Strathearn plan

[RichardS]

From June 2nd's OPINION section of the Edmonton Journal. I am hearing a lot on this plan and a lot of opposition from the residents. Time to read more I guess...

This seems similar to the article on the "Venetian". Was that also in the OPINION section IanO?

Originally Posted by edmonton journal

Strathearn plan may set standard


The Edmonton Journal


Friday, June 02, 2006


So what's it going to be -- more sprawling suburbs and a continuous decline in older neighborhoods? Or smarter choices that create a more sophisticated big city?

Strathearn community, just southeast of downtown, is the front line in this battle as it considers a developer's proposal to replace an large and aging apartment complex with proposed "urban village" in the middle of the community between 87th Street and 90th Street and 95th Avenue.

Many residents, leery of change in the 1950s era suburbs, especially balked at the proposal for three highrise towers in the complex. The plan would triple the number of housing units to around 1,5000 to 2,000, including townhouses, low-rise apartment and three 20-storey buildings on the 21-acre site.

But with some goodwill and intelligent negotiating, this older community, with its spectacular river views, could produce an enticing, successful model of how to revitalize the city's older neighbourhoods. And none too soon.

Several communities like Strathearn, just beyond the city centre, lost their schools last year due to declining population. If redevelopments stalls, the city is looking at serious urban trouble.

City council must also be engaged in the debate to insist on mixed-use communities, sensitive to the neighbourhood and with plenty of room for families -- not just highrise towers as stop-off points for young professionals on their way to the suburbs.

Fortunately, the developer here shares that vision, according to his letter to the residents. Montreal-based Stephen Vineberger, whose family has owned the apartments for years, wants to create an urban village for young families, older folks with local stores and services on the street.

Townhouses, some affordable housing (to replace what would be taken down) will be built along with the towers. Whether that's exactly right mix is debatable at this early stage and council should take a close look. The important question, as always, in revitalizing older communities is -- how much more housing is appropriate?

The highrise towers are the focus of residents' ire. But rather than look only on building height, it's important to take a close look at what can be gained by going up.

Rather than a series of squat, low buildings (as there is now) that occupy much of the green space, block the view and cast a lot of shadow, fewer tall buildings leave lots of room for public space, says Armin Preiksaitis, the developer's Edmonton designer.

The developer proposes bike paths, parks, community gardens, a new community centre. Apartments and townhouses would have individual front doors to enhance the street.

The increase in population is necessary to support the stores and the costs of new public amenities, says the Preiksaitis.

It can also be good planning. Sustainable cities are about getting more use out of existing infrastructure, and that means increasing housing.

The community is right to take a careful look. Increased density for its own sake won't necessarily enhance any older neighbourhood.

But this is a large site and the developer has a complex design with lots of public amenities, right down to wider sidewalks to enhance street life.

As Mayor Mandel has noted, there's a lot of mediocre architecture in this city and an urgent need for some marquee projects. This developer promises high quality design and materials, and the community should hold him to it.

The booming economy provides Edmonton a long-awaited opportunity to revitalize its older neighbourhoods. In-fill projects must be sensitive to the communities and the right scale.

Strathearn is a great opportunity to implement the city's smart choices policies -- walkable communities, mixed housing, higher density near transit and well used green spaces.

© The Edmonton Journal 2006

[IanO]

"Was that also in the OPINION section IanO? "

nope...business i believe.

[DanC]

I missed this meeting because I had to come back to Ft. Mac...I asked my Mom to go, but didn't hear if she made it, because shes in the States now. As a life long resident of Strathearn and having bought my parents' house, I can only welcome this! I hope to live in what will be a vibrant and unique community. It is already a great area, and this will make its AMAZING!

[ChrisD]

This will be a very interesting redevelopment. Yes, there will be opposition and anxious residents. They have a right to be concerned considering the scale and intensity of the proposed development. There will be your residents that 'declare war' on the development and there will be residents that just need to be'educated' on exactly how the development will contribute to improving their community.

[LindseyT]

Originally Posted by ChrisD

This will be a very interesting redevelopment. Yes, there will be opposition and anxious residents. They have a right to be concerned considering the scale and intensity of the proposed development. There will be your residents that 'declare war' on the development and there will be residents that just need to be'educated' on exactly how the development will contribute to improving their community.

In the end, a similar situation to Century Park. People heard highrises and alarms went off, but after explanation and education opposition is minimal.

[DanC]

The scale of the high rises will be interesting, I am still undecided if I can throw my support behind 25 floors...you have to remember that this project is right smack in the middle of nothing but single family homes on all sides. Century Park at least is buffered, somewhat, from being directly across the back alley from people's houses. I look forward to seeing their proposal and I think the idea of 8 - 12 floor is very solid. Any highere and I am just going to wait and see the concept first.

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by DanC

The scale of the high rises will be interesting, I am still undecided if I can throw my support behind 25 floors...you have to remember that this project is right smack in the middle of nothing but single family homes on all sides. Century Park at least is buffered, somewhat, from being directly across the back alley from people's houses. I look forward to seeing their proposal and I think the idea of 8 - 12 floor is very solid. Any highere and I am just going to wait and see the concept first.

Yes, you'll have to pay close attention on how these highrises transition to the existing single family homes. Don't let height be the issue because it is 25 floors. The important part is the details and technical components of the plan. Shadowing, microclimate effects, etc.

[LindseyT]

Originally Posted by DanC

The scale of the high rises will be interesting, I am still undecided if I can throw my support behind 25 floors...you have to remember that this project is right smack in the middle of nothing but single family homes on all sides. Century Park at least is buffered, somewhat, from being directly across the back alley from people's houses. I look forward to seeing their proposal and I think the idea of 8 - 12 floor is very solid. Any highere and I am just going to wait and see the concept first.

I'd assume, like CP, the taller towers will be in the core and smaller ones on the perimeter. That should minimize some of what you are talking about.

[DanC]

Originally Posted by ChrisD

Yes, you'll have to pay close attention on how these highrises transition to the existing single family homes. Don't let height be the issue because it is 25 floors. The important part is the details and technical components of the plan. Shadowing, microclimate effects, etc.

Height is a minor concern as opposed to what you mention and the architectual standard that must be achieved. I will pull my support of this project if it is not of the highest architectual standard. My major concern with the height is, depending on placement, if it seems to cut the neighboorhood in half. My expectation however is that, with the groups involved in the design, that most concerns will be mediated with the initial conceptual renderings and that any changes will be minor, in comparison with other projects that have taken place throughout the City.

[Caesar555]

This development is a great idea!! I used to live in the Strathern Heights apartments and the area is incredible! Near downtown, Bonnie Doon, Capilano. Convinient transportation routes, shopping, and nearby neighborhood stores. Where do I sign up?

I do hope the high rises are tastefully done though.

[DanC]

I looked over the handouts from the two community meetings that have taken place and I am still very impressed by the vision and desire of all those that are involved. I am hoping that at the next meeting there will be a priliminary plan submitted. I do know they are trying to negotiate a land deal to buy up Strathearn Park (Hockey Rink, Playground) and redevelop it, in exchange for green spaces through out. There is also a plan to tie the River Valley into the community via a mixed used/pedestrian corridor. For me to suppport towers they are going to have to be of the highest quality and not large slabs that will slice the neighboorhood in two. I fully believe that with those involved in the project, it should be the best it can be.

[RichardS]

I'm with you on this one Dan...

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by rcmbrown

This development is a great idea!! I used to live in the Strathern Heights apartments and the area is incredible! Near downtown, Bonnie Doon, Capilano. Convinient transportation routes, shopping, and nearby neighborhood stores. Where do I sign up?

I do hope the high rises are tastefully done though.

The neighbourhood is fantastic.

I have no doubt in my mind given the track record of Jeremy Sturgess and Rennie Marketing that this project will raise the bar in Edmonton. Much like Century Park IS going to.

[ChrisD]

I thought I would provide a link that talks about the myths and facts around multi-family and dense development.

http://www.uli.org/Content/ContentGr...FHigher010.pdf

Take a read...

[onishenko]

Originally Posted by ChrisD

I thought I would provide a link that talks about the myths and facts around multi-family and dense development.

http://www.uli.org/Content/ContentGr...FHigher010.pdf

Take a read...

Thanks Chris, great read!

[RichardS]

I drove by the proposed site yesterday - what an ideal area!

[Alex]

Richard, ideal area, but most certainly not an ideal site for several 25 story towers. Placing some of the tallest buildings in Edmonton in the middle of a 1 to 2 story single family dwelling neighbourhood will simply swamp the character of what is there now. As you said, it's ideal, so let's not encourage its destruction.

Let's encourage responsible development.

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by Alex

Richard, ideal area, but most certainly not an ideal site for several 25 story towers. Placing some of the tallest buildings in Edmonton in the middle of a 1 to 2 story single family dwelling neighbourhood will simply swamp the character of what is there now. As you said, it's ideal, so let's not encourage its destruction.

Let's encourage responsible development.

Fair response. However, what is your definition of 'responsible' development? That seems like a very subjective term.

[RichardS]

I too Alex have that question. What makes 25 story towers "irresponsible?" ...and please don't cite the age old and tired traffic and increased crime pieces...that is just stereotyping high density development. Traffic will increase naturally. Crime in the area is not going to explode.

I say it is ideal due to the amazing neighborhood it could create. Right now, it is bland, old, and tired.

Access to major transit routes is also a big plus, as well as mobilizing efforts for infill in our city and curbing the sprawl that is areas like Windermere.

Towers so do not equal neighborhood destruction. 2 trees, a pyrogy on a toothpick, and a brick median are not revitalization either!

I guess I am tired of high rise = death. That is so not the case.

PS - welcome to C2E.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by RichardS

Right now, it is bland, old, and tired.

I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from. You have been promoting high density and towers for some time but you say you only drove through the neighbourhood just recently. Your front windscreen survey tells you it's bland, old and tired. You make it sound like a slum, are you a developer? Why is old bad and new good? Not every neighbourhood wants the Old Strathcona style 'vibrant'. Tired? Get out of your car and walk around. In fact, experience the neighbourhood, don't just drive through and pass judgement.

The home owners in that neighbourhood chose to live there because it is mature ('old' in your words) and retains the attributes of when neighbourhoods were for people, not for cars. There are sidewalks, front porches, trees and garages in the alley where they belong. People know their neighbours in Strathearn. Can you know your neighbour if the building beside you is 25 stories tall?

It's a quiet neighbourhood and the people who chose to live there like it that way. If they wanted noisy parties and traffic jams all day long, they would have chosen to live elsewhere.

Tired? Now that's a subjective term. If you actually look at the homes you will see that they are very well kept and many have been renovated or restored and just this weekend the community park got all new playground equipment. Even the apartment site has been very well kept for the last 50 years. If you want tired, look to the east at the Hollyrood apartments.

Strathearn is not the slum you make it out to be, ripe for bulldozing and reconstruction as a reflection of the towers on the other side of the river. It's home to several thousand community minded people who chose the neighbourhood for what it is, not for what a developer thinks he can make money from. Responsible development, then, is understanding the neighbourhood and the community that makes it a neighbourhood then proposing something that complements what's already there. Irresponsible development is viewing the site as an empty lot in isolation and thinking of nothing more than profit and awards from the architectural society.

[RichardS]

Woah woah woah Alex - you're jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I am happy that you have passion, but do not insinuate what I feel.

I don't think it is crap, and I've been in the area plenty of times - even house hunting. Strathern is not a slum. Not at all, in fact it is a well-liked area of mine - especially the northern side. My comment was that I went to a doctor in the area and actually sat back and looked at the site and envisioned the proposal. Where it is proposed, it fits, It is not killing a neighborhood but doing more what Century Park is doing for other areas, and Jasper East will do - provide a central area of higher density surrounded by medium to single family dwellings.

Noisy parties and traffic jams - now THAT's subjective. I've lived in high rises and houses in many cities and I have yet to live in a high rise that allowed loud parties. In fact, high rises are really strict on noise pollution due to the proximity of your neighbor. Clamping down occurs quickly and without pity. ...and yes, I DID get to know my neighbors, borrow the proverbial cup of sugar, go over for dinner, baby-sit kids, work on potted plants, enjoy a beer on the balcony, play games, and go to weddings. I find that in a single family world, people tend to cocoon more and hide in their 0.3 acres, their picket fence, and with their 2.1 kids and 1.2 dogs, all the while eyeing their neighbor suspiciously.

Traffic jams - on what basis do you rest this conclusion, experience? High rise people tend to be either transit oriented or only a single car dwelling as compared to the single family home with the car, truck, convertible, RV, and other traffic generating pieces of equipment.

As for your conclusion on responsible development, from what I have seen and read, this developer has been EXTREMELY responsible. They've consulted the and others. They've proposed a good development with a good mix of features. There seems to be support from other areas in the city as well.

Tired? The buildings to be replaced are old and uninspiring. That is what I mean. As for the rest of the place, it is OK, but no zing, hence why I decided NOT to buy there in the end. Sure, it has pretty trees, but otherwise it is uninspired.

You say Strathern was designed with no mind to the car? Then you say garages, back alleys, sidewalks, trees, make this somehow more pedestrian friendly? I lived in Parkview - amazingly similar to Strathern. ...and yes, I have crutched (I am disabled) around your little neighborhood and my old one in Parkview, and let me assure you, your neighborhood is SO not pedestrian friendly as you make it sound. In fact it ia a mirror image of Parkview, Valleyview, and any other neighborhood of the time. The new neighborhoods you lament being designed "around the car" have *gasp* sidewalks and trees and garages in the front or back and some have back alleys! Yet, in no way are they "pedestrian friendly", and hardly crutch and wheelchair friendly.

Funny thing in Parkview I had medium rise apartments across the street, and nary a complaint do I have of anyone there.

Your complaints are not unexpected. Anyone who proposed a high rise in a neighborhood is usually met with the same conclusions - traffic, noise, crime, and oh my God the character is going to die. After living in many high rises and single family homes, I have enjoyed my high rise living exponentially more. The only way I enjoyed the single family world was when I was on the farm - with a plethora of land and quiet beyond what any suburban mystique stereotype could deliver.

You mention Hollyrood, and yes that area is in need of redevelopment, and I believe that is happening as we speak.

High rise dwellers are not all noise generating zealots who want to drive to their in-condo mailbox and raise hellions who want to break into your house and steal your stuff (I’ve had more break-ins in the burbs thank you very much) Many are quiet, respectable professionals who take transit and are more community minded than any suburb I’ve ever lived in.

[ThomasH]

Alex, it would be wise to do some research on what life is like in other cities. The best way to do that is to go there and check them out. If you can't do that then check out discussions about cities all over the world.

www.skyscraperpage.com
www.skyscrapercity.com

[RichardS]

PS - After this conversation, I took a friend of mine for a tour of the site. I still remain unchanged in my opinion, this site is an ideal one for this proposal, or any good one that updates those old buildings into something more structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing.

One thing struck me in your rationale for responsible development...

"Irresponsible development is viewing the site as an empty lot in isolation and thinking of nothing more than profit and awards from the architectural society."

If this proposal was poorly designed or used substandard materials to cut costs in the name of obscene profit, I could see a point from the profit argument. However, decrying a building because it may win an architectural award or 2 - especially in this city - doesn't make sense to me. I would LOOOOOOOOVE to see several architectural icons in this city rather than some of the bland, uninspired designs a la True North. As for a profit, I would hope the developer makes one. After all, that is why anyone does this.

[DanC]

Since my Mom lived here in Strathearn for 30 years and I have lived here all my life, I have had this same argument with her numerous times. She is of the mind that height=bad, now not that simplistic, but that is her general opinion. I am more of the opinion that height may be needed to ensure that the product is profitable and economically feasible without having to sacrifice quality.
Well I still maintain I think the original idea of 24 floors was more of a bargaining tactic by the developer and architect, and that this will be scaled down, I understand the reasoning behind it.
I know this project is going to go ahead in one form or another, so I put aside my worry about height and focus on the importance of the architecture and the amenities it will bring the neighboorhood.
I guess it comes down to: Do you want to sleep in another single family, typical suburb style community or do you want to allow a varied type of development, that may bring new amentities and make it a destination neighboorhood, but also ask to sacrifice some of the "quietness."
I'm on the latter side, I can deal with it, because I have faith that is I focus on the positive and work with the developer, a GREAT product can be developped.
Face it, change is coming, zoning already exists to 12 floors...so don't think it won't be going up.

[DanC]

Heads up folks, next Strathearn Heights redevelopment open house is set for Oct 4th from 5 - 9 pm at Ecole Gabrielle Roy - 8728 93 Ave.
Also looks like a website will be going up at: www.strathearnrejuvination.ca

[RichardS]

Sounds like a date!

[DanC]

If anyone is for sure going and wants to meet up previous PM me please. I will be walking over there at some point.

[r2d2]

Change is good and redevelopment of the Strathearn Apartments is necessary. However, the current plan from the developers does not remotely keep in the tradition of the neighbourhood. What it does do is highlight the developers' need to make as much money as possible on the land as they can. Do we need new ammenities? Well there is Bonnie Doon mall, Capilano Mall and Downtown within 5 minutes of the neighbourhood, so no. Are there any buildings of the magnitude that they are proposing in the vacinity? No.
I do believe in working with the developers and it seems that there will probably be at least 12 story buildings.
But I will tell you what should go there, what should have gone there in the beginning... Houses!
The arguement that building 25 story buildings in the middle of a community of homes will help solve the urban sprawl is an attempt by the developers to convince the naive.
This is an issue of $$$ not urban sprawl.
Unfortunately, what ever the issue is the people who live in this neighbourhood will be the ones who will live with it.

[IanO]

while i respect what you are saying and it has some merit, here is my reply:

Change is good and redevelopment of the Strathearn Apartments is necessary. However, the current plan from the developers does not remotely keep in the tradition of the neighbourhood. What it does do is highlight the developers' need to make as much money as possible on the land as they can.

- if they wanted just $ they would do TNP 20 storey towers without use of good design, material, etc. etc....this plan is far from just for profit.

Do we need new ammenities? Well there is Bonnie Doon mall, Capilano Mall and Downtown within 5 minutes of the neighbourhood, so no.

- go to arbutus st in van...neighbourhood amenities are key to developing a feel...not just to drive off to bonnie doon to do it all. Cafes, restaurants, etc. bring a certain homey feel.

Are there any buildings of the magnitude that they are proposing in the vacinity? No.
I do believe in working with the developers and it seems that there will probably be at least 12 story buildings.
But I will tell you what should go there, what should have gone there in the beginning... Houses!
The arguement that building 25 story buildings in the middle of a community of homes will help solve the urban sprawl is an attempt by the developers to convince the naive.

- while i agree to some extent, this area has a great potential for a nice urban infill project like this. Look to van, to toronto, to portland....they have projects like this scattered throughout RF1....we need more of this for both diff levels of housing affordibility and range of housing.

This is an issue of $$$ not urban sprawl.
Unfortunately, what ever the issue is the people who live in this neighbourhood will be the ones who will live with it.

-i hate the NIMBY argument...should century park have been stopped just cause it will increase traffic for the houses nearby and cast shadows, no. Should glenora stop a 20 + condo cause it doesnt fit in and overwhelms yet is a stones throw to downtown and has a 20 storey apartment there already, no.

while i am against putting things where they shouldnt be, i am also appauled at how this city doesnt recognize at how we have a very low density and for sustainability and many other factors need to have developments such as this to provide tax dollars, people, vibrancy, mixtures of incomes and housing, etc. to all parts of Edmonton.

i want to see stratherns plan go ahead a be a model for 5 or 10 more all around the city.

[DanC]

Height is the #1 issue in the neighboorhood, I expect it to be a clusterf**k of resentment at the open house...espeacially if the towers haven't been scaled back.

I myself am holding off any judgements till I see the final product. Basically doing the same thing I have been doing the whole time, disregarding the height and judging it on its potential and merit as a whole.

With the Century Park comparisons, this is a pretty different location. If you come by here you will realise its dead smack in the middle of single family housing. Literally across the back alley from some homes. It is not at all an isolated parcel with major transportation links on 2 sides, there is no major roadway. Also the transit situation for the area amounts to one route that runs every 15 mins only during peak hours and till 6 pmish and dissapears on weekends.
That is one thing I hope for with the going ahead, better more frequent transit. Basically an alternative to the #8.
Oh and I want the amenities, having spent a bunch of time in the Kitsilano area in Van this summer, I can say I love being able to walk to everything...please bring me a neighboorhood produce market.

[IanO]

^ here is one of the options for the plan and please tell me how these towers adversely affect the surrounding neighbourhood. THey have placed them centrally and have surrounded the plan with townhomes which face the current housing.

IMO ideal urban design, or damn near

[r2d2]

Despite all efforts it is apparent that the developers have no interest in working with the community.
Here is an excerpt for the document "Southeast Area Plan Consolidation". This document was created with input and conclusions drawn from the community representatives and city aldermen, in 1998. This is publicly available and expresses the concerns from the community regarding 400 additional units, never mind 1750 units the developers have planned. Does not seem that the developers have gotten the point yet. The most important point being "the existing DC5 District must be enforced".

"The proposed redevelopment of the Strathearn Heights Apartment
complex will add approximately 400 additional multiple family
residential units to the neighbourhood. This will dramatically alter
the existing balance of single -family to multiple family housing in
Strathearn. Residents are very concerned with potential threats to
the single family character of the remainder of the community, and
will not accept additional increases in density for other sites in the
community without very strong justification.
2. Owing to the impact that the redevelopment of the Strathearn
Heights site will have on the neighbourhood, the existing DC5
District must be enforced. Residents wish to retain the single
family character of the neighbourhood in terms of a consistent
streetscape (i.e., front drive access, setback, lane servicing)."

All of this information is available from links located on www.strathearncommunityleague.org

[r2d2]

Thanks for the drawing IanO.
You can find the drawing that details the height of the buildings at :http://www.strathearnrejuvenation.ca/site_plans.html
Did you notice that they have added a 4th building? (19storeys)
I would like to point out that the building that don't have the nice arrows to them are 6 to 8 stories. Seems like wall are being built all around the blocks. I do like the townhomes, I just wish there were more of them and less of these 6to8 story buildings and highrises.[/url]

[IanO]

Originally Posted by r2d2

Thanks for the drawing IanO.
You can find the drawing that details the height of the buildings at :http://www.strathearnrejuvenation.ca/site_plans.html
Did you notice that they have added a 4th building? (19storeys)
I would like to point out that the building that don't have the nice arrows to them are 6 to 8 stories. Seems like wall are being built all around the blocks. I do like the townhomes, I just wish there were more of them and less of these 6to8 story buildings and highrises.[/url]

www.arbutuswalk.ca

this is 4-8 stories and is phenominal

[amelanchier]

IanO (and others)
The plan you show is not the current (September 2006) design. To the best of my knowledge the version you posted is no longer an option. For one thing, they aren't suggesting a relocation of the community league anymore. I don't know how to paste a picture in but here's a link to the site planning page, from which you can go to the latest version:

http://www.strathearnrejuvenation.ca/site_plans.html

As a resident of Strathearn I have mixed feelings about this development. I hope increased density will lead to improvements in transit service to the neighbourhood. I like the idea of more small retail options within walking distance.

On the other hand, I am concerned about shadowing by the 4 towers (19 to 23 stories in the current design) and the effect of the proposed density increase on traffic. The roads in the neighbourhood are not ideal for moving large numbers of cars, and access to Connors Road and 85th street are sometimes problematic even now.

I totally understand my neighbours' concerns about this development and the whole process - we got badly burned over the school closure a couple of years ago and it doesn't make us very trusting, and despite all the open houses and consultations, we really don't get the impression the developers are listening to us.

[ThomasH]

Originally Posted by r2d2

I do like the townhomes, I just wish there were more of them and less of these 6to8 story buildings and highrises.

I don't understand your arguement about height, what exactly is wrong with height? On the strathern map the developer made sure there is a smooth transition from house to highrise, don't tell me that the developer didn't consider the single family house aspect of the neighbourhood because that isn't true. Since Strathern is located by the river valley it should come to no suprise that highrises would be proposed. Look at Highlands, Oliver, the residential between the U of A and Millcreek ravine they all have highrises overlooking the river valley. Furthermore, I don't see any above ground parking lots which means that parking is all underground - in my opinion that is a good thing. Nothing destroys charector more than surface parking lots.

[IanO]

Originally Posted by ThomasH

I don't understand your arguement about height, what exactly is wrong with height? On the strathern map the developer made sure there is a smooth transition from house to highrise, don't tell me that the developer didn't consider the single family house aspect of the neighbourhood because that isn't true. Since Strathern is located by the river valley it should come to no suprise that highrises would be proposed. Look at Highlands, Oliver, the residential between the U of A and Millcreek ravine they all have highrises overlooking the river valley. Furthermore, I don't see any above ground parking lots which means that parking is all underground - in my opinion that is a good thing. Nothing destroys charector more than surface parking lots.

bingo

[mick]

I thought the height of the towers might have been too much but having seen this site plan I have to say the plan looks fantastic. As Ian mentioned the towers are set well back from the SFH's - by the way your link doesn't work.

Amelanchier - there are shadow studies shown on the new website for all four seasons. I'd hazard a guess that the shadows from those towers rarely reach the SFHs.

http://www.strathearnrejuvenation.ca/site_plans.html

[LindseyT]

That site plan looks absolutly wonderful.

Units above retail.....awesome!!

[DanC]

I might be the only Strathearn resident that isn't concerned by the height...look past that one thing and see the quality and uniqueness that our neighboorhood is being offered. We have the oppurtunity from just being another nameless neighboorhood, to a above board standard that communities can look to for great planning and design.

[LindseyT]

Weren't you originally concerned by the height and scale?

[IanO]

we need more height in this city...it looks too flattop...

[amelanchier]

Mick - I think the plan is lovely. I think this can be a wonderful development and an asset to the neighbourhood.

However I HAVE looked at the shadow studies on the developer website (I've looked at the entire website in detail), and if you look at the shadow plan for December you will see that the top of the picture cuts off Strathearn Drive and Strathearn Crescent, but it does appear that the shadows of the towers extend past the edge of the picture. So even at noon when the sun is highest and shadows smallest, homes outside the development will be shadowed.

The developer included shadow pictures for 9:34 and 15:34 for March, June and September but not for December. It's obvious that the shadows are going to stretch even further in morning and afternoon, and homes much further from the development are going to be affected.

This is the kind of omission that makes many Strathearn residents crazy and inhibits trust between the neigbourhood and the developer. People wonder what else the developer is glossing over?

[DanC]

Originally Posted by LindseyT

Weren't you originally concerned by the height and scale?

Yea, I was. However with the design most of my concerns have been mitigated. This is height in a proper context.
I see and understand other's concerns about it however, but I see too much to gain.

[r2d2]

Look at Highlands, Oliver, the residential between the U of A and Millcreek ravine they all have highrises overlooking the river valley

.
You are very correct, however, those areas have had highrises in them for years. Some would consider these areas to be 'downtown'. That is where highrises should be located. In an area like Strathearn it simply doesn't fit. Downtown Eastside, yes. Strathearn, no.
You are right, the underground parking plan is certainly a nice feature of the developer's plan.
Why am I opposed to the height? Well, directly related are the shadowing and privacy issues. What comes with height though is more people, more congestion. This is also not a fit for Strathearn.

I am a younger house owner in Strathearn, I like to think that I am part of the 'rejuvination' of the neighbourhood and that rejuvination is the growth of my young family, not the building of new buildings alone. When we moved to the area, and why it is a gem, is because it is a great place to raise a family;quiet, friendly and beautiful. I hope what ever the result is the developer respects this and knows that it is something that the residents of Strathearn will do their best to protect.

[IanO]

r2d2 - again, well said and much merit in that, but this isnt a walmart moving in, this is a well planned, well designed, good looking development that will enhance the neighbourhood IMO. Those other areas once didnt have highrises and now do...strathern is still central and i would very much condsider buying a unit in this for it is a wonderful neighborhood.

while traffic would go up, so would the vibrancy of the area

[ThomasH]

Originally Posted by amelanchier

If you look at the shadow plan for December you will see that the top of the picture cuts off Strathearn Drive and Strathearn Crescent, but it does appear that the shadows of the towers extend past the edge of the picture. So even at noon when the sun is highest and shadows smallest, homes outside the development will be shadowed.

December has some of the shortest days of the year for Edmoton, plus, it is in the middle of winter. Are you growing plants in your garden in December? Are you taking a suntan in your backyard in December? I doubt it. If the issue is about light in general then light won't be a problem because the white snow does an excellent job of reflecting light everywhere. In a nutshell, the arguement about shadows in December is moot.



"You are very correct, however, those areas have had highrises in them for years. Some would consider these areas to be 'downtown'. That is where highrises should be located. In an area like Strathearn it simply doesn't fit. Downtown Eastside, yes. Strathearn, no."

Like it or not, Edmonton is a growing city and with growth comes an increase in population. I don't want my taxes to go up from Edmonton growing outwards and having to service more roads, and land. I want Edmonton to be an efficient city. Since Strathern is beside the river valley there is a high chance that highrises will get built, it is the same for any neighbourhood along the river valley regardless of how far away they are from downtown. I agree that it would be better to have more highrises downtown but Edmonton also has a height limit due to the municipal airport. Instead of having a few tall towers we have many short towers. This project won't decrease the value of your home, nor will it decrease the quality of your life. Matter of fact, it will increase those attributes. Look at other cities around the world like, Vancouver, Chicago, London, Tokyo, Toronto etc. and you will find that many people have high regards for those cities, all of those cities are more densely populated than Edmonton.

[mick]

amelanchier - I did notice that the developer left out the 9am and 4pm pictures in December. While they likely should have included them for purposes of full disclosure, there may be seasonal considerations at work. At that time of year the sun rises at 8:45 and sets at 4:15. They might have chosen not to include them simply because at those times the whole diagram would have been shadow. That is, the SFH's, lowrises and highrises cast extremely long shadows at dusk making the diagram somewhat meaningless.

As to traffic concerns, there seems little doubt that traffic will be increased. However, the underground parking feature coupled with resident only parking in the SFH areas and increased transit should combine to the impact on the SFH areas. I'm not sure if there are concerns about increaced foot traffic but I view that as a good outcome. As to a decreased privacy, does this have to do with neighbours been able to see into backyards?

[highlander]

Originally Posted by ThomasH

Look at Highlands, Oliver, the residential between the U of A and Millcreek ravine they all have highrises overlooking the river valley.

There are no highrises in Highlands. No midrises either. There is a highrise called highlands place, but it's in east boyle St, or south Cromdale.

That said, those who are concerned about height should remember that these towers will not be next door. There will be a alley and a townhouse and a street and a lowrise between you and 19 floors.

Regarding shading, look at the diagrams and see that at noon, dec21, each house shadows it's own yard. if they modeled the trees too there would only be tiny streaks of light no matter what they build. While the tall towers do cast long shadows, most of the shadowing of yards to the north is due to the 2-3 floor town homes. And remember, your next door neighbour could build a house that tall without consulting you.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by IanO

r2d2 - again, well said and much merit in that, but this isnt a walmart moving in, this is a well planned, well designed, good looking development that will enhance the neighbourhood IMO. Those other areas once didnt have highrises and now do...strathern is still central and i would very much condsider buying a unit in this for it is a wonderful neighborhood.

while traffic would go up, so would the vibrancy of the area

Amen.

[murman]

I think that these plans are great news for this community. It will help to clean up an area that has become downtrodden over the last 20-odd years.

(And maybe as a plus, it will spur eventual redevelopment of ALL those low-rent houses along Strathearn Drive. I'm stunned that lots with those views toward downtown have some of the most uninspiring housing in the city. In any other city, you'd have multi-million dollar homes there. Check out Crescent Drive in Calgary and then hang your head in shame, E-town...)

[IanO]

Originally Posted by murman

I think that these plans are great news for this community. It will help to clean up an area that has become downtrodden over the last 20-odd years.

(And maybe as a plus, it will spur eventual redevelopment of ALL those low-rent houses along Strathearn Drive. I'm stunned that lots with those views toward downtown have some of the most uninspiring housing in the city. In any other city, you'd have multi-million dollar homes there. Check out Crescent Drive in Calgary and then hang your head in shame, E-town...)

Bingo murman....supply and demand....nice views will be redeveloped....simple as that.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by murman

I think that these plans are great news for this community. It will help to clean up an area that has become downtrodden over the last 20-odd years.

Good point murman, let's encourage a developer to buy up every one of those scummy run down shacks along the drive and put up really nice 25 story towers in their place. Yesserie, nothing like a wall of towers along the river bank to beautify the city. In fact, why stop there? Let's get rid of all those nasty little homes and put up beautiful apartment blocks?

[murman]

Originally Posted by Alex

Good point murman, let's encourage a developer to buy up every one of those scummy run down shacks along the drive and put up really nice 25 story towers in their place. Yesserie, nothing like a wall of towers along the river bank to beautify the city. In fact, why stop there? Let's get rid of all those nasty little homes and put up beautiful apartment blocks?

Welcome to reality, Alex. Or would you rather Edmonton continue it's drive to wallow in its stagnant past? (I'm going to guess you would support the latter.) It's called the evolution of cities and I not only dare you, I double dog dare you, to give me one cogent reason why any of those houses along Strathearn Drive represent the highest and best use for those lands.

(If you knew me better, you'd know better than to fence with me :P !)

[r2d2]

The Strathearn Heights development is not on Strathearn drive. Like most roads that have views it is filled with very nice (and very expensive) houses. The Strathearn heights apartments are at least 2 blocks in from the edge of the valley. This is why the developers are so insistent on tall towers, to look over the houses and (welcome to the real world) Make MORE MONEY!
The zoning done in 1984 (DC2.29) already allows for 3 nine and ten storey buildings. Why is that not enough?
I believe residents conceeded enough in that zoning process.
Why can't the developer work within that plan?
Why, because more stories = MORE MONEY!
Reality.
P.S. This neighbourhood is FAR from being "rundown".

[Alex]

Originally Posted by murman

... I not only dare you, I double dog dare you, to give me one cogent reason why any of those houses along Strathearn Drive represent the highest and best use for those lands.

It is because, my good man, the properties are OWNED by private individuals and it is entirely THEIR choice what they do with their properties. You have absolutely no say in what they do. None. If you don't like the way they decorate their front yards, or paint their "scummy run down shack" then don't look at it.

That community DOES have a say in what gets built on the apartment site since that development has a huge impact on the neighbourhood. Whether the developer listens to the community or not, the people who make the decision, city council, will hear.

BTW, your threat to not "fence" with you is something a developer uses: threats. Are you a developer?

[IanO]

"The zoning done in 1984 (DC2.29) already allows for 3 nine and ten storey buildings. Why is that not enough? "

1984, nuff said.

"That community DOES have a say in what gets built on the apartment site since that development has a huge impact on the neighbourhood. Whether the developer listens to the community or not, the people who make the decision, city council, will hear. "

agreed...feedback and public consultation is very important, but so is progress.

the development they have proposed is very very good...how many times do i have to ref other places with the such. Go to Kerrisdale in vancouver....single family everywhere, rich at that, and they allow 10-15-17 storey towers.

[IanO]

"BTW, your threat to not "fence" with you is something a developer uses: threats. Are you a developer? "

dont be afraid of murman, he is a putty cat. But a knowledgable one at that and one who knows the alberta market be it from an owner or developers perspective.

buy him a latte and he's yours

[uberurban]

wow... gotta stir the pot

From what i've seen of murmans past posts on this board. He's not just a developer but "The Developer" who's bulldozed row upon row of SFH's and built highrise condos in their place. Meanwhile single handedly making Vancouver the best place to live in the world

Actually I agree with alot of what murman has to say in many posts even if perhaps he doesnt know exactly the layout of the prime frontage in Strathearn. Many houses along there are brand new or newly reno'd and certainly many are in the million+ range, so it's hard to see any sort of multi-family developments going up along the front row in the next 25 years even if Edmonton booms like crazy and the pop doubles in that time.

Hopefully murman can jet into town and show up at that meeting tonight... Ya'll remember to bring your rapiers boys

ummm... or a latte...

[IanO]

^murman show his mug in E-town... when good architecture flies.

[DanC]

Strathearn Drive will never be sold and redvelopped into anything other than large single family houses...nothing in Strathearn will, except for this apartment site.

All you guys from Strathearn come across as so closed minded and anti-developer...do they want to make money, yes they do, that is the name of the game. In this case they put forward a proposal that sets a very high standard of design and by far exceeds any of the other developments for architectual and planning excellence. I am kind of sad to be living in Strathearn when all I hear is fenced off opposition, no matter how great the proposal is. Money this, height that, no designation on how great, and what a huge step in the right direction for the whole City of Edmonton design wise this is.
Our neighboorhood could be the example to follow...what do you want? More of the same, because the developer could have gone ahead and cheaped out on materials, made a bunch of closed off 5 story suburban style condos covered in stucco and asphalt shingles. That makes them lots of money too without having to reason with community, they wouldn't have had to even bother with any consultation.
Crap all over this if you want, but you might just end up chasing out a great development, and a chance to be a leader in Edmonton with regards to design, architecture and amenities. Maybe the next version is 5 floor pink stucco buildins with beautiful parking lots fronting onto the park...just beautiful, what more could I ask for?
You have to know that the apartments are going to get redevelopped into something...you cannot be blind to that fact. There is no way anyone is going to sit on such a valuable piece of property with units that need so much upkeep and generate such low rental returns.
So ask youself now what do you want? Do you want something that exceeds the average, but may mean accepting some changes, but will also bring major benefits or do you want more of the same suburban, car oriented development that won't do thing for the community? Both will bring more people, both will bring more traffic, both will bring some sort of additional height...those are facts.

[Cured]

Originally Posted by r2d2

The zoning done in 1984 (DC2.29) already allows for 3 nine and ten storey buildings. Why is that not enough?
I believe residents conceeded enough in that zoning process.
Why can't the developer work within that plan?
Why, because more stories = MORE MONEY!
Reality.

The developer could spend&make just as much money on 9 & 10 storey buildings, but remember you would just end up with fatter bulkier towers like Enoch or many other that were built in decades past.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by DanC

So ask youself now what do you want? Do you want something that exceeds the average, but may mean accepting some changes, but will also bring major benefits or do you want more of the same suburban, car oriented development that won't do thing for the community? Both will bring more people, both will bring more traffic, both will bring some sort of additional height...those are facts.

Go DanC GO!!!!!

[murman]

Originally Posted by uberurban

wow... gotta stir the pot

From what i've seen of murmans past posts on this board. He's not just a developer but "The Developer" who's bulldozed row upon row of SFH's and built highrise condos in their place. Meanwhile single handedly making Vancouver the best place to live in the world

Actually I agree with alot of what murman has to say in many posts even if perhaps he doesnt know exactly the layout of the prime frontage in Strathearn. Many houses along there are brand new or newly reno'd and certainly many are in the million+ range, so it's hard to see any sort of multi-family developments going up along the front row in the next 25 years even if Edmonton booms like crazy and the pop doubles in that time.

Hopefully murman can jet into town and show up at that meeting tonight... Ya'll remember to bring your rapiers boys

ummm... or a latte...

"Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!"

Fortunately, or not (take your pick), I spent several years of my youth in Holyrood, just a grenade's lob away from this area. Know it well.

For reasons now lost in my memory, I recently took a drive along Strathearn Drive, and my jaw just dropped when I saw what would be considered "tony" housing for Edmonton. Cheap stucco, cheap everything. My most recent thought would be to buy a copy of "Dwell" for everyone along that street, 'cause what you've got along there wouldn't be out of place in any other small farm town, and that just won't do, no sir.

In any other city of substance, people would bring out-ot-town visitors to a street like this to looky-loo at all the fancy houses. In Edmonton, I'd be embarrassed to show out-of-towners that street.

And Alex, my dear Alex. When did I ever suggest flattening these puppies and putting hi-rises up? If jumping to conclusions were an Olympic sport...

Am I a developer? Directly, no. Indirectly, I do have a few years of experience in the commercial real estate field...

If anything, consider my tone of writing as the refiner's fire! Nuthin' like a good old fired-up debate!

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by IanO

^murman show his mug in E-town... when good architecture flies.

an absolute classic!!! My new sig line in SSP....

I hear the comments on "make more money". Funny enough, but turn the tables on anyone here lamenting the making of more money and have THEM in their industry of choice be told that their proposal is bad because it would make money and watch the heads spin in another direction.

To the comments on landowners owing pieces of land, yeah...and???? The current owner of Strathern Heights wants to do something on his/her/their land. Thanks for augmenting their point and their right to develop something.

As for the community getting involved, this is a good thing. We can't have developers doing wily nilly projects with no concern for the neighborhood. However, this plan has taken the neighborhood concerns into account, while still holding onto the vision of what the area could be.

...oh, and murman is not a developer.

[IanO]

"an absolute classic!!! My new sig line in SSP.... "

i do what i can

[ChrisD]

murman is right, a large number of homes in Strathearn overlooking downtown and river valley are not that spectacular at all.

I notice that too many people are transfixed by the smaller details to properly analyze the plan at the macro level. If you don't understand the concept from the macro level, it will be impossible to accept or understand it at the micro level. The residents are too busy trying to find shortcomings with the studies and pointing fingers at the consultants and developer to really properly assess the plan.

Those who are concerned with 'loss of privacy' have to realize that they are living in the center of city with a metropolitan population over 1-million people. If they truly wanted privacy and peace, go buy an acreage in the countryside, because this cannot be achieved in this location.

Strathearn has so much potential to become a truly vibrant and exciting neighbourhood. A neighbourhood that sets precedent on how mature innercity neighbourhoods should redevelop. This proposal, given the level of public involvement, consultation, and meetings, has done what it can to try and make a great neighbourhood even better.

[DanC]

Just got back from the open house and there is the same rumblings as always, height and density.
People asking what their recourse is with the City should this get approved, people marking down on the questionaire that the plan has no merit and are 100% opposed, but there was also some support.
I honestly don't know what is going to happen, but I gave my full support and thanked the property owner for doing something outside the box, for taking a chance on our neighboorhood and for not just hiding inside the existing zoning and slapping up some quick woodframe money makers.
If you don't like the development, I guess there isn't much that is going to change you mind at this point. You should also be thankful that at least you had the chance to voice your opinion and air your thoughts, because had the property owners stuck to the existing zoning, there most likely would have required zero community input.
I look forward to welcoming this development and I look forward to enjoying the new park, shopping and amenities it brings.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

How about just plonking a Wal-Mart on that site, and move this development plan over to Jasper East?

[DanC]

^I'll hurt you...

[RichardS]

Wal Mart, Wal Mart, Wal Mart!!!!!

Sorry I couldn't make it, the removal of my PICC tube seemed to give me a headache...

[IanO]

I always worry when a developer brings in a wonderful plan with high design and material standards and then gets so much damn opposition.

please go ahead.

[DanC]

Its really up in the air...so many people just have opposition to it just based on principle. They can't see the good side to it all. I get this sinking feeling just being in the same room as all of them, and they are my neighbors...too much negativity.

[RichardS]

Unfortunately, negativity is what drives people to take the time out and attend these public forums for the most part. Some see the initial plan, say GREAT, and then don't bother because they like it and want it to go ahead. Having no personal financial interest in the project keeps other positive people away - they'd rather be with their families than with negative nannies.

Now that is not to say that opposition is bad - it keeps developers in line. But such hard core opposition based on' "I just don't like it so na na nana na" is frustrating at best.

Hence C2E. Voice your opinion anytime, positive and/or negative. It takes 3 minutes of your time and can be done anytime 24X7. So, if you support this, get others on here saying the same. (nice plug eh?)

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal

Thursday » October 5 » 2006

New plans, old fight in Strathearn
Many area residents not keen on developers' revised vision for new high-rise 'urban village'

Keith Gerein
The Edmonton Journal


Thursday, October 05, 2006


EDMONTON - It features more green space and fewer high-rise towers, yet the revised plan for a controversial housing development in Strathearn is still far off the mark, community residents say.

"They have substantially changed nothing," said Greg Plouffe of the Strathearn Community League. "People who know and love this community know we are not opposed to redevelopment, but it has to be appropriate development."

Plouffe was among dozens of residents who filed into the local school Wednesday evening to see new plans for the 8.4-hectare Strathearn Heights Apartments site southeast of downtown.

Developers are proposing to knock down the current aging, low-rise structures and replace them with a denser "urban village," featuring a mix of townhouses, medium-rise apartments, high-rises and retail space.

Their first plan unveiled in the spring proposed as many as six towers ranging from 10 to 25 storeys, and a maximum of 2,000 units on the site, up substantially from the current 504 units.

Residents balked at those numbers, prompting developers to come back with the new plan, features four towers ranging in height from 19 to 23 storeys and a maximum 1,750 units.

More parkland has also been incorporated, bringing the total green space to about 1.6 hectares.

"People say we haven't been listening to the community. Well, we have been listening," said David Kent, co-owner of the apartments.

Kent said the proposed thin towers will not have as much of a visual impact as people believe, nor will they create big shadows on residents' properties.

"Any time you introduce height, it's a lightning rod for controversy," he said.

Reducing the density much below 1,750 units could make the project uneconomical, Kent said.

He said developers recently completed a study that shows Strathearn's roads can handle the increased traffic.

But many residents at Wednesday's open house were not convinced, suggesting a development of 1,000 units would fit better in the community.

"Forcing us to be subjected to these towers doesn't make sense. It will change the character and distinctiveness of this community," said Daryl Jones, who has lived in Strathearn for six years.

New subdivisions don't have high-rise buildings, so why should inner-city communities get them, he said.

"The proposed towers are ugly in this kind of neighbourhood, and they will be on the landscape for 50 years," said France Laurin, another resident.

Plouffe said the community league recently completed a survey of Strathearn residents. Just over half the households responded, and only 11 per cent said they support the proposal, he said.

Kent questioned the survey's accuracy. He said many residents have told him they like the redevelopment plan, but are reluctant to speak up publicly.

City council will ultimately decide whether to proceed with the project, though a vote is several months away.

The proposal is being looked at as a test case of the city's stated desire to promote infill projects in older communities.

If eventually approved, the development could take between five and eight years to be completed, Kent said.

kgerein@thejournal.canwest.com

© The Edmonton Journal 2006








Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

[Mock]

"New subdivisions don't have high-rise buildings, so why should inner-city communities get them."

Hmm, seems like Daryl should move out to the Sherwood Forest/Terwilligar/St. Albert. He's saying he wants a 3-car garage suburb in the INNER-CITY...
*head explodes*

[r2d2]

I spent alot of time over the last 3days at community league meetings, developer meetings and even running into one of the developments landowners walking downtown.

I have to say that after speaking with the landowner I am convinced that Strathearn is very lucky to have a group of developers who seem to actually care about the area. While, I am still not 100% behind the development, I can see that it would be very unfortunate to 'scare' this group away. They have made concessions. The Silver heights park will stay where it is and they have added a second park of equal or greater size. The footprint of the buildings has been made smaller and they have lowered the number of them.

I think it is important to realize while the topic has moved to the houses on Strathearn drive, they aren't going anywhere. But there are things within the development lands that need improvement, such as the current stripmall on the south east corner.

Do I agree that the developer's have a great idea? Yes, but it needs some toning down.
To be honest, the developers would have my blessings if they keep their vision, but reduce the tower heights by 3 stories.

P.S. My change of opinion has nothing to do with the aggressive messages that have been posted for the development on this board. Everyone should be allowed an opinion. Discussion should involve the issue NOT personal attacks on people. If anything the poor attitudes expressed moved me to an extreme opposite position, simply because I will not be on the 'side' of bullies.

[IanO]

R2- well said and im pleasantly suprised at your feelings.

but as you said, starthern, let alone edmonton is lucky to have a project like this being proposed...other cities would kill for it.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Which is why my Wal-Mart comment was made in jest.

Here's the question to be answered:
If the height of the 4 towers are a concern, what are the alternatives that will address that issue but still ensure profitability for the developer? 6 towers at a lower height?

[IanO]

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

Which is why my Wal-Mart comment was made in jest.

Here's the question to be answered:
If the height of the 4 towers are a concern, what are the alternatives that will address that issue but still ensure profitability for the developer? 6 towers at a lower height?

and thats the thing....6 towers means:

more stubby look
less open space
less green space

4 slim taller work better, simple as that.

[murman]

Originally Posted by r2d2

Do I agree that the developer's have a great idea? Yes, but it needs some toning down.
To be honest, the developers would have my blessings if they keep their vision, but reduce the tower heights by 3 stories.

Why would reducing tower height by 3 stories make this project any better?

[DanC]

Good to see people are coming around R2, I am in the same boat as you in regards to the development. I truly believe that the group that has put forth this proposal cares about the community. This isn't some new developper that bought up the land and swooped in, its the same people who have done their best to keep the current Strathearn apartments in a state of repair and not to cause a small ghetto.
Please try and be vocal and positive with your support, it seems those of use who can come to terms with the development and believe it CAN be a positive are being drown out by a very vocal oppostion.

[uberurban]

Originally Posted by murman

Why would reducing tower height by 3 stories make this project any better?

being the devils advocate is cool

i think this idea has its good and bad points but I can't be bothered trying to disect the whole thing

As far as height goes i can see where R2 and others have a problem with 23 stories. Seems to me that would become the tallest building on the south side and the tallest condo in the city. Odd place to situate such a building...

As for getting the density they want in there. The developers would lose what... maybe 50 people [thats people not units] or so by lopping 3 stories of each building. Hows that amount gonna crush the economics of the project?

On the other hand... even 16-20 story towers wouldnt make the naysayers happy. They don't want to see anything above 10 stories in there. They still want to be able to run around nekid in their back yards :P

[cares]

I have been reading the posts for a month now, and I can honestly say that some of you are too opinionated on the development in the matters that may not affect you. I know Ian lives here, as he is only a stone throw away, and so does Dan. We aren't against development, but I did not buy a home in this quiet neighborhood to have 23 story highrises outside my door. I agree with R2D2, the height needs to come down (love your posts). The developers have not listened to us, as this is their way to say they have, but height and density have been our issues, and neither has been sacrificed since May. As for being %*&^ NIMBY's, I'd like to know where you live and plunk a tower next to your house and see what your thoughts are then. Since we are not against the development, only scale, it is very insulting. Some of your views are so closed minded towards development only, not the community it is in. We are looking at all views, not just our own, but I can't say the same for some of you.

[IanO]

Originally Posted by cares

I have been reading the posts for a month now, and I can honestly say that some of you are too opinionated on the development in the matters that may not affect you. I know Ian lives here, as he is only a stone throw away, and so does Dan. We aren't against development, but I did not buy a home in this quiet neighborhood to have 23 story highrises outside my door. I agree with R2D2, the height needs to come down (love your posts). The developers have not listened to us, as this is their way to say they have, but height and density have been our issues, and neither has been sacrificed since May. As for being %*&^ NIMBY's, I'd like to know where you live and plunk a tower next to your house and see what your thoughts are then. Since we are not against the development, only scale, it is very insulting. Some of your views are so closed minded towards development only, not the community it is in. We are looking at all views, not just our own, but I can't say the same for some of you.

it is a central neighbourhood...towers should be in the mix....23 stories is not going to overwhelm.

[ChrisD]

@R2D2 - I am trying to understand the difference between 20 versus 23 storeys? Why would a 3-storeys reduction be suffice?

I agree, innercity neighbourhoods are they best places to put higher density land uses.

[mick]

Cares, it seems to me most of the posts have been pretty understanding regarding most of the concerns and are not simply pro-development. If they proposed to slap up a railtown type development right in the middle of strathern I know I would have been against it. I know I questioned having such tall towers in a predominantly SFH neighbourhood but after having seen the how the developers kept the towers slim and toward the back and centre of the development, cut the number of towers from 5-->4, proposed to use predominantly townhomes on the outskirts of the development, proposed to use high quality materials and design, made provision for 50% of the area to be public parkland, and kept surface parking to a minimum I think most on here feel the developers have shown much good faith. Combine these concessions with some resident only parking restrictions and I think many of the concerns have been addressed.

Would you really be happier if a development proposed a density of say 700-1000, 5-7 story would frame stucco condos with little archiectural merit, surface parking and little or no parkland provisions instead? Seems to me this is a likely alternative.

Also, it seems a bit disingenious to say there will be highrises right outside your door, when in fact from looking at the plans it will likely be 2-3 story townhomes.

[cares]

Mick, Yes, I would be happier with 5-7 stories made of wood and stucco, that's my point, You appear to only care what is looks like and what it is made of. To say not looking at it outside my door, unfortunately any of us within a 4 block radius of the site is going to see a 120 ft structure regardless if it is in the middle or not. Do not forget that in the middle is only 1 block in from the residental.......As for slim towers, the developers have refused to give us the dimensions other than height, so I have no faith in their DC2 submission. If any of you had been in the discussions for months now, you might understand our concerns.

[mick]

Cares, I am concerned with what it looks like but overall I'm more concerned with the over all quality of the project and how it works in its context. Townhouses with on street entrances and mix of different forms of housing in the centre of the developmet, combined with public park spaces and high quality design seems to me a better alternative when compared to a site covered end to end with 5-7 story wood-frame stucco condos (think MacEwan in the southwest) of the type that typically get thrown up in Edmonton. However, if that is your preference then I guess we have to agree to disagree on what works well in this sort of infill project. It seems unfortunate, however, as a number of middle to upper middle class neighbourhoods throughout NA have seen very successful developments of this sort.

I guess this comes down tothe type of area one prefers to live. I lived in the bonnie doon area for a number of years and would love to eventually live in a similar location again (i.e. close to the centre of town and the river valley system), likely in a SFH, once I have a family with which to populate it. However, my one complaint was that there was litte in the way of amenities within walking distance of my house and there was little in the way of vibrancy and neighbourhood vitality. A development such as this offers those things but does so in a manner that to me respects the context of the current neighbourhood.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by cares

I have been reading the posts for a month now, and I can honestly say that some of you are too opinionated on the development in the matters that may not affect you. (...) I'd like to know where you live and plunk a tower next to your house and see what your thoughts are then. Since we are not against the development, only scale, it is very insulting. Some of your views are so closed minded towards development only, not the community it is in. We are looking at all views, not just our own, but I can't say the same for some of you.

I understand your sentiment cares, and it is nice to see more people joining this discussion. However...

I for one would LOVE this development next to my house, because as others state the really tall towers will be a ways away. The density will bring coffee shops and small retailers and the like, raising my .3 acres to great heights in real estate value. Better yet, give me something akin to the scale, class, and aesthetics of Century Park!!! Make it the tallest and most architecturally fine building in the city and I will jump at the chance. In fact, my old neighborhood of Parkview is prime for this along 149th street...anyone out there want to come over?

People are passionate, rightly or wrongly, because they care about the future of the whole city. Whether it is for aesthetics, curbing urban sprawl, seeing the city grow and gentrify, looking at other cities and their developments and wishing for it here, etc, etc etc - they have their reasons. Many know that neighborhoods are organic and will grow with time. If you find something insulting, feel free to let that person know. The mods here will cut discussion if it gets out of hand.

...and before you say I have never been forced to deal with huge change and movement due to a large scale and controversial development, I have. Change happens, as I learned from a little project in the 1970's called Genesee....so much for a small farming community. We were told to shut up because Alberta needed the power, so we made lemonade....

[uberurban]

Originally Posted by cares

unfortunately any of us within a 4 block radius of the site is going to see a 120 ft structure regardless if it is in the middle or not. Do not forget that in the middle is only 1 block in from the residental

Hate to make it seem even worse cares but that 23 story tower would be pretty close to double that. Are the developers claiming it will only be 120 feet tall? They must be expecting to fill the place with midgets

fight the power

Remember though that if you get row upon row of plain jane woodframe condos in there it will just be a newer and bigger version of whats already there. Much like Summerside or MacEwan [I guess? never been there]. That sort of development could easily have a worse effect on Strathearn than whats currently proposed

[manx]

Originally Posted by uberurban

Are the developers claiming it will only be 120 feet tall?

23 stories = 75 m = 246'. This represents a considerable concession by the developer from their originally proposed 25 story tower which was 75 m tall.

Yes, you did read that correctly.

[DanC]

Well I hate to hear that there are those in the community would rather see the same old same old suburban style development in the middle of their neighboorhood than this proposal.
Why would you rather have short fat blobs with some amount of surface parking, no retail center, no new park, no new amenities at all?
I can't understand that...do you really think the asthetics of a short, fat, stucco building are nicer? Its still going to tower over your house, its still going to increase density, increase traffic and it offers you nothing in return.
The whole point of building high is to free up space on the ground...the community will get so many beautiful upgrades and great new amenities from this development...all at your door step.
Who really enjoys driving to Bonnie Doon or Capilano? And who can with a straight face say that all those 5 floor condos around Bonnie Doon do anything for the community? If you are saying that we obviously have different views on things.
Whe does height have to be bad...you just can't make me understand that.
I hear everyone supports the redevelopment, but no one in the community knows what an alternative is, they just know that this isn't what they want...Do you know what you want?
I know what I want, and that is a development that brings something for me , has a solid plan and looks beautiful. This meets those requirements.
Change is coming, we all know that...lets make the best of it. For me, this is the best of it.

[murman]

Originally Posted by cares

Mick, Yes, I would be happier with 5-7 stories made of wood and stucco, that's my point, You appear to only care what is looks like and what it is made of.

YUM!

Gimme some more of that old Prairie-type clapboard housing!

And you wonder why E-town is such a laughing stock...

Your comment is one of the scariest things I've heard in years, and that's no joke.

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by cares

As for slim towers, the developers have refused to give us the dimensions other than height, so I have no faith in their DC2 submission. If any of you had been in the discussions for months now, you might understand our concerns.

Every DC2 bylaw must include a site plan. The plan will show the location and building footprints of each building within the site. So the towers will be on the site plan map.

[DanC]

^They are on the site plan. The exact location is well known and the general massing of them is clearly visible. Exact dimensions however may not yet have been provided.

[ChrisD]

/\ And dimensions of buildings are rarely if ever placed on the plan because at the end of the day the exact footprint may alter in a minor way.

A DC2 bylaw is very prescriptive and provides little if any room to move. Any major deviation requires a new bylaw, which means another public consultation and Council hearing.

[RichardS]

May I solicit one or a group of folks that oppose this development to submit a column on the subject articulating your objections? You can send your column into us by clicking the "Submit a Column" link on the main http://www.connect2edmonton.ca page.

I do have one that is being authored by someone who is for this development. It would be nice to have a point/counterpoint piece here.

[TerryH]

I have to throw my support towards building the 20+ storey towers there. I lived in the present Strathern apartments at one time and I didn't get any real sense of community there. The lack of amenities (only a small strip mall off the southeast corner of the complex) didn't help.

Building a bunch of larger versions of the present setup won't add anything to the neighbourhood. It'll just add more open parking, less green area and increase squalor. Anythting short of having high-rises will eventually doom the neighbourhood to become something like Calder. I'm just wondering how long, if they did build a bunch of 7-storey structures, would the present SFH homeowners start complaining?

I think that more high-rise development along the river valley is needed to bring up desire to move to the city and and give the city more vibrancy. If this development doesn't go because of the current residents complaints, then I can see property values dropping as people stop deciding to throw thousands into trying to keep the existing houses livable and the area becomes another ratty neighbourhood.

[mick]

Hey R2, you said that you'd be happy if they chopped 3 stories from the proposed towers. Do you think there are other residents that share your view and would shift support if the developers made that concession?

If that's case, the developers would be wise to do just get the extra community support.