Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

West Block | Under Construction

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by moahunter
    A plan like this is worth the effort as it can provide a logical framwork and direction for decision making. It can be explicitly changed over time as needs change. It should also utlimatley provide more certainty for developers too.
    Exactly, but having a plan as such does not only provide more certainty for the developer, more importantly it provides certainty for the residents affected by large scale infill / redevelopments.

    Comment


    • 142 street development

      So you are suggesting another plan that the people of Glenora wont like anyways if it isnt what they demand........

      Interesting point made by a resident of Grosvenor to me at the weekend, and I quote
      "The people of Glenora dont care about us as far as this highrise is concerned. They see us as their buffer zone to the bad areas to the west."

      Comment


      • Council must reject proposed Glenora highrise development

        Council must reject proposed Glenora highrise development

        The Edmonton Journal, Letters
        Published: Tuesday, July 03, 2007


        A rumour in my community is that city council will vote 8-4 in favour of allowing a developer to build five highrise towers, 75 townhouses and 8,000 square metres of commercial space at Stony Plain Road and 142nd Street.

        I have to believe that Mayor Stephen Mandel and city councillors will vote against this DC2 rezoning application. Here's why:

        Mandel is against ugliness, which goes hand in hand with bad development. The proposal for the 142nd Street corner is bad development and is insensitive to the realities of the neighbourhood. Traffic and parking issues are largely ignored. Much traffic is generated by 330 homes and 8,000 square metres of commercial space (think a Safeway store and a London Drugs). And this on a corner that is already a bottleneck for traffic from the west end. The land in question is an L-shaped piece the size of one small city block (approximately the size of City Hall).

        Good development is city council's intention, witnessed by its adoption of the Smart Choices bylaw in 2004. This bylaw allows redevelopment of low- to medium-density in mature neighbourhoods and calls for high-density development in the centre of the city and around Light Rail Transit stations.

        Only the cynical among us would believe that the city's Transportation Department is recommending the Stony Plain Road route for Bus Rapid Transit (as an eventual prelude to Light Rail Transit) to give credibility to the high-density zoning application soon to be before city council by making it fit the Smart Choices criteria.

        Smart Choices requires neighbourhood input into future plans, and is a way to give citizens a say in what their city will become. Glenora and Grovener residents have participated in developing a plan for the 142nd Street corner. Council should, and probably will, wait for this planning report, and then say "no" to any development that does not fit with the residents' plan. Savvy politicians know that happy neighbourhoods make happy voters.

        I think Mandel and city council know that Edmonton's housing crisis cannot be solved with 330 high-end units that would not be on the market for at least four years. And council already has a number of projects underway that will alleviate the housing shortage.

        Crescent Towers on Stony Plain Road, an anomalous highrise surrounded by family homes, is a legacy of one city mayor, William Hawrelak. I strongly believe that Mandel does not want to be remembered as the development mayor who allowed five more highrise towers on a small corner in the family community of Glenora. And no city councillor wants to ruin a vibrant community.

        This is why I expect a unanimous vote of No when the DC2 application goes before city council.

        Connie Marshall, Edmonton

        © The Edmonton Journal 2007

        --30--

        Comment


        • Connie...while you bring up some good points, which have been raised before, you are still missing the intent of these kinds of developments.

          1. urban infill - increase municipal tax base
          2. neighborhood rejuvenation - more patrons, more eyes, more vibrancy.
          3. focus edmonton - all about intensification in mature/existing neighborhoods
          4. smart choices - while it states "small/med rise" it also addresses every other major point of intensification and "smart" development. This development falls in line.
          5. community consult - The DC2 process creates a forum for all involved to express concerns and create debate about elements of the proposal. However, this extends itself only so far in that the decision makers need to weigh not only the communities concerns, but the overall betterment of the cities.


          Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

          Comment


          • 142 Street Development

            8-4 in favor - great !
            This is just more of the same tired old Glenora whining....

            Connie Marshall wrote
            "Mandel is against ugliness, which goes hand in hand with bad development. The proposal for the 142nd Street corner is bad development and is insensitive to the realities of the neighbourhood. Traffic and parking issues are largely ignored. Much traffic is generated by 330 homes and 8,000 square metres of commercial space (think a Safeway store and a London Drugs). And this on a corner that is already a bottleneck for traffic from the west end. The land in question is an L-shaped piece the size of one small city block (approximately the size of City Hall). "

            Ugliness and bad development are not synonymous as Connie may think. There are lots of ugly "good" developments and vice versa. She equates this project as either or both. The Edmonton Design Committee thought otherwsie back in about April.

            Traffic and parking issues have not been ignored, 900 odd stalls ensures that, at a cost probably of about $45,000 per stall.
            There are not 330 units, nor 8000 SF of commercial- she's being a little loose with the facts...

            I wish people would stop the dishonest connection to the size of a Safeway or London Drugs, by implication suggesting such a store[or similar] will be located there. Such is simply untrue.

            I happened to be at that interesection this morning at about 8.15, and there wasnt even one light wait to get through. Granted todays traffic was a little lighter than usual, but Connie aint seen nothing yet, if she thinks this is congestion- try any other city in the world and she will know real congestion.

            Herein lies the problem thought- too much focus on Glenora and no focus on the big picture, not only in relation to Edmonton proper, but the real world outside her door also.

            8-4, my thats interesting. I can guess two of the opposed [the local Councillors] but who else.......

            Comment


            • Grovenor school threatened - again - BRT

              Grovenor school threatened - again
              Residents fear proposed express bus route may kill facility


              Tue, July 3, 2007
              By GLENN KAUTH, SUN MEDIA


              They got a reprieve from closure last year, but now Grovenor residents fear that plans for an express bus route on Stony Plain Road may kill any chance of saving their school for good.

              "It's been a shock to us that Stony Plain Road was selected," said Christopher Spencer, who along with other residents helped keep Grovenor school open by drafting special language and music programming.

              DEDICATED BUS LINE

              The concern comes after city officials unveiled a plan to shuttle passengers on a dedicated bus line to improve transit between the west end and downtown.

              The route would require building an extra two lanes of road, demolishing about 15 homes and paving over an area residents hope will be redeveloped, Spencer said.

              "If you want to send your kids to school, you have to send them across a six-lane road in the morning," he said.

              The bus route would work against plans to make the neighbourhood more attractive and thereby help boost enrolment at the 10345 144 St. school, whose fate is still up in the air.

              "Losing 15 houses will make it worse," Spencer said of the plans for a bus rapid transit (BRT) route.

              Grovenor residents aren't the only ones feeling threatened by the BRT plan.

              In nearby Glenora, parents are worried high-speed traffic on Stony Plain Road and 102 Avenue will hem in the local school on all sides.

              As a result, Grovenor and Glenora residents are gearing up to oppose the BRT plan at a hearing on July 10.

              Spencer said he's not against better transit in theory but argues Stony Plain Road isn't the right location for it.

              "The best thing would be to just don't monkey around with this stuff and let's go with the LRT," he said.

              Another option would be to put the BRT on 107 Avenue, which Spencer said would have less impact on residents.

              Glenora resident Sharon Maclise, meanwhile, said her neighbours are divided on what should happen with the BRT.

              Those in Glenora's south end are pushing for the 107 Avenue alternative, while those in the north are worried about what a route there would do to their neighbourhood.

              LATEST HEADACHE

              The BRT plan is just the latest headache for residents, Maclise said, citing a proposal for a large condo development at 142 Street.

              Officials who unveiled the BRT plan in June have said the Stony Plain route would get commuters downtown faster than a 107 Avenue route, Spencer said.

              Councillors have yet to approve the proposal, which could cost up to $500 million and 10 years to build.

              --30--

              Comment


              • 142 street development

                This is just more Glenora nonsense. Now the Nth Glenorans and pitted against the South Glenorans......a civil war being fought over BRT.

                BRT will not kill this school, and if the kids continue to do what they do already with crossing patrols, use the lights etc etc etc there will not be any measureable impact on the school from BRT.

                I am one of those that believes that BRT wont happen, the city is just tying up the land at todays prices, in anticipation of cleaning up some of the bottlenecks for cars between 124 and 156, and expecting to implement LRT on 107 Ave way in the future.

                Comment


                • The problem here is that people are not overly familiar with what BRT is and how it works.


                  Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by IanO
                    The problem here is that people are not overly familiar with what BRT is and how it works.
                    Exactly!

                    ...

                    In nearby Glenora, parents are worried high-speed traffic on Stony Plain Road and 102 Avenue will hem in the local school on all sides.

                    ...
                    The traffic wont be moving any faster than it is right now...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by IanO
                      The problem here is that people are not overly familiar with what BRT is and how it works.
                      Looking at the proposed Stony Plain route, I would question how familiar ETS is what BRT is or how it works.

                      I hate agreeing with the whiny glenorans, but 107th is a much better route (for reasons that have been described all over this forum).

                      And the prospect of a civil war between north and south Glenora has me reaching for the popcorn.

                      Comment


                      • 142 street development

                        Connie Marshall wrote in the Journal
                        "Only the cynical among us would believe that the city's Transportation Department is recommending the Stony Plain Road route for Bus Rapid Transit (as an eventual prelude to Light Rail Transit) to give credibility to the high-density zoning application soon to be before city council by making it fit the Smart Choices criteria. "

                        Is she for real?
                        She thinks that "Transportation Department is recommending the Stony Plain Road route for Bus Rapid Transit (as an eventual prelude to Light Rail Transit) to give credibility to the high-density zoning application soon to be before city council by making it fit the Smart Choices criteria. "

                        I somehow dont think the two are connected by the City in any way, shape or form....me smells a conspiracy of sorts........

                        Comment


                        • Civic Buzz - by David Norwood

                          The time is coming for Edmonton City Council to make some difficult decisions in the context of its Smart Choices Program. Smart Choices is a carefully developed, comprehensive City program which generally focuses on urban land intensification with due regard to a number of factors: transit-oriented development, residential infill, neighbourhood reinvestment, and public consultation about proposed redevelopments. While not necessarily a refutation of urban sprawl, the Smart Choices concept aims at preserving or enhancing the viability of mature neighbourhoods through carefully planned developments, some of them on a large scale. Invariably, the larger redevelopments include medium- and high-density, mixed use buildings (residential, commercial, retail), and just as invariably, the resulting proposals generate significant controversy.

                          Two current large-scale redevelopment proposals which have attracted controversy (and about which I have written in this column previously) are those for the Strathearn (Strathearn Heights Apartments Redevelopment Project) and Glenora (142nd Street and Stony Plain Road) districts. The controversy centres mainly around two aspects of each project: density and height. Critics express the view that the projects have too much density and the proposed towers—the tallest ones at least—are too tall. Overall, they fear that the greater population, increased traffic and high-rise towers will change the character of their neighbourhoods for the worse.

                          Supporters of the projects—by no means confined to only the developers—suggest that both projects will revitalize neighbourhoods, and introduce pedestrian-oriented urban villages with easy access to public transportation. Both are relatively close to the downtown core but are not part of, and never will be, high-density neighbourhoods like Oliver. Supporters also suggest that well-planned communities, with the high-rise towers placed in such a way that they do not encroach on the established areas of the neighbourhood, will enhance the quality of life.

                          Readers of this column know on which side of the fence I sit. Just as I saw the merits of Century Park when that massive project was first unveiled (and is now well underway), I see very much that is good in the Strathearn and Glenora projects. Both adhere to the Smart Choices concept… both have had the benefit of ongoing and wide public consultation—in the case of Strathearn, significantly more consultation than the City requires… both resulted in modifications to the original concept.

                          These projects will be going to City Council for review and decision in the near future. It will be interesting to see if its members will embrace the Smart Choices concept and approve them, or will it merely pay lip service to the concept and water them down, or worse, reject them? If the latter, look for Edmonton to continue to be the least densely populated major city in North America, if not the world. Given the ongoing need for accommodation, perhaps it’s a designation we can forego.

                          Plans are afoot again to redevelop the Charles Camsell Hospital site in Inglewood. Interested persons attended a public information meeting on June 25 where plans for the site were discussed. Gene Dub, of Dub Architects Ltd., owner of the site, submitted two applications to the City, the first to amend the west Ingle Redevelopment Plan (ARP), which would provide policy direction for the hospital redevelopment within the ARP. The second application is to amend the zoning bylaw to site specific development control provision (DC2) and public parks zone (AP). Dub plans to develop the site with medium- and high-density residential housing, up to 594 units, with limited commercial development. Under the AP zoning, the northeast corner of the site would be developed as a public park.

                          While this column was written well in advance of the June 25 meeting, members of Connect2Edmonton (C2E) were letting their views be known as soon as the invitation was sent to Inglewood residents. The majority believe that “Inglewood has so little to lose and so much to gain” from the proposed redevelopment. As a one-time resident—for 14 years—of that neighbourhood, I couldn’t agree more. The Camsell Hospital has been empty and derelict for more than a decade and is a perfect example of a site that is ideally suited for redevelopment. And as one member of C2E put it, the kind of housing proposed by Dub Architects is not currently available in Inglewood, and would have a positive affect on the neighbourhood as a whole. It will be interesting to see how the proposal is received.

                          Architectural firm Brinsmead Ziola Kennedy is the designer of the 34-storey condominium planned for Bellamy Hill just south of Edmonton House Suites. I had mentioned this in a previous column, but the drawing of the complex has changed. The structure will contain 101 two- and three-bedroom suites, making it attractive for families, a component not usually considered in Edmonton’s high-rise market until now. The proposal is now working its way through various city departments for the necessary approvals. It will make a handsome addition to the Edmonton skyline.

                          David Norwood is a freelance writer/editor.

                          --30--

                          Comment


                          • i have seen this article posted at least 4 other times today alone. Is this a glitch in the system?

                            Comment


                            • Nope, I posted the article in all the areas that it covered. So Bellamy, Glenora, Strathern and the Camsell threads but highlighted the portions that were relevant to each particular thread.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by IanO
                                The problem here is that people are not overly familiar with what BRT is and how it works.
                                I agree with you. I know that in Glenora, many untrue rumors flew around when the initial proposals were made (they will travel at 70km/hr and be more noisy than current traffic, etc). However, as people are learning more, many are being converted to the concept, which in my eyes, could greatly enhance city transit by streamling routes.

                                The tough issue though is that BRT will have a significant impact on traffic flow. A lot of planning will be needed. For example, current summer road reapir work on SP has reduced it to 2 lanes in places, leading to much congestion. Will the BRT have the same affect?

                                Clearly, traffic will need to be effectively transisoned onto 107 for the BRT to work. If this is acheived, residents on SP road should actually benefit from the reduced traffic load on SP.

                                I think some of those close to 107 are a bit mixed up. The plan to put BRT on SP could massivley increase traffic on 107, turning it into a sort of western motorway. These residents may have been better off with BRT on 107.

                                I think the people most fearful of BRT in Glenora are those on 102 and South of 102. The worry is that much of the traffic currently being split between SP and 102 is going to all divert onto 102 which is already hard to access for residents.

                                If we are to have BRT, there is no solution that will benefit everyone. Maybe the city is right, just pick the best routes and get working on it. What will be will be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X