguments; traffic congestion, crazy dangerous slippery 106 st winter driving access, skyline, ect... etc...

    I don't plan on being a part of this opposition but I will probably follow it closely.

    If anything that building to buffer some of the noise from those crazy snow plows grinding the crap out of the ledge and 106 roads at 4am every day it snows. If you want to live on the 106st hill, invest in some good ear plugs.

  85. #85
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    "
    It sounds like there is a small group in my building that plan to form a grass roots oppose the construction of this building. I have no idea what grounds they plan to oppose but it will likely contain all the typical arguments; traffic congestion, crazy dangerous slippery 106 st winter driving access, skyline, ect... etc... "

    always happens...city expects it, developers expect it, i expect it...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    I attended the development appeal board meeting a few years back for the previous Wasnea condo proposal for this location. The developer was appealing with a (very faint) hope for relaxation of zoning laws. I was bemused by (if I recall correctly) a father and son team that presented in opposition to the developer's appeal. Their primary argument was that the structure would spoil their view.

    Enek - You've stated that your view would be destroyed. Perhaps another way of stating the consequence is that your view of the Legislature Building would be obstructed. My first question is, do you, like the aforementioned father/son team, believe that nearby residents have some innate privilege to unchanging or othewise limited change of views?
    enek, where’s your righteous indignation that ole Spill is clamoring for. Dagnabit – it’s your lost view… uhhh… rather, as Spill would dice it… it’s your obstructed view!

    Ya sees enek, these “build em tall guys” don’t give a tinkers damn about lost quality of life and financial losses… must build tall – cause, don’t ya know, according to Spill, you’ve no “innate privilege to unchanging or otherwise limited change of views.”

    How dare anyone challenge zoning change requests and a developer’s, uhhh… “innate privilege to mess with adjacent residents quality of life and financial well being”. Ha! Can ya just imagine ole Spill’s bemusement at he listens to that father/son team – what maroons, what rubes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    Quote Originally Posted by raz0469
    Wow Jeff, that was constructive!
    ...
    Turns out utter inanity is an innate privilege.

    Thanks to enek for responding. Maybe consider moving in to a west-facing suite at Wasnea. Little chance of losing that view.
    but were you bemused?

    Surely one can't begrudge an individuals right to express concern about, (1) lost quality of life & (2) lost equity... or perhaps you advocate developers having free reign - yes?

  87. #87
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Surely one can't begrudge an individuals right to express concern about, (1) lost quality of life & (2) lost equity... or perhaps you advocate developers having free reign - yes?
    What quality of life is being lost? What equity is being lost?

  88. #88
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    ...but were you bemused?

    Surely one can't begrudge an individuals right to express concern about, (1) lost quality of life & (2) lost equity... or perhaps you advocate developers having free reign - yes?
    bemused? not.

    as for developers having free reign, i think that should only be granted to the developer that developed the unit you live in (ignoring the lost quality of life and lost equity of those that were there before you) and none subsequent - as long as you agree that would really be the fairest and best and most economical way for the city to provide for new growth with as little sprawl and impact as possible.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  89. #89
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Surely one can't begrudge an individuals right to express concern about, (1) lost quality of life & (2) lost equity... or perhaps you advocate developers having free reign - yes?
    What quality of life is being lost? What equity is being lost?
    You cannot begrudge an individuals right to express concern... but as IanO said... you can expect it. Just like I expected this vacant lot to eventually be filled by a towering condo when I purchased my condo.

    As for the quality of life being lost... I'll ask my plants that get limited sunlight as it is... Surely their poor lives will be affected.

  90. #90
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,801
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Surely one can't begrudge an individuals right to express concern about, (1) lost quality of life & (2) lost equity... or perhaps you advocate developers having free reign - yes?
    What quality of life is being lost? What equity is being lost?
    I guess that is for the process to bring forth. Each "affected" party will have their chance.

    So, it becomes a balance about the equity of one or two, or the chance to increase the equity of others...and I speak in more than financial terms.

    Funny thing, this even would give locals a chance to use their financial equity and buy into the new tower, and rent out their old suite. ...but I guess we just focus on the immediate and here and now.

    I fail to see how a view that, well, you DON'T own exclusively is loss of quality of life. As for the equity question from a fiscal sense, there is just as much of a chance of the other condo owner's values increasing, or staying the same, over the near term. After all, more people, more life.

    ...but we must focus on the doom and gloom I guess.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  91. #91
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,512

    Default

    Jeff, what constitutes 'lost equity' or 'lost quality of life'? I believe it is safe to assume that responses will vary on a case-by-case basis.

  92. #92

    Default

    If one questions the lost quality of life... then one has never had the benefit of living with unobstructed views of English Bay, of Stanley Park, of the North Shore Mountains or of Edmonton's river valley... or of the Legislative Grounds/river valley. To watch an expansive display of nature unfolding beneath and afar, to have an ever-changing vantage point from your living room/bedroom….. as compared to staring out at the same street-level scene, day-after-day... oh look, your neighbour's garage door just opened – and he’s putting the garbage out ….. as compared to staring out across what was once those high-rise unobstructed views only to have the views replaced with the interiors of that new condo that’s sprung up directly across the street. I’ve been in several VanCity West-End/Coal-Harbour condos where you could actually look out and observe what your across-the-street condo neighbours were having for dinner. Quality of life?

    If one questions the lost equity... then one isn’t privy to real-world scenarios where the selling prices of condos have been drastically reduced by lost views. I personally know of this occurrence from the experience of friends in VanCity – one example being where friends condo building selling prices dropped in the order of $60K-to$100K because their building lost what was an unobstructed view of Burrard Inlet/Stanley Park/North-Shore Mountains.

    So, yes, there is a re-zoning process that exists, that needs to be followed. It’s one that many on this board view as a token event, quickly to be dispatched to allow what many on this board view as a developer’s de-facto carte-blanche entitlement. In this Wasnea Tower proposal case, a developers re-zoning attempt to shift from what is, I believe, a max 15 storey zone to something that supports this 29 storey proposal.

    So, of course, we read more of the same “must build high” to “combat sprawl” mantra… at the expense of existing residents, be that Strathern, be that VFTC, be that Wasnea Tower….. because this city currently doesn’t have a cohesive plan/strategy that looks to appropriately address infill needs/opportunities. But wait, ones a coming… we’ll see what it really holds.

  93. #93
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    ^ill agree with you jeff on those points, but i disagree that new developments should be nixed due to the preservation of views for a tower that has "grandfather rights"

    if thats the case, we are all hypocrites and the natives should bulldoze all of our cities.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  94. #94

    Default

    IanO, I'm not saying that at all - I'm certainly not suggesting that new developments should be held back in the name of preserving views. However, the re-zoning (attempt) process should be respected... by all... by both sides. I'm just a bit ticked when I read someone ridicule the attempts of local residents to make their case - the "bemused" reference thrown out a few posts back.

  95. #95
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    ^ok...thats acceptable and i very much agree that the process needs a immediate community voice.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    ...
    I'm just a bit ticked when I read someone ridicule the attempts of local residents to make their case - the "bemused" reference thrown out a few posts back.
    The only item ridiculed is your disingenuous response. Take a look at a dictionary and tell me how bemused equates to ridicule. Then consider a sincere and direct answer to my questions regarding the privilege one has to a view.

    Given the consideration that one's high-rise view is already at the expense of others' view and that there is no legal claim to a view, I submit that it is confusing that one would expect such privilege in submission to a committee with a legally-binding mandate.

    Get over it.

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    ...
    I'm just a bit ticked when I read someone ridicule the attempts of local residents to make their case - the "bemused" reference thrown out a few posts back.
    The only item ridiculed is your disingenuous response. Take a look at a dictionary and tell me how bemused equates to ridicule. Then consider a sincere and direct answer to my questions regarding the privilege one has to a view.

    Given the consideration that one's high-rise view is already at the expense of others' view and that there is no legal claim to a view, I submit that it is confusing that one would expect such privilege in submission to a committee with a legally-binding mandate.

    Get over it.
    Hey Spill - was that you that used the "bemused" reference?

    Particularly in the context used, your bemused word choice is most telling. Pick your dictionary – mine says, “to cause to have feelings of wry or tolerant amusement”. So, you were tolerantly amused at a father/son attempting to challenge the zoning process based on their anticipated loss of view.

    The rest has been spoken to – there is no more of an innate privilege to a view as there is an innate privilege by a developer to… how did Jeff phrase that again… oh ya, an innate privilege by a developer to mess with an existing residents loss of quality of life and/or loss of equity. No innate privileges on either side. No developer carte-blanche entitlements. Follow the process, respect the process….. rather than expressing, uhhh…. “tolerant amusement”.

  98. #98

    Default

    Debate the issue here and not the person. Name calling and other such language is frowned upon here.

    People will always have different points of view, how ever right or wrong they might be. Keep the conversation civil, and don't drag this conversation in to the gutter. Stick to debating the issue please.

    FYI: This is a general message, and not directed at any one in particular.

    Thanks.

    C2E Community.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    ...
    So, you were tolerantly amused at a father/son attempting to challenge the zoning process based on their anticipated loss of view.

    The rest has been spoken to ...

    Follow the process, respect the process….. rather than expressing, uhhh…. “tolerant amusement”.
    Truly your prowess of superfluous inference is matched only by your penchant for mitigated clarification of overstatement. Well done.

    The view-privilege questions have not been addressed despite protests to the contrary. At any time, directly, please. Have a Wonderful Life.

  100. #100

    Default

    You buy a property with a great view that happens to be across a vacant lot. You're a speculator now, consciously or not. You've invested in a property whose value is partially tied to a factor you cannot absolutely control. I realize this is true of all real estate in some sense, but let's focus for the purpose of the exercise. After 5 years in your new property your view is intact, property values are increasing, everything is kosher. You've made a wise investment it seems. Then *boOoOOm!* the lot is sold by someone who bought a piece of property and wants what they're due, a chance to see a return on an investment. Why is their conscious speculation immediately suspect? You knew at the outset that your view was not guaranteed, that there was a chance you'd lose it at some point. You chose to play the odds and it paid off for a time. Take your lumps when they come. By all means, protect your investment as best you can, work in the available frameworks to ensure that your community as a whole benefits as much as possible from any given development, mindful that progress is not malice, and do not deprive others of the same privileges and rights you so strongly protect for yourself. This is my take on the system as it's laid out, for better or for worse.

Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... 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
  •