Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 1061

Thread: The Arlington | Discussion

  1. #1
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    468

    Default The Arlington | Discussion

    Anyone have information on where The Arlington is at? Is it still in design stages with Brimsmead?

  2. #2
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    design is done i think...it is in a web of issues to my knowledge.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  3. #3
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...as the stomach turns...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  4. #4
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    ...as the stomach turns...
    actually it is called "proponent in-action", meaning he is not doing anything...grr.

  5. #5
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    grr is right...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  6. #6
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default Arlington condo info night!

    as a resident of the area i received my DC1 ap community sheet yesterday:

    come out and see/review/comment:

    thursday, feb 22

    7pm-9pm

    Grant Mac - CN theatre- main floor, room 5-142, 105st building.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Excellent news Ian.

    Is there anything on the notice that gives a clue about what they have planned?

  8. #8
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    Excellent news Ian.

    Is there anything on the notice that gives a clue about what they have planned?

    113 units, 20 storey, retain W,S,E facade.


    how about a we meet up then after head for a pint and bite after to discuss?

    thoughts?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  9. #9
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Not 100% sure I'll make it, because I might be in Calgary. Definitely going to try to make it back though.

    113 units, 20 storeys? So is this the same as the bzka rendering that's been around for ages?

  10. #10
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Wouldn't mind going, but you know the same nut jobs that were at the East Jasper meetings will be out in full force. Can we atleast go for a few drinks before...might be the only way to make it tolerable.

  11. #11
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    I'll go.

  12. #12

    Default

    I'll put on my Nimby stomping boots.

  13. #13
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    how about we meet 6pm for a pint or coffee and then head there at 7 ish then for a post mortem aprez?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  14. #14
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Arlington Apartments DC1 Historic Designation

    Table of Contents

    Parcel A

    1. General Purpose

    2. Area of Application

    3. Uses

    4. Development Criteria

    Parcel B

    1. General Purpose

    2. Area of Application

    3. Uses

    4. Development Criteria




    Appendices
    Parcel A

    1. General Purpose

    To establish a Direct Development Control District to accommodate a limited range of uses for the Arlington Apartments such that by limiting the range of specific land uses and developing sensitive site development criteria, the development will be compatible with the designation of the Arlington Apartments as a Municipal Historic Resource.

    2. Area of Application

    This DC1 District shall apply to Plan B, Block 5, Lot 51 and the southerly 3.29 m of Lot 52, located east of 106 Street and north of 100 Avenue, (Parcel A).

    3. Uses

    The following Discretionary Uses are allowed:

    1) Residential and Residential Related

    a) Apartment Hotels

    b) Apartment Housing

    c) Boarding and Lodging Houses

    d) Major Home Occupations

    e) Minor Home Occupations

    2) Commercial

    a) Business Support Services

    b) General Retail Stores

    c) Hotels

    d) Limited Contractor Services

    e) Personal Service Shops

    f) Professional, Financial and Office Support Services

    g) Professional Offices

    h) Retail Stores, Convenience up to a maximum gross floor area of 100 m2 (1,076.43 sq. ft.)

    3) Basic Services

    a) Government Services

    4) Community, Educational, Recreational, and Cultural Services

    a) Child Care Services

    b) Private Education Services

    c) Public Education Services

    4. Development Criteria

    The Development Officer in consultation with the Heritage Officer shall have regard to the following guidelines when reviewing a development permit application for Discretionary Uses.

    1) Historic Integrity

    The Arlington Apartments, and the land on which it is situated, was designated a Municipal Historic Resource with the passage of Bylaw No. 11575. Redevelopment must respect the historic character of the existing building. To do this, further development of the site must conform with the requirements of Appendix I to this District, "General Guidelines for Rehabilitation."

    2) Design Guidelines

    a) Any redevelopment shall maintain, to the satisfaction of the Development Officer and the Heritage Officer, the external appearance of the regulated portions of the building as defined in the Designation Bylaw No. 11575 as existing at the time of the adoption of this Bylaw.

    b) The existing Arlington Apartment Building must be retained and any future development or alteration must conform to this district and the Bylaw to designate the Arlington Apartment as a Municipal Historic Resource.

    c) The rehabilitation and renovation of the existing building shall retain or replicate the original building elements, as required in the Designation Bylaw No.11575, including roofline, doors and windows openings, trim, exterior finishing materials and similar architectural features.

    d) The maximum total Floor Area Ratio shall be 5.3.

    e) There shall be no parking requirements for the Arlington Apartment.

    f) The design and appearance of any additions shall complement the original 1909 historical building in scale, materials and design elements, and shall respect the intent of the Bylaw No.11575 to designate the Arlington Apartment as a Municipal Historical Resource, to the satisfaction of the Heritage Officer. Specifically, the development shall respect the apartment's original building elements including: roofline, doors and windows, trim, exterior finishing materials and similar architectural features to the greatest extent possible.

    g) Any addition above the existing building envelope shall be set back so that any visual impact from street level is minimized.

    h) A Comprehensive Sign Design Plan schedule with the overall intent of Section 79 of the Edmonton Land Use Bylaw shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any sign permits for the existing development and any new development on this site, for the approval of the Development Officer and Heritage Officer.

    i) The Development Officer may grant relaxation's to the regulations contained in Sections 50 to 79 of the Land Use Bylaw and the provisions of this District, if, in his or her opinion and the opinion of the Heritage Officer, such a variance would be in keeping with the General Purpose of the District and would not adversely affect the amenities, use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties.

    Parcel B

    1. General Purpose

    To establish a Direct Development Control District to accommodate medium to high intensity development comprised of predominantly commercial, office, institutional and business uses while emphasizing retail activities, entertainment and service uses at grade and to ensure any development is compatible with the Arlington Apartment, which is a Designated Municipal Historic Resource by Bylaw No.11575.

    2. Area of Application

    This DC1 District shall apply to Plan B, the northerly 11.95 m of Lot 52, Block 5, Plan B, located east of 106 Street and north of 100 Avenue (Parcel B).

    3. Uses

    The following Discretionary Uses are allowed:

    1) Residential and Residential Related

    a) Apartment Hotels

    b) Apartment Housing

    c) Major Home Occupations

    d) Minor Home Occupations

    e) Residential Sales Centre

    2) Commercial

    a) Business Support Services Commercial Schools

    b) Convenience Retail Stores Equipment Rentals

    c) Funeral Services

    d) General Retail Stores

    e) Hotels

    f) Limited Contractor Services Minor Alcohol Sales

    g) Minor Eating and Drinking Establishments

    h) Mobile Catering Food Services Personal Service Shops

    i) Professional, Financial and Office Support Services

    j) Professional Offices

    3) Basic Services

    a) Government Services

    4) Community, Educational, Recreational, and Cultural Services

    a) Child Care Services

    b) Community Recreational Services

    i) Indoor Participant Recreation Services Private Clubs

    ii) Private Education Services

    5) Public Education Services

    6) Public Libraries and Cultural Exhibits Spectator Entertainment Establishments

    4. Development Criteria

    The Development Officer in consultation with the Heritage Officer shall have the regard to the following guidelines when reviewing a development permit application for Discretionary Uses.

    1) Design Guidelines

    a) Any new development proposed for this site must conform to the enclosed "Design Guidelines for Redevelopment of Parcel B" (Appendix I of this District). These guidelines offer direction to architects and developers in the event of a redevelopment of Parcel B.

    b) The maximum total Floor Area Ratio shall be 10.0.

    c) The maximum Height shall not exceed 45m (147.6 ft.).

    d) A minimum of 17 vehicular parking stalls shall be provided exclusively for the uses located within Parcel A as defined in Bylaw 11859, plus any additional vehicular parking required by Section 66 of the Land Use Bylaw for the uses developed on Parcel B.

    e) The Development Officer may grant relaxations to the regulations contained in Sections 50 to 79 of the Land Use Bylaw and the provisions of this District, if, in his or her opinion and the opinion of the Heritage Officer, such a variance would be in keeping with the General Purpose of the District and would not adversely affect the amenities, use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  15. #15

    Default Arlington may yet rise to 20-storey condo

    Arlington may yet rise to 20-storey condo

    City planners will present builder's proposal to public next week


    Susan Ruttan, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Saturday, February 17, 2007


    Gutted by fire two years ago, Edmonton's oldest apartment building may soon be reborn as a 20-storey condo tower.

    The project will preserve three walls of the red brick facade of the Arlington Apartments, with a new condo tower rising behind it, architect Fraser Brinsmead said in an interview Friday.

    The apartment block on 100th Avenue and 106th Street, which is a municipal and provincial historic building, was gutted by arson in April 2005. It has been boarded-up since the fire.

    "It's a huge challenge," Brinsmead said of the 113-unit, $25-million project. "It's fraught with peril."

    City and provincial officials insist that the original facade be preserved, except for the back wall which was built of cheap brick, he said.

    That means builders will have to shore up the old brick walls while they dig a deep parking garage underneath the site, he said. His firm proposed knocking down the old walls and rebuilding them in new brick, but planners rejected it.

    The new tower will sit on the former parking lot, with about one-third of it jutting inside the old Arlington, he said. The rest of the old building will be rebuilt into a main floor of commercial space and three floors of lofts. The bottom two floors of the old five-storey building will comprise the commercial level.

    The old Arlington entrance on 100th Avenue will be retained as the residents' entrance, said Brinsmead. A west-side entrance in the tower will lead to the commercial area.

    "There was a time when we thought we were going to put several entrances off the street to access the commercial," he said. Government officials nixed the idea, which would have altered the facade of the old building.

    Coun. Michael Phair, who represents the downtown area, said he's happy with the proposal, although he has some questions about the 20-storey height. Current zoning allows only 14 storeys, so the Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan will have to be changed.

    Brinsmead said restoring the old facade will cost at least $1.4 million, so owner Saraswati Singh needs a taller building to cover the cost.

    Following the fire, Singh tried unsuccessfully to get approval to demolish the building.

    Phair said with the facade preserved, the building will keep its historic designation and Singh won't have to return the $522,000 in government grants he got before the fire to restore the building.

    Singh could not be reached for comment Friday.

    Brinsmead said he deliberately made the new tower look different from the existing red brick building. "You have to differentiate the old from the new. That's critical when you're adding to a historic building."

    City planners will meet Thursday at 7 p.m. to inform the public about the proposal. The meeting will be in the CN Conference Theatre of Grant MacEwan College. City planner David Schoor said planners are "really happy" the Arlington facade is being preserved, but he won't say whether the planning department will endorse the project.

    When it was built 98 years ago, the Arlington was a smart address housing lawyers, businessmen, doctors and music teachers. By the 1990s it had fallen upon hard times and was briefly condemned by Capital Health in 1998 when the heating system quit working.

    --30--

  16. #16

    Default

    The 20 storey height should not be an isssue.

  17. #17
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    no friggen kidding....there are office towers beside it which are 12-14 storeys which wouldnt be much shorter than a 20 storey condo.

    i like this proposal at this point and am looking forward to seeing the plans, but maintaining the original 3 sides of the Arlington gets my vote.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    It looks pretty boxy from the picture in the Journal. This design was okay two years ago....but it looks pretty bottom end right now.

    I'd much rather see a bunch more floors and a narrower (east-west) tower design.

  19. #19
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    It looks pretty boxy from the picture in the Journal. This design was okay two years ago....but it looks pretty bottom end right now.

    I'd much rather see a bunch more floors and a narrower (east-west) tower design.

    a point tower you mean...


    i believe there is a significant curtainwall section
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  20. #20

    Default

    As per the SSP conversation, Red Star? before or after? (or both?)
    Shameless Urbanophile

  21. #21
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,748

    Default

    After....

  22. #22
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default


  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    Its not awful, but it can be better.

  24. #24
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Why is it that BZKA seems to have a monopoly on residential towers in this city? I would really like to see someone hire, oh I dunno, Bing Thom.



    And I bet our design commitee wouldn't go Nazi on a design like this like Vancouver's did.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by travis
    Why is it that BZKA seems to have a monopoly on residential towers in this city? I would really like to see someone hire, oh I dunno, Bing Thom.
    EXACTLY. I bet you can count on one finger the number of Edmonton developers that have any sense of aesthetics. Bing Thom is a fantastic designer, and under-appreciated.

  26. #26
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    40

    Default Further to aesthetics

    What ever happened to the mayor that wanted everyone to raise the bar and call crap what it is, crap?

    I'd be happier with the 20 stories demand if it didn't come by way of the developer holding city council ransom with that burned out husk blighting the downtown we all want to love.

  27. #27
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by travis
    Why is it that BZKA seems to have a monopoly on residential towers in this city? I would really like to see someone hire, oh I dunno, Bing Thom.



    And I bet our design commitee wouldn't go Nazi on a design like this like Vancouver's did.
    Havent really had the opportunity to see something like that.

  28. #28

    Default Re: Further to aesthetics

    Quote Originally Posted by emdubya
    What ever happened to the mayor that wanted everyone to raise the bar and call crap what it is, crap?
    (Up until now) I had been silently wondering the same thing, especially after seeing that proposed low-rise project identified a short while ago (can't recall specific location) that reminded me of small-town Alberta-equivalent ghetto housing, and people were cutting it slack.

    Remind me what Mandel said exactly... was it "no more crap" or not? The limited geographical mandate of the EDC seems to suggest that the City translated his comment to mean "no more crap in a small sector of the city... and continue to crap away to your heart's content elsewhere".

  29. #29
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    252

    Default

    The design committee is a new thing for Edmonton and the city is taking small steps in its implementation.

    The members of the committee are interested in expanding our review area.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BDavidson
    The design committee is a new thing for Edmonton and the city is taking small steps in its implementation.

    The members of the committee are interested in expanding our review area.
    Why is the city taking small steps? What could possibly be wrong with what your committee is trying to achieve?

  31. #31

    Default

    The EDC needs more teeth, more balls and a wider range on the projects they can have a say over. Plain and simple.
    Shameless Urbanophile

  32. #32

    Default

    Bump to top.

    It's tonight.

    Not knowing my way around the college, where exactly is this?

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Bump to top.

    It's tonight.

    Not knowing my way around the college, where exactly is this?
    It is in the CN Theatre, Building 5 (so closest to 105 Street). The Theatre is on the main floor and is clearly marked!

    Does this help? If not let me know as I can help (I am an alumnus of MacEwan and was on Students' Council last year so I know all the campuses VERY well.

  34. #34
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Bump to top.

    It's tonight.

    Not knowing my way around the college, where exactly is this?

    GO EAST YOUNG MAN....CN theatre on the 105st side.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  35. #35
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    239

    Default

    did anybody go? any interesting news?

  36. #36
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amanzano
    did anybody go? any interesting news?
    I went that presentation last night.

    The Arlington was, well.....meh and horrible in parts. To be specific, the front looks a bit meh, although the balconies are actually curved. The back was horrible. The white parts will be made of stucco - ugh. In a nutshell, I don't like that project as much as I thought I would.

    I wasn't the only one from this forum there - DanC, IanO, Onishenko, Monkyman and a few others were there as well.

  37. #37
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    57

    Default

    What is the plan for the Arlington itself. Offices and then Condos above?

  38. #38
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    A couple big questions.

    Is the design the same as the one shown earlier in this thread?

    Are there any concrete time frames announced for construction and opening?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeK
    Quote Originally Posted by amanzano
    did anybody go? any interesting news?
    I went that presentation last night.

    The Arlington was, well.....meh and horrible in parts. To be specific, the front looks a bit meh, although the balconies are actually curved. The back was horrible. The white parts will be made of stucco - ugh. In a nutshell, I don't like that project as much as I thought I would.

    I wasn't the only one from this forum there - DanC, IanO, Onishenko, Monkyman and a few others were there as well.
    Importantly, is what you saw pre or post-EDC?

  40. #40
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dweller
    What is the plan for the Arlington itself. Offices and then Condos above?
    The original Arlington is supposed to have the main floor designated for commercial use, while the 2nd floor and up will have luxury condos. I think there's to be about 4-7 condos per floor or something like that in the old building, so each of those will be the range of at least 1000-1200 sq ft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    A couple big questions.

    Is the design the same as the one shown earlier in this thread?

    Are there any concrete time frames announced for construction and opening?
    Yes, the design shown in the presentation was basically the same as the one posted earlier in this thread. As for construction, I think construction's to start sometimes maybe later this year, assuming if the whole approval process goes as planned.

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Importantly, is what you saw pre or post-EDC?
    Good question. I honestly don't know for sure. Hopefully the others will know.

  41. #41
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    331

    Default

    As i understand it - it has gone to EDC and EDC gave them direction to make changes. The applicant has not yet done this.

    The point of the meeting was to get public input and gather material that will further guide Planning Dept. directions to the applicants. They then need to make the changes to gain support of the Depatrment, and prove to Council they listened to the EDC, and the public. If they choose not to improve or modify they may have a difficult time gaining approval.

  42. #42

    Default

    Yup. Design felt very 1995. No provision for affordable housing or LEED.

    I kind of felt sorry for the architect. He went in all set to defend against NIMBY's complaining about the height, and he instead faced a bunch of people who wanted to see more density, but also more amenities, and an attractive design.

    That sucker is going to be the poster child for why we need to close the Muni.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Yup. Design felt very 1995. No provision for affordable housing or LEED.

    I kind of felt sorry for the architect. He went in all set to defend against NIMBY's complaining about the height, and he instead faced a bunch of people who wanted to see more density, but also more amenities, and an attractive design.

    That sucker is going to be the poster child for why we need to close the Muni.
    What change we've brought in the last few years.

    This is so positive!! No NIMBY's! People WANTING density?!?!? Ahahaha score My faith in the citizens of this city currently bumped to 34%!

  44. #44
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    226

    Default

    The YIMBY's are gaining ground.

  45. #45
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    Here is the basic lowdown as I understand it.
    The building itself isn't awful looking, but once again it is a wide three sided building. The east and west faces are quite narrow and I find them attractive. The south face however is another story and looks almost exactly like the rendering shown here.
    The building cannot be expanded vertically due to it being on the navcan flight path and no variance is going to be granted...so yea the muni is crapping all over this.
    Basically I believe the EDC gave them preliminary recommendations to go higher and narrower, but that wasn't possible.
    However the units in the building are all very large, basically there appears to only be 6 that are in the sub 1000 sq ft range. Also, there is 6 units per floor, which is driving the overall shape of the building.
    Good news is that there is curtainwall glass, and the building will be actual brick. Bad news is there are certain portions, "the white areas" that will be stucco.

    I can't say I like the building, and was very underwhelmed by it...there is a chance that there could be some major changes made to the overall design when it hits the EDC again, but I guess time will tell.

  46. #46
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    (...)
    The building cannot be expanded vertically due to it being on the navcan flight path and no variance is going to be granted...so yea the muni is crapping all over this. (...)
    But the million dollar q is, how hard did they try, or did they try at all?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  47. #47
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    331

    Default

    based on what I understand so far there is no ability to go above the Airport Protection Overlay at this location...there are 2 approaches to the muni that fan out, the 2 approaches are not negotiable in terms of height...there is an area between the approaches, located more or less where the CBD is located, that allows for applications to exceed the basic APO - but even then there is an upper limit to height.

  48. #48
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Oh, I understand the APO well. This site is on VASI Rwy 12...

    What I am asking is how hard they even approached/touched getting info on the FUTURE of the APO, or started making noise for its amendment. The APO was designed for the performance and manoeuvrability of a 737-200...and what lands there NOW is either slower, more nimble, or both.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  49. #49

    Default

    And what a shame it would be if a building permamently stopped that runway from being considered for a 737-200 ever again.....

  50. #50
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Was at the meeting last night...

    Good:

    -real curtain wall on corners
    -east and west elevations are quite well done, well blended with old and new
    -6th floor greenspace = nice
    -mixed use
    -UG parking
    -real brick on tower
    -retainment of historical facade


    Bad:

    -white acrylic stucco
    -north and south elevations are too WIDE, should be more of a point tower (possible NAVCAN discussions).
    -size of units all above 1000sqft.....WHEN OH WHEN will developers realize we need 500-800sqft downtown, not just 900 and up for the most part.


    Overall, some good and some that should be improved, 6.5-7/10.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  51. #51
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    And what a shame it would be if a building permamently stopped that runway from being considered for a 737-200 ever again.....
    The fact that this plane is well on its way to the scrapyard has made this moot...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  52. #52
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Did they mention price?

  53. #53
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dweller
    Did they mention price?
    in the downtown concrete highrise market....expect $375-450sqft now....so 1000sqft 2bdrms are 400k+ more or less..
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Citysource
    As i understand it - it has gone to EDC and EDC gave them direction to make changes. The applicant has not yet done this.

    The point of the meeting was to get public input and gather material that will further guide Planning Dept. directions to the applicants. They then need to make the changes to gain support of the Depatrment, and prove to Council they listened to the EDC, and the public. If they choose not to improve or modify they may have a difficult time gaining approval.
    Forgive the uneducated question, but was this particular meeting any different than what would be done for any other projects in the past? If not, it's nice to see that it did not slip under the radar, as most other projects appear to have done.

    If this session dramatically improves the final product, then I'd say "job well done". In that sense, I'd consider this process as a litmus test to see whether serious concerns are adequately addressed. (Sounds like a good thing that I wasn't in the room!)

  55. #55
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by Citysource
    As i understand it - it has gone to EDC and EDC gave them direction to make changes. The applicant has not yet done this.

    The point of the meeting was to get public input and gather material that will further guide Planning Dept. directions to the applicants. They then need to make the changes to gain support of the Depatrment, and prove to Council they listened to the EDC, and the public. If they choose not to improve or modify they may have a difficult time gaining approval.
    Forgive the uneducated question, but was this particular meeting any different than what would be done for any other projects in the past? If not, it's nice to see that it did not slip under the radar, as most other projects appear to have done.

    If this session dramatically improves the final product, then I'd say "job well done". In that sense, I'd consider this process as a litmus test to see whether serious concerns are adequately addressed. (Sounds like a good thing that I wasn't in the room!)

    it's a DC app...so there has to be a community consult for a 60m radius but is also open to the public.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  56. #56

    Default




    Finally got around to uploading these....

  57. #57
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    ^right side should be the tower width...not the left.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #58
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    This should be half as wide and twice as tall

  59. #59
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    876

    Default

    Although not perfect, certainly better than anything TNP have built to date...............

  60. #60
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ridgeman
    Although not perfect, certainly better than anything TNP have built to date...............
    the pile of snow on most streets is nicer.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ridgeman
    Although not perfect, certainly better than anything TNP have built to date...............
    That's called 'damning with faint praise' for those of you reading along at home.

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman



    Finally got around to uploading these....
    Oh dear...

  63. #63
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    The nicest thing I can say about this proposal is that the street level should be okay.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by travis
    The nicest thing I can say about this proposal is that the street level should be okay.
    Actually, the street level is a disaster, but because it's a heritage disaster it'll get a pass. Remember this was residential, so the windows are pretty high up to give some privacy, and there will only be the one main residential entry on the south side. All commercial entry is from the western entryway which is setback from the street.

  65. #65
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Quote Originally Posted by travis
    The nicest thing I can say about this proposal is that the street level should be okay.
    Actually, the street level is a disaster, but because it's a heritage disaster it'll get a pass. Remember this was residential, so the windows are pretty high up to give some privacy, and there will only be the one main residential entry on the south side. All commercial entry is from the western entryway which is setback from the street.
    Yup.

    Very little commercial, set back from street, tiny windows......but it's an old brick block so we can't change it

  66. #66

    Default

    still bitter about that, eh? If you had your way Lindsey, it seems that everything that doesn't fit in your myopic view of architecture would be smashed. Let's cut some slack for Edmonton's oldest apartment building. (currently standing that is...)
    Shameless Urbanophile

  67. #67
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    arlington has a wicked street fell...in a very diff way.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  68. #68
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Any mention of the light green-darker green ugliness to the east of the arlington?

  69. #69
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onishenko
    still bitter about that, eh? If you had your way Lindsey, it seems that everything that doesn't fit in your myopic view of architecture would be smashed. Let's cut some slack for Edmonton's oldest apartment building. (currently standing that is...)
    I just don't see whats special about it. It's old, so? Nothing important happened there, it's not spectacular or significant.

    At least the old wharehouses along 104 have a wonderful street pressence and does a better job at providing an urban feel than most new developments creating a great atmosphere.

    Would I like to see the Arlington remain? Sure. But when the only way to make it financially worthwhile is to build a squating tower like that, combined with all of it's original urban faults I saw we cut our loses.

  70. #70
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    Quote Originally Posted by onishenko
    still bitter about that, eh? If you had your way Lindsey, it seems that everything that doesn't fit in your myopic view of architecture would be smashed. Let's cut some slack for Edmonton's oldest apartment building. (currently standing that is...)
    I just don't see whats special about it. It's old, so? Nothing important happened there, it's not spectacular or significant.

    At least the old wharehouses along 104 have a wonderful street pressence and does a better job at providing an urban feel than most new developments creating a great atmosphere.

    Would I like to see the Arlington remain? Sure. But when the only way to make it financially worthwhile is to build a squating tower like that, combined with all of it's original urban faults I saw we cut our loses.

    i think you were well indoctrinated by the developer or architect. The Arlington may not be a class A compared to say the McLeod, but it is unique, interesting, and as is significantly more interesting than most stuff in this city. We have many many lots with nothing on them to do all new.......keep/maintain/retain spaces like these.

    thank you
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  71. #71

    Default

    Much as I'm supportive of developers making money, they were blowing a lot of smoke up our collective butts. Trying to say that simultaneously they are going to build what needs to be built to the best quality and they'll price it accordingly, and at the same time that they categorically can afford neither LEED certification of any sort, nor any provision towards affordable housing is a big fat load of hooey.

  72. #72

    Default

    exactly. The can't do alot of things it seems because it doesn't make economic sense. You think we'd see more glass if they could have leveled the building and built faux historic, thus saving them 1.1 Mil? Not at all. Just more money in the dewvelopers pocket. Let's not forget the half Mil. he already got to restore it. I'm sure they city would be happy to take it back if he had 'other' plans.
    Shameless Urbanophile

  73. #73

    Default Council approves Arlington tower

    Council approves Arlington tower

    Alexandra Zabjek, edmontonjournal.com
    Published: Wednesday, May 02, 2007


    Edmonton’s oldest apartment building, gutted by fire two years ago, will be reconstructed as a towering condominium project that juts up against the reconstructed Arlington Apartments.

    City councillors voted on Tuesday to approve architect Fraser Brinsmead’s design for a 20-storey condo tower — five floors higher than is usually allowed in the area — behind the original Arlington building at 106th Street and 100th Avenue.

    The project will preserve three walls of the Arlington’s original red-brick facade, while rebuilding five floors of commercial and residential space within the old structure. Ever since fire almost demolished the 98-year-old building in 2005, owner Saraswati Singh has battled city council about reconstruction plans. Officials insisted the original facade be preserved; Singh argued the cost of doing so would be prohibitive.

    City council agreed to allow five extra storeys on the tower to offset the costs of preserving parts of the historic structure. The new condos will likely cater to a ritzy clientele, as Brinsmead estimated that a 1,000-square-foot apartment in the building could cost $600,000.

    Coun. Michael Phair, who represents the downtown area, said the proposed development will help maintain a sense of history in the area and attract new residents.

    [email protected]
    © Edmonton Journal 2007

    --30--

  74. #74
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    I think the building doesn't look too bad. I guess my opinion is different from others on here that on one side glass is nice but also I really don't want to see the entire downtown in all glass curtain walls. Maybe I'm over reacting but it seems there are some that want glass everywhere, no brick or concrete or anything of that type of material, just glass, glass and more glass.

    I'm just glad that the building will be rebuilt rather than just left there for years to come rotting and becoming an eye sore.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    I think the building doesn't look too bad. I guess my opinion is different from others on here that on one side glass is nice but also I really don't want to see the entire downtown in all glass curtain walls. Maybe I'm over reacting but it seems there are some that want glass everywhere, no brick or concrete or anything of that type of material, just glass, glass and more glass.

    I'm just glad that the building will be rebuilt rather than just left there for years to come rotting and becoming an eye sore.
    people like their shiny things.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  76. #76
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Where ever Visa is accepted
    Posts
    4,548

    Default Council approves Arlington Tower

    Council approves Arlington tower

    Alexandra Zabjek
    The Edmonton Journal

    Wednesday, May 02, 2007

    EDMONTON - Edmonton's oldest apartment building, gutted by fire two years ago, will be reconstructed as a towering condominium project that juts up against the reconstructed Arlington Apartments.

    City councillors voted on Tuesday to approve architect Fraser Brinsmead's design for a 20-storey condo tower -- five floors higher than is usually allowed in the area -- behind the original Arlington building at 106th Street and 100th Avenue.

    The project will preserve three walls of the Arlington's original red-brick facade, while rebuilding five floors of commercial and residential space within the old structure. Ever since fire almost demolished the 98-year-old building in 2005, owner Saraswati Singh has battled city council about reconstruction plans. Officials insisted the original facade be preserved; Singh argued the cost of doing so would be prohibitive.

    City council agreed to allow five extra storeys on the tower to offset the costs of preserving parts of the historic structure. The new condos will likely cater to a ritzy clientele, as Brinsmead estimated that a 1,000-square-foot apartment in the building could cost $600,000.

    Coun. Michael Phair, who represents the downtown area, said the proposed development will help maintain a sense of history in the area and attract new residents.

    [email protected]
    © The Edmonton Journal 2007
    Noah's ark was built by volunteers...... The Titanic was built by professionals.

  77. #77
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    'bout time
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  78. #78

  79. #79
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    terrible sizing IMO...way too big...but what do i know
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  80. #80
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    terrible sizing IMO...way too big...but what do i know
    I thought you were a proponent of more height?

  81. #81

    Default

    Ian is saying that it's too fat. Unfortunately it can't be any taller.

  82. #82
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    terrible sizing IMO...way too big...but what do i know
    I thought you were a proponent of more height?

    sizing in regards to not only its width, but also the unit sizes....and 600sqft for non view?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  83. #83
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Question: if preserving the brick exterior was too expensive, why didn't the guy just demolish the shell? Isn't this similar to the church, where it was said that a demolition permit didn't require a building permit?

  84. #84
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    Arilington was already on the historic "A" resource registry. That means no smashy smashy. That church was added/going to be added to the modern registry, but I don't think that exists yet.
    That meant there was nothing to stop the demo permit except lobbying.

  85. #85
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    i just cannot wait to rid the eyesore of a site and get some life back to that corner...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  86. #86
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    i just cannot wait to rid the eyesore of a site and get some life back to that corner...
    As my office overlooks the site I couldn't agree more!
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    i just cannot wait to rid the eyesore of a site and get some life back to that corner...
    It took what a year and a half to remove the planking that encroached on one whole lane on 100th Ave...How long do you think this reconstruction will take?

  88. #88
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    i just cannot wait to rid the eyesore of a site and get some life back to that corner...
    It took what a year and a half to remove the planking that encroached on one whole lane on 100th Ave...How long do you think this reconstruction will take?
    unlike that...here time IS money...so i bet 24months start to finish.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  89. #89
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13

    Default Arlington Apartments

    Any development news on the old Arlington apartment site? I believe it was in the spring that council approved a 20 storey apartment. I haven't heard anything since. Anyone?

  90. #90
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I haven't heard much since this discussion thread:

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...pic.php?t=2053

    there is a lot more info there.

  91. #91
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    I just don't have faith in the landowner that currently owns the rubble, will ever get their project off the ground.

  92. #92
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    I just don't have faith in the landowner that currently owns the rubble, will ever get their project off the ground.
    I agree...he's cheap cheap cheap. Reminds me of the Rusell Peters stand-up. Google search: "russell peters be a man", then watch the youtube video...lol.

    Anyways, back on topic. I say he's cheap because in the end wasn't it the city that did the cleanup and back-charged him for it after the fire?
    Thus the task is not so much to see what no-one yet has seen, but to think what nobody yet has thought that which everyone sees. - Schopenhauer

  93. #93
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,797

    Default

    i live a block away and find it absolutely atrocious how this whole situation was handled...

    One of the best examples of early century apartment design which can be saved is being left to fall apart, mold, and then play the "can fix it now card" even though it was part of the approval.

    I also am apauled at how the city allowed one land of 100ave to be closed for so long and also the closing of the alley between 105/106st for so long.

    it is an eyesore and a site that should have been dealt with much differently.

    the current owner, dr.singh, better step up or the city should step in and charge back.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  94. #94
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,540

    Default

    More than anything else, it's just embarassing.

  95. #95
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    647

    Default

    with the roof system open for so long I can imagine that mould has spread to all wood structural systems. The mould, and therefore the structures, would have to be removed at some point. not sure how they could do this and save the structure at the same time. perhaps letting the building rot was part of the plan?

  96. #96
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,234

    Default

    I work opposite Arlington, it's hideous and the Council should now tell the owner to start work this year or they'll charge him for being a slob.
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  97. #97
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    51

    Default

    It is embarassing. But here is the dynamic at work:

    1) owner applies for and gets grant from city to have the property designated "historical"

    2) owner invests tax-payer's grant money in the property (apparently not on fire-suppression technology)

    3) property burns, building is heavily damaged

    4) the rules concerning historically designated properties require the property to be repaired, not demolished if possible

    5) owner would likely have to repay the grant money if it were to be demolished

    6) city cannot demand action since it has a financial interest that would be at stake if they threw their weight around

    7) owner realizes it is in his best interest to delay as long as possible since the eyesore factor becomes a bargaining point with the city and its historical designation and related grant money status

    My guess is that the cheap-skate owner is angling for the historical designation to be repealed, no grant monies to be repaid, and the ability to develop whatever he wants on the site.

    My prediction is that if he gets his way, the resulting development will be cheap, ugly, and will squeeze every nickle out of the site.

    Of course, this analysis could be dead wrong!

  98. #98
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    Of course, this analysis could be dead wrong!
    Nope, Unfortunately I think you're bang on.

  99. #99
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,540

    Default

    We haven't heard one single positive thing about this guy as a developer in the years since the building was all but destroyed. The man has no civic pride whatsoever. I can understand it's a business and he is looking to make a profit, but c'mon... it's a balance. The city isn't going to back down on their grant money that he was given, and they shouldn't. Is the sidewalk still closed?

  100. #100
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxter
    It is embarassing. But here is the dynamic at work:

    1) owner applies for and gets grant from city to have the property designated "historical"

    2) owner invests tax-payer's grant money in the property (apparently not on fire-suppression technology)
    You missed:

    2.5) Owner is incredibly slow in performing upgrades. The outside may look pretty enough, but the inside is not. The elevator and safety lighting are non-functional. Numerous combustibles are unsafely stored. Uninsulated heating piping and live communications wiring are exposed throughout building. Electrical upgrades are performed by handyman/resident manager, with questionable understanding of "grounding". The fire alarm panel is frequently deactivated at night to prevent nuiscance alarms.

    Which is then followed by:

    3) property burns, building is heavily damaged...

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •