Remember Me?
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Real-Estate & Development This forum looks at specific real estate projects and developments - past, present, and future - in the Edmonton area. Hereís where to look for updates on developments, read about new projects, suggest improvements to buildings or other projects.


Go Back   Connect2Edmonton > Growing Edmonton > Real-Estate & Development
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-05-2006, 10:17 AM   #1
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default Skyline (Formerly Vision for Corner) | 3 Residential Towers | On Hold

Towering condo proposal worries Glenora residents
Development featuring over 300 housing units may be too much for neighbourhood, critics say

Mike Sadava
The Edmonton Journal


Tuesday, May 16, 2006


EDMONTON - A local businessman wants to build a highrise condominium complex at Stony Plain Road and 142nd Street, but the project may be too big for some Glenora residents.

Alex Davidoff, who owns a jewelry store, has plans for an L-shaped piece of land straddling the northeast corner of the intersection and running north to 103rd Avenue. He wants to build 300 to 350 housing units on top of two storeys of retail and office space.

A low-rise apartment building, several houses and some one-storey retail buildings would be taken out to make way for the project.

A notice has been circulating around Glenora saying the project would include two or three towers of 22 storeys each.

But Armin Preiksaitis, whose planning firm is working for Davidoff, said no decision will be made on height until the community has been consulted. The project could include tall towers or a building with fewer storeys that covers more area.

"We need 300 to 350 units to make it economically viable, to put in an enclosed parking garage, use better building materials, provide support for retail," Preiksaitis said. "It's equivalent to a lot of the development you find in the Oliver area -- it's not up in the stratosphere."

Sharon Maclise of the Glenora Community League said residents accept the intersection of two major roads will be redeveloped, but some think the project is too big. There is fear that high-density housing will start spreading through the neighbourhood.

"There's a lot of people up in arms," she said. "There would be less resistance if it was a little less ambitious."

Maclise, a real estate agent, said part of Glenora north of Stony Plain Road is currently experiencing a boom, with people buying small old houses for $350,000 and replacing them with big modern homes. A development of this size could discourage people from investing in that part of the city, she said.

The rezoning application that must be approved to make the project possible won't go before city council for at least eight months, following two months of consultation with the community and at least six months to go through the city's approval process.

The city has been open to this type of high-density housing under its Smart Choices policy of limiting urban sprawl and making better use of existing roads, sewers and transit.

Last year, council approved Century Park, a multi-tower residential project around the site of the old Heritage Mall.

Rod Heinricks, a planner with the city, said each project stands on its merit.

"As ambitious as this one appears to be, it could take a fair amount of time to get it going."

Coun. Jane Batty, who has met with the developer a couple of times, said the project appears to have merit, though 22 storeys might be too much for a neighbourhood of mainly single-family homes.

"I always find this a challenge," Batty said.

"I love that community, but what do you do if you make the conscious commitment to smart growth? We need a lot of input from the community before any decision is made."

msadava@thejournal.canwest.com

© The Edmonton Journal 2006
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2006, 08:58 PM   #2
CSR
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

It's on two busy arterial roads, so heavy traffic dumped on small residential roads shouldn't be a concern. There is already an aprtment tower a few blocks away, closer to the residential area. The current tennants are ( last time I remember looking ) a gas station a tool rental place and other such lovely additions to the residential environment.

I can see some winter sunlight issues, especially for those north of the development. No one wants to have a huge wall blocking the sun. But those issues can be addressed.

If they cant build a high rise there, where can they?
CSR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2006, 05:40 PM   #3
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

^amen
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2006, 01:14 PM   #4
sean
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

The only thing they're worried about is how it'll affect their precious neighborhood.

Personally, I have a love/ hate affair with Glenora. Love the area, hate the people. I don't like the fact that both roads downtown are 50 kph, and that the residents of that area seem to think they're the only ones in the city.
sean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 09:22 AM   #5
TimmyB09
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

I saw on Global this morning what the development will look like.
5 towers going up now. I couldn't find any renderings anywhere but it'll look good in that area of town.
TimmyB09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 09:36 AM   #6
MylesC
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles; Athens
Default

Glenora residents tend to get up in arms over everything. There were some ladies at one High Speed Transit meet who just complained and complained about the 107th alignment b/c they didn't want a train going anywhere near their houses.
MylesC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 09:51 AM   #7
highlander
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Highlands/North Edge Commuter
Default Re: Towering condo proposal worries Glenora residents

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanO

Mike Sadava
The Edmonton Journal

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Maclise, a real estate agent, said part of Glenora north of Stony Plain Road is currently experiencing a boom, with people buying small old houses for $350,000 and replacing them with big modern homes. A development of this size could discourage people from investing in that part of the city, she said.

© The Edmonton Journal 2006
I think that she's just bitter that they haven't hired her as their realtor.

It's a bit odd that she doesn't want this overshadoing condo complex because it could discourage others from building monster homes that overshadow the neighbours just as much. Strange reasoning.
highlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 09:59 AM   #8
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

Does anyone have any renderings of this project?

I was listening to some of the NIMBYs on Global News this morning. Reactions ranged from "Omigod it's too big" to "we have to think of the children who need to cross the street".
Sonic Death Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 11:02 AM   #9
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Developer adds two towers to Glenora-area project


The Edmonton Journal


Wednesday, October 25, 2006


EDMONTON - Developers of a proposed west-end highrise complex revealed Tuesday the complex has been expanded from what was previously proposed.

Glenora and Grovenor residents got their most comprehensive look Tuesday at the proposed project, located at the northeast corner of 142nd Street and Stony Plain Road.

Previous plans called for three towers, but the plan revealed at Tuesday's open house included five towers with a total of 255 units and 75 townhouses.

Two towers and extra townhouses were added on after the developer, Alex Davidoff, acquired another 0.57 hectares last week to bring the total size to 1.66 hectares. Tuesday's plans showed the highest tower would be 18 storeys, down from a previous high of 22 storeys.

Residents at the meeting gave mixed reviews to the project, with many saying they were concerned about increased traffic. The complex would add about 4,000 cars daily at the major intersection, according to analysis commissioned by Davidoff.

He will submit his proposal to the city within the next two months.

© The Edmonton Journal 2006
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 11:58 AM   #10
uberurban
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MylesC
Glenora residents tend to get up in arms over everything. There were some ladies at one High Speed Transit meet who just complained and complained about the 107th alignment b/c they didn't want a train going anywhere near their houses.
A train? Proposed to run along 107th ave north of Glenora?
uberurban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 12:22 PM   #11
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

i think this proposal is great news if the quality is there. It is another reason to run wLRT through SP road and on to WEM. This proposal looks, feels, smells, and behaves like a T.O.D.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 12:25 PM   #12
MylesC
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles; Athens
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uberurban
A train? Proposed to run along 107th ave north of Glenora?
Uh, yeah. The WLRT proposal that *isn't* as idiotic as the 87th avenue, let's build a bridge and tunnel under Laurier and build the world's most expensive and under utilized LRT station ever plan.
MylesC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 02:00 PM   #13
Speedyturtle
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

LRT along SP road? Is there even any room for tracks there?
Speedyturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 02:10 PM   #14
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedyturtle
LRT along SP road? Is there even any room for tracks there?
if they keep it as is--no. there were some suggestions to realign the roads and to make sp and 102 Ave (? the one that goes past the museum) one way in opposite directions.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 11:15 PM   #15
ChrisD
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

In regards to the 'quality' comment, well, from the renderings I've seen, it's not that great. The overall concept and vision for the redevelopment is great, but the design looks very late 80's / early 90's. There are no slab apartments, but the design doesn't cut it nor does it really 'fit in' with the neighbourhood.
ChrisD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2006, 11:44 PM   #16
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisD
In regards to the 'quality' comment, well, from the renderings I've seen, it's not that great. The overall concept and vision for the redevelopment is great, but the design looks very late 80's / early 90's. There are no slab apartments, but the design doesn't cut it nor does it really 'fit in' with the neighbourhood.
isnt this a kasian connection? which suprises me...
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2006, 09:44 AM   #17
murman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanO
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisD
In regards to the 'quality' comment, well, from the renderings I've seen, it's not that great. The overall concept and vision for the redevelopment is great, but the design looks very late 80's / early 90's. There are no slab apartments, but the design doesn't cut it nor does it really 'fit in' with the neighbourhood.
isnt this a kasian connection? which suprises me...
Kasian isn't exactly what one might think of as being cutting edge.
murman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2006, 10:46 AM   #18
BDavidson
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Someone should post some renderings.
BDavidson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2006, 01:37 PM   #19
EdmTrekker
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton, Downtown Core
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by murman
Kasian isn't exactly what one might think of as being cutting edge.
Not so at all - Kasian is without doubt the most cutting edge firm in the City - look at ANY of their designs in the city including GMMM Robbins and the Student Residences. Wait until you see a published design before jumping on Kasian......
EdmTrekker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2006, 01:48 PM   #20
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

They are not half bad. Check out this link.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2006, 02:41 PM   #21
mick
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

I agree Robbins looks very nice but the GM student residences?
mick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2006, 03:24 PM   #22
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mick
I agree Robbins looks very nice but the GM student residences?
true. nothing special... that's why I said not half bad--more than half good and less than half bad.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2006, 03:45 PM   #23
murman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grish
They are not half bad. Check out this link.
Meh... "institutional" doesn't even start to describe that.

These are the same people that designed Stationlands, don't forget.
murman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 12:54 PM   #24
Barry N
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where ever Visa is accepted
Default Glenora/Grovesnor residents get new ammunition

Project gives highrise foes new hope
West-end area gets Smart Choices designation

Susan Ruttan
The Edmonton Journal

Monday, December 04, 2006

EDMONTON - Residents near the corner of 142nd Street and Stony Plain Road have a new weapon in their fight against five condo towers proposed for the corner.

The area has been selected as the city's first-ever Smart Choices project. A planning consultant hired by the city began work last week to draft a Smart Choices plan to manage growth in the Grovenor-Glenora area.

"We're very excited," Cassandra Haraba, president of the Grovenor Community League, said of the project.

The community is under intense pressure from developers, she said, and sees the Smart Choices project as a way of having a say in what happens.

Local developer Alex Davidoff wants to rezone four acres in the northeast corner of the intersection to build five condo towers, with heights from 10 to 18 storeys. The Grovenor and Glenora communities fiercely oppose the development.

One early outcome of the new project may be to ask council for a six-month freeze on development in the area until a plan is in place, said Greg Barker, the city's Smart Choices co-ordinator.

Smart Choices is a policy adopted by city council two years ago to revitalize older neighbourhoods with infill housing and new businesses. The ultimate goal, said Barker, is a city-wide plan to create developments that fit well with existing communities and encourage pedestrian traffic.

The Grovenor-Glenora area has been selected as an early project, he said, because of the development pressures there.

"We should have started this two years ago, unfortunately, but we didn't have the resources," Barker said.

The consultant has a March 15 deadline to complete the first phase of the project, talking to all sides about the disputed land and drafting an action plan.

The Glenora and Grovenor community leagues want no new housing bigger than townhouses or low-rise apartment blocks. Grovenor wants housing for young families who will provide students for Grovenor elementary school, which is under threat of closure.

"Edmonton is still highrise averse," said Armin Preiksaitis, development consultant for the Davidoff project.

"They feel the only places there should be highrises are in the downtown and Oliver, and to a certain extent, Garneau. But those areas are getting built out."

The Davidoff proposal is one of several multi-tower proposals in Edmonton, including a four-tower proposal in Strathearn and the six-tower North Edge project downtown.

Preiksaitis calls the Davidoff project "the Vancouver tall, slim model," one that will give tower residents a view of the river valley.

Vancouver's west end is a sea of highrise towers. Prof. David Gordon, an urban planning expert from Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., said the Vancouver idea was to build tall, slim towers with enough room between buildings that every apartment dweller got a view of the mountains and the ocean.

Such towers are now a standard product with developers, said Gordon. What cities need to do, he said, is set guidelines that require developers to think in new ways.

"You can get a very high density development without necessarily a highrise building," he said. A six-storey apartment block, or even narrow row houses, can do the job, he said.

Prof. Bev Sandalack, head of the urban design program at the University of Calgary, said it's easier for developers to assemble one site and then put a group of towers on it than to do one building at a time. And for economic reasons, developers will always seek the highest density they can, she said.

Bill Eadie, a spokesman for the Glenora community, said developers are scrambling to get projects approved before a Smart Choices plan brings in rules about new projects in older neighbourhoods.

Coun. Michael Phair, who represents the Glenora-Grovenor area, likes the design of the project but thinks it would suit the downtown area better.

sruttan@thejournal.canwest.com
© The Edmonton Journal 2006
__________________
At this stage in my life an 'all-nighter,means I didn't have to get up to pee
Barry N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 02:27 PM   #25
ThomasH
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Default

I have a gut feeling that the person who gave the Smart Choices designation lives in Glenora/Crovesnor. Am I right?
ThomasH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 03:23 PM   #26
andym
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
What cities need to do, he said, is set guidelines that require developers to think in new ways.
sooooo......has the EDC implemented any guidelines? or are they governing things by the seat of their pants?
andym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 04:03 PM   #27
BDavidson
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andym
Quote:
What cities need to do, he said, is set guidelines that require developers to think in new ways.
sooooo......has the EDC implemented any guidelines? or are they governing things by the seat of their pants?
Funny you should ask. Check out the Edmonton Design Committee Design Principles. They can be found on the City of Edmonton website. Youll have to dig , but you will see how we evaluate development applications.
BDavidson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 04:23 PM   #28
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

"Coun. Michael Phair, who represents the Glenora-Grovenor area, likes the design of the project but thinks it would suit the downtown area better. "

well sure, but it is FINE for there too....


Edmonton, please do not be the NIMBY gold crown champion
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 06:04 PM   #29
onishenko
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

I think Phair is only bending under community (the people who elected him) pressure. I might be wrong, but it doesn't sound like something he'd say by himself. He's one of a few council members who actually have their head on straight.
onishenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 06:14 PM   #30
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onishenko
I think Phair is only bending under community (the people who elected him) pressure. I might be wrong, but it doesn't sound like something he'd say by himself. He's one of a few council members who actually have their head on straight.

i like phair and hope he stays around on council for some time, but i dont think thats why
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 06:31 PM   #31
glasshead
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vancouver
Default

"Edmonton is still highrise averse," said Armin Preiksaitis, development consultant for the Davidoff project.

"They feel the only places there should be highrises are in the downtown and Oliver, and to a certain extent, Garneau. But those areas are getting built out."


I question the latter. I say fill downtown first. There is so much room north of the 104 ave it's unbelievable, as well as the odd location within the core. Of course I'm ignorant to the availability (land ownership) and costs of downtown compared to this site. Phair's got a good point, sounds like a great plan, but personally, I'd like to see the downtown core start getting filled first. Get downtown bustling!!

If anyone 's in the loop for what constraints there seem to be for downtown, other than the claims of low downtown availability, from reading this article, please let me know.

Just my thoughts
glasshead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 06:34 PM   #32
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Yes...downtown needs about 2x the current pop and 20 more condos in the core and vicinity, true.

However, that site is IDEAL for something like this....IDEAL. That area is so close to downtown, so ripe for a virbant retail and 124st kinda thing.

BUT it needs density/people.

Sure status quo is fun, but Edmonton is so affraid of highrises' it makes me want to puke.

THERE IS A HUGE TOWER BESIDE THIS PROPOSAL......

sure downtown needs more, but so do many pockets around this city such as CP, strathern, ufoa, fort rd, etc.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 06:49 PM   #33
ThomasH
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanO
Sure status quo is fun, but Edmonton is so affraid of highrises' it makes me want to puke.
Me too.
ThomasH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 06:50 PM   #34
glasshead
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vancouver
Default

Yes, Edmonton is high-rise shy, I agree with you. However, just for the record, personally I'm not. People immediately and unfortunately perceive high-rise development as "low-income housing" or bringing in "grubby-grubs", when in fact it helps traffic strains and build up the local micro-economy (assuming proper transit is available).

Should we see a development like this in that area? - Absolutely!
Would I rather see downtown development first? - in my opinion, yes. I think downtown filling first will promote more development in districts like 124 St and grovenor/glenora.

I live close to this area, and would not be against it, but I'm selfish and would rather see downtown built up, which I think would develop 124 st quicker.
glasshead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 06:55 PM   #35
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

both should be developing quicker....that glenora site would be HUGE for people who want to live centrally with good access to downtown, but not wanting to live DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN.

although i would like to see something like this project in east jasper
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 07:09 PM   #36
glasshead
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vancouver
Default

good point...agreed
glasshead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 08:51 PM   #37
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

So what, Glenora is now a part of Smart Choices. Big deal. Smart Choices is not anti-density as it seems some folks in the article believe. It is about an agreed-to growth and build pattern, and if that is a high rise, then it is a high rise.

Density done right is not stupid. Density done in the form of "the projects" or "tenament halls" is...

...but then here is a glaring issue with no high rise condo developers catering to the family person...aka no 3 bdrm condos. All they think is townhouse, townhouse, townhouse. Grovenor wants families, so give families a place to live. Seems simple enough.

Glenora wants to be small and pretty. Well, give them a well thought out development with excellent traffic flows for parking and opposition will become more muted. Show these residents that they now have a cool shopping spot close to their house, and they will come around.

Edmonton is high rise adverse ONLY because developers here think we tolerate crap architecture, pathetic street integration, and willy nilly traffic designs.

This project is far from dead, Smart Choices or not.
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 11:29 PM   #38
ChrisD
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardS
So what, Glenora is now a part of Smart Choices. Big deal. Smart Choices is not anti-density as it seems some folks in the article believe. It is about an agreed-to growth and build pattern, and if that is a high rise, then it is a high rise.

Density done right is not stupid. Density done in the form of "the projects" or "tenament halls" is...

...but then here is a glaring issue with no high rise condo developers catering to the family person...aka no 3 bdrm condos. All they think is townhouse, townhouse, townhouse. Grovenor wants families, so give families a place to live. Seems simple enough.

Glenora wants to be small and pretty. Well, give them a well thought out development with excellent traffic flows for parking and opposition will become more muted. Show these residents that they now have a cool shopping spot close to their house, and they will come around.

Edmonton is high rise adverse ONLY because developers here think we tolerate crap architecture, pathetic street integration, and willy nilly traffic designs.

This project is far from dead, Smart Choices or not.
Actually, if you read Smart Choices it promotes intensification and increased densities. The hitch is how these types of developments 'integrate' with their surroundings.

Re: 3 bedroom condos - if you want 3 bedrooms, expect to pay for it. Plain and simple.
ChrisD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 07:53 AM   #39
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

I know that Smart Choices promotes density, it is what I said...agian, so what if Glenora is now a Smart Choices development. All it means is that there will be better scrutiny on the development.

Also, who wouldn't expect to pay for a 3 bedroom. I have never said that it wouldn't cost...nor that people wouldn't buy. I think someone posted here that the 3 Bdrms were the first to go in Jasper Properties...
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 01:34 PM   #40
davidnorwoodink
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Old Strathcona, Edmonton
Default

For what it's worth, this is part of my Edmontonians column for December 2006 . It's obvious that I like this development.

"I suppose itís understandable that large-scale urban redevelopment is almost always controversial. Century Park, for example, faced open hostility from some people because of its size. Yet once approved, its first residential phase, One Century park, sold out in six hours, and I expect that the second phase, Regent at Century Park, will more-or-less follow suit. What I find puzzling, however, is the opposition to a proposed development that will be esthetically harmonious and significantly superior to what currently exists on the site. Iím referring to Humanity Projectsí proposal for the area bounded by Stony Plain Road on the south, 103 Avenue on the north, 140 Street on the east, and 142 Street on the west.

"The project, sitting on 4.1 acres of land, the majority of which is currently commercial or vacant (and yes, a couple of single-family homes are on the site as well), will combine residences with commercial services as well as park space with a formal garden and water feature. More specifically it would feature five slim, rounded towers of descending heights (18 to 10 storeys) Ė up to 255 condo units; 75 brownstone townhomes; main floor retail and second floor professional offices; a park with formal garden and central water feature; pedestrian mews, widened sidewalks and an entrance plaza; rooftop gardens, full landscaping, and public art. The renderings I have seen indicate that the project encompasses conspicuously upscale architecture (by Brinsmead Ziola Kennedy, which also is responsible for the distinctive and visually pleasing Omega and Icon condos downtown, among other projects). The tallest tower, at 18 floors, is no higher than the existing Crescent Place just east of the site; it was constructed in 1968.

"I do understand that change can sometimes be difficult to embrace. But when that change is a demonstrable improvement on something that currently exists, it should be welcomed. Edmonton is in fact a growing city, not just in terms of its population but also in sophistication. This project, in my view, reflects that. I truly hope it goes ahead."
__________________
Almost always open to debate...
davidnorwoodink is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 01:45 PM   #41
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

^AMEN
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 02:41 PM   #42
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

I second that amen...
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 04:30 PM   #43
onishenko
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

make that 3.

Quote:
What I find puzzling, however, is the opposition to a proposed development that will be esthetically harmonious and significantly superior to what currently exists on the site.
well put. I always like to think in situations like this, if we could just fast-forward 5 years and show the communnity how much better the area is with the project, they'd be sold. (same thoughts go for teh Strathern project)[/quote]
onishenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 08:39 PM   #44
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink
Edmonton is in fact a growing city, not just in terms of its population but also in sophistication.
Yes, although unfortunately there are many times when I question the sophistication. Especially in terms of development.
Sonic Death Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2006, 12:37 AM   #45
ChrisD
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardS
I know that Smart Choices promotes density, it is what I said...agian, so what if Glenora is now a Smart Choices development. All it means is that there will be better scrutiny on the development.

Also, who wouldn't expect to pay for a 3 bedroom. I have never said that it wouldn't cost...nor that people wouldn't buy. I think someone posted here that the 3 Bdrms were the first to go in Jasper Properties...
I guess I shouldn't have replied to your post, my post about Smart Choices had nothing to do with you response.

However, my 3-bedroom comment did.
ChrisD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2006, 12:38 AM   #46
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

So, you gonna build me one then????
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2006, 11:51 AM   #47
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardS
So, you gonna build me one then????
yes

BTW....in that tower beside this development there is a 3bdrm on MLS:>
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2006, 11:54 AM   #48
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Yeah, looked at that building once....
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2006, 10:06 PM   #49
ChrisD
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardS
So, you gonna build me one then????
As long as you have the dinero chico
ChrisD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2006, 02:40 AM   #50
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

You're buying lunch then..gotta save up for the ChrisD inflation...
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2007, 07:27 PM   #51
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

CTV News just did a story on the residents doing a workshop on what they want developed there. They want low-rises.
Sonic Death Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2007, 09:40 PM   #52
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
CTV News just did a story on the residents doing a workshop on what they want developed there. They want low-rises.

of course they do...and a park, and a cotton candy machine.


Low rises should be incorporated into this...oh wait they are, townhomes. A product we much need in this fair city.

This site should be a model for "the new edmonton".....point towers, with townhouse podiums, open space, and well landscaped surfaces including water and public art features.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2007, 10:22 AM   #53
ridgeman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

An update on the proposed development for the northeast corner of Stony Plain Road and 142 Street. (Vision for the Corner)


The re-zoning application for the development was submitted to the City of Edmonton Planning and Development department earlier this spring in anticipation of receiving City Council approval by mid-June 2007.

The proposed development continues to generate positive response from Edmontonís business and economic development sector as well as from local individuals and potential residents from out of region. The developer should have floor plans as well as design and finishing options available by this fall.

The City of Edmonton Planning Department is holding two open house events to discuss the proposed development on May 16, 2007 (tonight) at 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. The events will be held at Westminster Junior High School, which is located at 13712-104 Avenue. These events provide the opportunity for the public to see the various elements of the development and provide input to the Planning Department before it proceeds to City Council for approval.
ridgeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2007, 10:57 AM   #54
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

^thanks for the update, cant wait to see this area go UP!

i do hope some of the concerns over the podiums are addressed, but this project is going to do wonders for the lack of housing there and the lack of neighbourhood services.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2007, 12:19 PM   #55
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Glenora Towers
Developer: ? Architect: Brinsmead Ziola Kennedy Architecture Location: 142 Street, Stony Plain Road
Number of floors:
Glenora Tower 1: 17 Glenora Tower 2: 13 Glenora Tower 3: 11 Glenora Tower 4: 11 Glenora Tower 5: 8


Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2007, 12:29 PM   #56
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

other than the cancun podiums, i really am beginning to like this proposal.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2007, 01:39 PM   #57
BDavidson
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSR

If they cant build a high rise there, where can they?
Downtown
BDavidson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2007, 02:13 PM   #58
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BDavidson
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSR

If they cant build a high rise there, where can they?
Downtown
to be honest...this is NOT a downtown style project, it is an urban infll.

I would be opposed to this "style" as is from going in the core.

Aurora is much more of an urban form.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2007, 10:39 PM   #59
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

Unfortunately, Edmontonians' collective love for small buildings will continue to prevail here.
Sonic Death Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2007, 11:24 PM   #60
Jess
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown, Edmonton, AB
Default

Hundreds raise concerns about Glenora highrise project (10 p.m.)

Jamie Hall
edmontonjournal.com


Wednesday, May 16, 2007


EDMONTON - Hundreds of fiercely protective Glenora residents packed a school gym Wednesday night to reiterate their concerns over a highrise project proposed for Stony Plain Road and 142nd Street.

Increased traffic to the area, fear of further high-density housing and more development were among their concerns, which city officials heard first-hand during a public meeting.

It's the next step in a process that, if approved by city council, would see five condo towers built on the northwest corner of the site, likely within three years, with heights ranging from 10 to 18 storeys.

It's the fate of the other undeveloped corners that has resident Liz Taylor worried.

"This (the development) will set a precedent for the area," she said. "There are three other corners that could be potentially developed.

"This is a family community. No one's objecting to building multi-family dwellings; it's the size that's the issue."

Architect Brad Kennedy said residents' concerns are reflected in the current plan, which also calls for 75 townhouse units and more outdoor space.

The city's planning and transportation department will make a recommendation to council in the coming weeks and the matter will then be sent to public hearing.

jhall@thejournal.canwest.com

© Edmonton Journal 2007
Jess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 12:20 AM   #61
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by murman
Quote:
Originally Posted by grish
They are not half bad. Check out this link.
Meh... "institutional" doesn't even start to describe that.

These are the same people that designed Stationlands, don't forget.
Actually, the project architects on this proposal are Brinsmead Ziola Kennedy Architecture. If the name is familiar, think Aurora, Icon, Omega, Soho, Q...

http://www.bzka.com/

Their podium treatment here is not my favourite - at least as rendered - but the overall project from my perspective only has one real flaw. The densities proposed should be provided in three taller towers, not five shorter ones (which I think is more in keeping with what was originally contemplated). Regardless, it is much better and more sensitive to its surroundings than the adjacent residential tower and - pardon the expression - head and shoulders above whats there now.

The "resident's comments" seem to be pretty much as expected - we will have to see if the City's misnamed "smart choices" program here leads to good infill here or stifles it.
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 12:29 AM   #62
travis
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Is that orange material brick?
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 03:13 AM   #63
Bryguy
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Well I like the idea of redeveloping that area.
However I don't like the specifics of the plan.

My personal issues with it are:
- 5 condo towers. I think apartments would be far better then condos. Or at least have a couple towers for apartments - and keep them like that.
- Traffic is already bumper to bumper along both 142st and stony plain rd. at rush hour. Adding any traffic on those roads will make it that much worse.
- Crime related concerns with a massive increase of people in the area.

As for the design and height; I don't have any objections to it.
Actually I find the design pleasing and the height... I can live with it.
Increased traffic thru the nearby communities? HA!
Has anyone tried to drive on those roads recently? That alone will discourage people. XD


Other people in my family had concerns regarding property values and shadow, as well as crime.

And for those wondering; yes I do live in the immediate area.
I just didn't hear about this meeting soon enough or I would have attended.
Bryguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 09:40 AM   #64
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
- 5 condo towers. I think apartments would be far better then condos. Or at least have a couple towers for apartments - and keep them like that.
apartments have a much longer ROI...hence why condos rule the skies now.

Quote:
- Traffic is already bumper to bumper along both 142st and stony plain rd. at rush hour. Adding any traffic on those roads will make it that much worse.
every road in the city is having huge increases...Edmonton's traffic is very very low relatively speaking. Our rush hour goes from 5:05-535....most cities is bumper to bumper from 4-6pm. This is a NON ISSUE HERE.

Quote:
- Crime related concerns with a massive increase of people in the area.
density does NOT equal crime...these units will be mid to upper end and if anything REDUCE crime from more eyes on the street, more vibrancy, more people out and about.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 10:32 AM   #65
newfangled
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oliver
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanO
every road in the city is having huge increases...Edmonton's traffic is very very low relatively speaking. Our rush hour goes from 5:05-535....most cities is bumper to bumper from 4-6pm. This is a NON ISSUE HERE.
This is on the main westend-downtown route, and it is already a bottleneck because 142nd St, 149th St, 100th Ave and Stony Plain converge there going east, and 102nd Ave and 104th Ave meet there going west.

And travel to the westend won't be getting easier any time soon based on Mandel's latest speech which has WLRT as a distant dream.

So traffic at this particular corner is a concern, because where else is there to go? To 107th which is even less suited to being an artery than Stoney Plain? Or to Whitemud-University-downtown which has its own traffic issues?

Not that the area can't be densified without screwing up traffic, but if traffic gets screwed up then it will affect an entire quadrant of the city. This is an issue.
newfangled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 11:14 AM   #66
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfangled
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanO
every road in the city is having huge increases...Edmonton's traffic is very very low relatively speaking. Our rush hour goes from 5:05-535....most cities is bumper to bumper from 4-6pm. This is a NON ISSUE HERE.
This is on the main westend-downtown route, and it is already a bottleneck because 142nd St, 149th St, 100th Ave and Stony Plain converge there going east, and 102nd Ave and 104th Ave meet there going west.

And travel to the westend won't be getting easier any time soon based on Mandel's latest speech which has WLRT as a distant dream.

So traffic at this particular corner is a concern, because where else is there to go? To 107th which is even less suited to being an artery than Stoney Plain? Or to Whitemud-University-downtown which has its own traffic issues?

Not that the area can't be densified without screwing up traffic, but if traffic gets screwed up then it will affect an entire quadrant of the city. This is an issue.
Not doing the project doesn't eliminate or even lessen the traffic issue - just the opposite. We can proceed with good urban intensification like this or not. If not, those that would otherwise live here can live in Lewis Estates or Stony Plain or Spruce Grove or in the new condos the Enoch Band will put up. Then they can commute through the entire quadrant by car as they have no easy transit access as you note. Or they can live here with decent existing transit that will hopefully then get used and leave the cars at home instead. Transit gets higher ridership that is economical to serve, they become more efficient, the system is less of a drain which means you can afford to expand it... Take your pick...

You can support the project or not for whatever reason you choose but don't use traffic or transit as an excuse not to proceed with large scale in-fill development. It is intensification that will encourage transit use and lessen the traffic pressures you profess to be concerned about and the "further in" these projects are the more effective they will be in doing this. And locating in them in areas that will also allow existing residents additional housing choices as their needs change without having to leave their communities and their support systems is also a "smart choice" if we make it and if it is implemented properly.
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 02:34 PM   #67
newfangled
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oliver
Default

Ken,

I'm not worried about what a few hundred new residents will do to traffic in the neighborhood. I'm worried about what the designers and planners will do to a major, major intersection.



(from http://www.edmonton.ca/RoadsTraffic/...T%20Report.pdf)

Stony Plain and 142nd is one of the busiest roads in the westend and one of the busiest approaches to the downtown from any direction.

If they build this they obviously need to do it properly. But based on the past track record of incorporating access to new developments into existing areas I think that there's every reason to be concerned. SEC-style planning at this location would effectively cut off the westend.

Ian had said that traffic is not an issue here, and if this project were a few blocks to the west or north I would agree. At Stony Plain and 142nd though, traffic is absolutely an issue.
newfangled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 02:42 PM   #68
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

^not that it isnt an issue, that it is workable...our volumes are still comparatively low and many people choose stony plain out of pure convenience.

107ave is not that bad relatively speaking and could handle higher volumes.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 04:18 PM   #69
Bryguy
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanO
107ave is not that bad relatively speaking and could handle higher volumes.
The problem with 107ave is that the traffic circle on 142st is the 2nd most dangerous intersection in the city. I would not want to encourage even more traffic at an already dangerous location.


As for the condo issue I can understand the appeal of it for a quick ROI.
I'm just hoping they'll turn some of the towers into apartments because the city really needs them more then another condo complex.


I think the construction will happen regardless - only a matter of what changes (if any) will happen.
Bryguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 04:46 PM   #70
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

"
The problem with 107ave is that the traffic circle on 142st is the 2nd most dangerous intersection in the city. I would not want to encourage even more traffic at an already dangerous location. "

id like that to become traffic lights...it is dangerous because 95% of people are idiots with it.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 07:48 PM   #71
jediforce
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default The problem with the towers

I was at the meeting last night. Among the chafe, the real meat of the matter was residents (including myself) concerned about two items:

1. That although a lot of residents have worked hard and attended many meetings for the Smart Choices project, it appears to have no bearing on the project.

2. This development is going to likely pass without real information (an appropriate traffic assessment) and without placing all the other changes affecting Glenora in context.

Specifically, the plan to make Stony Plain the West BRT route (oh...no problem 107 ave and 102 ave, will take the burden); and the proposed tower at the south west corner.

There was a palpable feeling at the meeting that this was likely how South Edmonton Commons happened.

Many residents in Glenora (including me) are there because they believe in infilling and are against urbun sprawl, but building up and up and up without appropriate planning is going to result in probable fatal destruction of the heart of the community, i.e. its neighbourhood feeling.
jediforce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2007, 11:21 PM   #72
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

"There was a palpable feeling at the meeting that this was likely how South Edmonton Commons happened. "


__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2007, 01:09 AM   #73
m0nkyman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ottawa
Default

Sir, I've been to South Edmonton Commons: I know South Edmonton Commons; South Edmonton Commons was a friend of mine. Sir, The Vision For the Corner is no West Edmonton Commons.
m0nkyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2007, 01:19 AM   #74
travis
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Could you help me out here. You're saying that South Edmonton Common happened when a developer decided to build a high density residential development and...

I just don't see the connection.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2007, 01:23 AM   #75
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

jediforce - SEC happened on a different level and with a different approval process than what this development will be forced to go through. Yes, I have my issues with SEC, but the correlation to this project stops at the fact that they are developments.

I was a long time resident of that area, and I can readily understand the traffic concerns at the 142/SP road "venturi" until 102 splits off, but I do hope that the access to this condo site takes into account efficient flow in and out.

Personally, I would love to live in this area again. It has great proximity to everything, good transit, access to paths, midpoint access to downtown businesses and the WEM vortex, and could easily anchor the west leg entry to downtown itself. I certainly hope the residents of the area give it a chance.
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2007, 07:21 PM   #76
jediforce
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Not a clear comparison, I guess.

I meant to use SEC as an example where the city did not put a "development" in context and then is scrambling to react (in this case bad traffic, i.e. the much delayed overpass).

The city initially looked like it was learning from its mistakes by choosing Grosvner/Glenora as a Smart Choices pilot project, but at this meeting it appeared as there was no change and that multiple other projects will be approved without proper anticipation of their cumalitive effect.

That is all I was saying. I personally am fine with this particular development, and looking forward to having some more nice restaurants and services that are walkable. However, with the south-west tower (20-24 stories) it might get busier. The BRT will close lanes on Stoney Plain....and I would expect the city to have appropriate research done, with anticipation of traffic volumes...and most important ready solutions available...they don't. That was the reason for the frustration at the meeting.
jediforce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2007, 07:33 PM   #77
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

Such a development on a BRT route makes sense though, because theoretically more people would commute using transit instead of driving. This would be a TOD, or transit-oriented development. The stipulation would be a BRT stop on-site or nearby.

If you want a more apt comparison, Century Park would be better.
Sonic Death Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2007, 10:59 PM   #78
lux
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default

There are some infill condos around stony plain and 145, south side i think? They are more of a row style, a London style like you might see in Kensington & Chelsea. (not quite that urban but still....)

Umm. my point is, i'm not sure a tower of any description is what is wanted at that location. Density is fine there, but the garden areas seem a little small and pointless, and it appears that the towers have been squished up just to provide a bit of small and pointless green space.

If the development were more uniform in height, and therefore lower, I think it would look better from the street.

I agree that certainly crime is not a concern because of this development. And if Edmonton is going to grow by 300 housing units, you create less traffic by putting them there, than if you put the same 300 units out by Henday.

The slanted podiums just look ugly imho.
lux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 01:44 AM   #79
newfangled
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oliver
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
Such a development on a BRT route makes sense though, because theoretically more people would commute using transit instead of driving. This would be a TOD, or transit-oriented development. The stipulation would be a BRT stop on-site or nearby.

If you want a more apt comparison, Century Park would be better.
SEC isn't a great comparison, but neither is Century Park.

For it to really be an apt comparison you would need to move Century Park onto a main-main artery, and then put it at a choke point so that there are no other routes into the downtown.

So put Century Park at the intersection of Gateway and Whyte, and then scrap the LRT and instead dedicate some of the existing lanes to BRT.
newfangled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 10:49 AM   #80
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

"For it to really be an apt comparison you would need to move Century Park onto a main-main artery, and then put it at a choke point so that there are no other routes into the downtown. "


ever driven 111st/23ave at rush hour?
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2007, 10:46 AM   #81
BDavidson
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

If this proposed project is a TOD; I wonder where the heated and maintained bus stops will be? That would make this project a great public amenity.
BDavidson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2007, 01:10 PM   #82
mr.steevo
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

Hi,

I know a couple that live just West of this proposal. They take the bus everyday to downtown and were commenting that the bus almost never stops while going through Glenora. No one from Glenora, it seems, takes city transit.

s.
mr.steevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2007, 01:28 PM   #83
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.steevo
Hi,

I know a couple that live just West of this proposal. They take the bus everyday to downtown and were commenting that the bus almost never stops while going through Glenora. No one from Glenora, it seems, takes city transit.

s.
cause most housing is single family housing...but adding a mix of incomes, density...you will get a lot more.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 08:52 AM   #84
LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default The edge of Glenora development

I was at the meeting on May 16, as have been watching this development now for some time, having both an interest in securing work if it proceeds and buying a unit to live in, as I simply cant afford Glenora single house prices any more....Lived there before the world went nuts.....

There seems to be lots of misinformation getting around, such as 1500 condo's, giant increases in crime, enormous new levels of traffic, increased cutting through Grosvenor and Glenora by the residents of this complex, damage to migrating birds, loss of the Liquor store. etc etc. Someone in the community has done a pretty good number with misinformation .........

I had a close look at the graphics on display on Wednesday night and there are 330 condos, made up of about 255 high rise, 75 brownstone townhouses, over 950 underground parking stalls for residential and commercial on the first level, and not even the DATS bus will be able to unload on the street but will have to go down to the first level, all garbage underground, recycling water systems, use of rainwater for parks watering and/or flushing toilets, low flush toilets, enormous setbacks from the streets with landscaping, mature trees and so on.

I asked and was told that an accommodation will be made for a BRT station with an extra lane, and the crime rate you can be reassured will be zero because all the money living in those buildings will not tolerate pandhandlers or high crime rates under their noses.

I am alarmed at the attitude of Glenorians [?] to any change that may [even positively] affect a tiny corner of "their" suburb, and it is the corner, not the middle as many of them claim or seem to think. Worse and more extreme, a large part of it is already zoned some sort of commercial, the rest has run-down houses and a grotty walkup on it. Its also apparently presently zoned for strip joints, tattoo parlours etc etc......shades of Jasper Place

But forget all this, the broader issue though is that this city must start to infil before we reach Jasper, as much as I love Jasper, and Glenora cant expect to be excluded from this necessary process to reduce our footprint on the earth .

This development has my vote as one of the more innovative and well designed efforts to integrate itself into the surrounding community without grey concrete walls for the neighbours to stare at. Note that the development doesnt have a back-side, pretty swift design, eh.

I am a relatively new resident to Edmonton [15 years], and I probably havnt earned my stripes yet, but I'll say it anyways----this grotty little industrial backwater in the middle of the bald flat prairies needs to lift up its skirts and show some quality development and clean up some eyesores to eliminate the patchwork quilt of lean-to's, add-on, sloppy stucco and painted plywood of years gone by. The corner of 142 and SP Road fits that description.

Oh and BTW while I am at it, how do we get City hall to build a cable stay bridge across the river from Calgary Trail to the north side?
Lightning in a Bottle
LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 09:39 AM   #85
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

^well said and WELCOME!


"I am alarmed at the attitude of Glenorians "

replace attitude with ignorance or narcissism
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 09:55 AM   #86
DebraW
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

I'll echo this--welcome to C2E!-- and thank you for the insight and comments!
DebraW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 10:14 AM   #87
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default Re: The edge of Glenora development

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE
...
But forget all this, the broader issue though is that this city must start to infil before we reach Jasper, as much as I love Jasper, and Glenora cant expect to be excluded from this necessary process to reduce our footprint on the earth .
...
I will start by echoing djgirls welcome.

Part of the problem you see here however is a reflection of what happens when you "misname" something. This project is a pilot project for the what the city now calls its Smart Choices program. The original name for that program was to have been an Urban Intensification Strategy.

The first is easier to sell because it implies something entirely different and allows each and every NIMBY to think they are the ones that have the choice. And that means the city's choices will eventually end up being made just outside of Jasper because too many neighborhoods in between will make "no" their choice even if it isn't very smart.

Ken
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 10:26 AM   #88
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

I couldn't help but LOL at the "loss of liquor store" comment!

I start to wonder if Edmontonians really would rather have chains of liquor stores, Money Marts, massage parlours and porn shops in their neighborhoods instead of infill residential development.
Sonic Death Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 11:35 AM   #89
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

...but remember the demographic of Glenora and their desire to be the "suburb in the downtown". Any density flies in the face of this, so I wouldn't call the resistance ignorance nor narcissism. More flat out hate for density, period. The rationale and excuses are canned from what I see, yet there are some good concerns intermingled with the knee jerk reactions. I too worry about the current road set-up and truly if BRT will mean squat. ...not that I would want this development stopped, but I would like to really see some hard evidence on BRT usage...
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 11:37 AM   #90
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardS
...but remember the demographic of Glenora and their desire to be the "suburb in the downtown". Any density flies in the face of this, so I wouldn't call the resistance ignorance nor narcissism. More flat out hate for density, period. The rationale and excuses are canned from what I see, yet there are some good concerns intermingled with the knee jerk reactions. I too worry about the current road set-up and truly if BRT will mean squat. ...not that I would want this development stopped, but I would like to really see some hard evidence on BRT usage...

BRT or no BRT...vancouver et al have normal friggen buses going by things like this 365 and dont have major issues.

Edmonton is so damn used to its small town mentality it kills me.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 11:40 AM   #91
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

I can agree with your last statement....

All I am saying with the BRT is that it is promised as a "saviour", when to me it is just another bus on that route. Yes, you are correct, other cities do just fine with the bus.
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 12:01 PM   #92
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardS
I can agree with your last statement....

All I am saying with the BRT is that it is promised as a "saviour", when to me it is just another bus on that route. Yes, you are correct, other cities do just fine with the bus.
"BRT would be nice, LRT would be better, regular bus works just fine for now"
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2007, 05:23 PM   #93
travis
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Oh and BTW while I am at it, how do we get City hall to build a cable stay bridge across the river from Calgary Trail to the north side?

The mayor has made it known that he wants a new bridge within the next ten years.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2007, 09:32 PM   #94
LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default 142 Street development

Re: BRT. I guess I don t follow how the bus lane will be any different to what it is now, with the exception that there was some commentary that one lane would be closed exclusively for the use of buses. Wow, thats great IF that is the case. Shut down one lane on every arterial road for the exclusive use of the occasional [late] bus. I can see a wholesale change in Councillors at the next election without too much trouble.......

That idea may work in London [the real one, not Ontario] but not in pickup country.

I believe that the proposed new development will feature an heated bus shelter, exclusive bus lane inset into the forecourt etc. So long as they integrate it by allowing the Architect to design it, not one of the City's beauracrats, otherwise it will look like the proverbial "dogs breakfast"..........
"L-I-A-B"
LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2007, 07:47 AM   #95
lux
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default

I support sustainable development, but I don't believe for a second that each of us is duty-bound to use fewer resources. As a society, our "resource footprint" is a product of the number of people times the amount that we all use.

Why do we always forget the "number of people" part of that equation? Every time someone promotes environmental sustainability they argue for us to all use less. How about arguing for fewer people using more? That would also work.

Almost any increase in our quality of life is tied to an increased use of resources, barring efficiencies created by new technologies. If we are to enjoy a greater quality of life we need to be efficient in our use of resources, but we also have to decide how many people we can sustain, and we need to consciously decide that each of our future citizens will have and use more resources than they do today.

Apart from waking up to that side of the sustainability equation, we also need to realize that high-end quality developments use a lot of resources. The physical footprint of the buildings on the lot should never be confused with the resource footprint, which extends well beyond the land parcel. All of the granite and glass and steel and concrete and exotic hardwoods that we all want to see in a high-end tower all comes at an environmental price.

Finally, I've come around about the look of these towers in particular, although I still don't know about the sloped podium part. But if this is the start of a wholesale "intensification strategy" for Glenora, then absolutely not. Glenora is a beautiful neighbourhood and it is largely successful as it is. It is the sort of neighbourhood that Edmonton needs to succeed in the future, right where it is, and it even makes a good reference for how to put together a new development.

Under no circumstances should the people of Glenora be forced to "do their duty" and stand by while their neighbourhood is filled with walk-ups and "intensity."

It isn't their social obligation, and it isn't their environmental obligation, and it just isn't worth it to damage an already successful community so that more ants can move to the ant hill.

With that in mind however, this particular site, and some version of this particular proposal, should be an amenity for the community and not a detriment. There is actually nothing wrong with the development already at that intersection. It is eclectic, useful and interesting enough. On balance however, this development in some form is not a bad idea.

But only this one - this cannot be the start of some re-engineering project for one of Edmonton's most successful and enjoyable communities.
lux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2007, 08:30 AM   #96
LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default 142 street development

I agree that the way we encourage growth and development is unsustainable. But so are the enormous homes being built in Glenora over the footprint of the old 600-800 sf homes.

When I was a kid, my Dad made a living recycling lumber in the old country - didja ever see such heresy in Edmonton. Recycling is turning it back to carbon [eventually] in the Clover Bar dump.

So there are many ways that an environmentally responsible position can be supported, and a classic way to understand that is to firstly look at our use of water, as compared to almost any country in the world.

Low flush toilets arent even mandatory here, much less controlled watering of lawns, car washing etc, and our wastage of lumber is appalling, as you can see on any new construction site.

The architect for this high rise project told me that they are designing recycling systems that MAY even use grey water after minor treating, full use of storm water for lawns, controlled run-off, co-gen systems and other efforts to reduce losses. Wont all work, but it seems to be a legitimate effort, quite unlike some of the monster home owners in Glenora and their staus quo construction methods.

And there is no arguing that it ultimately costs less per person to house 700 in the one complex than it does to house 700 spread through the Glenora community in $1 million homes.

I dont agree with your position that Glenora is somehow being expected to unfairly share the burden of densification, or is facing further pressure to intensify the neighbourhood over and above that already occurring with the construction of these BIG zero-lot line houses. Witness the recent position by Mayor Mandel that the city sell a lot of the unused school land. Isnt that "sharing the burden" or is just more NIMBY?

Almost every city in the world shares many of the same characteristics that Edmonton does- traffic congestion, too small tax base, changing character of neighbourhoods etc. But Glenora is changing and much of that change is being brought about by the current residents flogging their $700,000 knockdowns to some yuppie who builds a mansion. I just wanna live in/ near Glenora but cant afford the $1 m price tag, so I'm forced to consider this type of higher density development.

Last part of my rant- this proposed new development is intended to replace the rats nest of bits and pieces currently on the corner, and by no stretch of the imagination can an old gas station, ugly strip mall, vacant land, run down apartments with no parking and a stick built semi commercial building be classified as "eclectic". Sorry.....
LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2007, 09:16 AM   #97
highlander
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Highlands/North Edge Commuter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lux
I support sustainable development, but I don't believe for a second that each of us is duty-bound to use fewer resources. As a society, our "resource footprint" is a product of the number of people times the amount that we all use.

Why do we always forget the "number of people" part of that equation? Every time someone promotes environmental sustainability they argue for us to all use less. How about arguing for fewer people using more? That would also work.

Almost any increase in our quality of life is tied to an increased use of resources, barring efficiencies created by new technologies. If we are to enjoy a greater quality of life we need to be efficient in our use of resources, but we also have to decide how many people we can sustain, and we need to consciously decide that each of our future citizens will have and use more resources than they do today.
So how do you propose limiting the number of people? this is a global issue, so just limiting immigration doesn't cut it. I'm sure you agree that china-style population control is a lot more draconian than higher density zoning. And I hope you're not advocating euthanizing a portion of the population (presumably those who cannot afford to live in glenora)

An why should we decide that our decendents should use MORE resources than today? Because happiness is constrained at 1,000 sf per person? 3,000lb of steel isn't enough to move you around and keep you happy?
Quality of life is not dependent on quantity of consumption.
highlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2007, 10:22 AM   #98
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

"
Finally, I've come around about the look of these towers in particular, although I still don't know about the sloped podium part. But if this is the start of a wholesale "intensification strategy" for Glenora, then absolutely not. Glenora is a beautiful neighbourhood and it is largely successful as it is. It is the sort of neighbourhood that Edmonton needs to succeed in the future, right where it is, and it even makes a good reference for how to put together a new development. "


every neighbourgood is going through some kind of intensification...mature ones get rezoned, new ones have smaller lots and more areas allocated for multi-family.

Glenora is one of best neighbourhoods and we should be protecting it, but this development is not in the middle of a single family street. This development is on the corner of a major thrufare.

look at most major cities and see what HAS happened.

Multifamily fronting major roadways with some retail, single family retained behind it.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2007, 09:14 PM   #99
lux
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanO
every neighbourgood is going through some kind of intensification...mature ones get rezoned, new ones have smaller lots and more areas allocated for multi-family.
Yes, and in some cases that is a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanO
Glenora is one of best neighbourhoods and we should be protecting it, but this development is not in the middle of a single family street. This development is on the corner of a major thrufare.

look at most major cities and see what HAS happened.

Multifamily fronting major roadways with some retail, single family retained behind it.
The location of this proposal is what makes it doable for me. I can support this one. What concerns me is that a reference was made to a deliberate strategy to replace Glenora as it is with a much higher density neighbourhood. That will not be successful for Edmonton.
lux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2007, 09:22 PM   #100
lux
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander
So how do you propose limiting the number of people? this is a global issue, so just limiting immigration doesn't cut it. I'm sure you agree that china-style population control is a lot more draconian than higher density zoning. And I hope you're not advocating euthanizing a portion of the population (presumably those who cannot afford to live in glenora)
Without going too far off topic, I would prefer a childbirth quota to living in cramped quarters. China does what it has to do given its population, resources and infrastructure. I think their policy is the best alternative for them. In Canada we have other options, but I also think we need to decide when the country will hit a population limit of sustainability. And I was limiting my comments to Glenora because of the topic; by no means do I think Glenora alone should be exempt from intensification, and my position has nothing to do with income or affordability either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander
An why should we decide that our decendents should use MORE resources than today? Because happiness is constrained at 1,000 sf per person? 3,000lb of steel isn't enough to move you around and keep you happy?
Quality of life is not dependent on quantity of consumption.
Why should we condemn our descendants to live in an ant hill? Quality of life does correspond pretty much in a direct relationship with resource use. It is dependent on the quantity of consumption. To suggest otherwise is to rely on a large quantity of assumption.
lux is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.