East Junction | 86m | 25s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    46
This is going back to Council on August 17th.

Source: https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=108981

In response to the May 11, 2021 referral motion, the applicant made the following main revisions to the proposal:
● Updating the appendices to more accurately reflect requirements in the text of the zone such as showing the buildings accurately 14 metres apart and matching the size of the Publicly Accessible Private Park to the size requirement in the text;
● Decreasing the proposed increase in density from 450 to 250 dwellings and making the increase in the number of two bedroom dwellings and dwellings designed to be suitable for families proportional with the increase;
● Removing all proposed built form changes (building shapes, heights and tower floor plate sizes);
● Adding an overall maximum number of vehicular parking spaces of 1425 for residential parking, visitor parking and parking for commercial uses combined. This is effectively the maximum that is currently allowed for the approved 1200 dwellings;
● Increasing the required size of the Publicly Accessible Private Park from 1000 m2 to 1150 m2 ; and
● Removing the requirement for Developer Sponsored Affordable Housing in response to the repeal of City Policy C582 (City mandated adjustment).
 
Thought since they made it to ground level on the adjacent 12 storey a few weeks ago….but nothing since
 
MCXavierL said:
This is going back to Council on August 17th.

Source: https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=108981

In response to the May 11, 2021 referral motion, the applicant made the following main revisions to the proposal:
● Updating the appendices to more accurately reflect requirements in the text of the zone such as showing the buildings accurately 14 metres apart and matching the size of the Publicly Accessible Private Park to the size requirement in the text;
● Decreasing the proposed increase in density from 450 to 250 dwellings and making the increase in the number of two bedroom dwellings and dwellings designed to be suitable for families proportional with the increase;
● Removing all proposed built form changes (building shapes, heights and tower floor plate sizes);
● Adding an overall maximum number of vehicular parking spaces of 1425 for residential parking, visitor parking and parking for commercial uses combined. This is effectively the maximum that is currently allowed for the approved 1200 dwellings;
● Increasing the required size of the Publicly Accessible Private Park from 1000 m2 to 1150 m2 ; and
● Removing the requirement for Developer Sponsored Affordable Housing in response to the repeal of City Policy C582 (City mandated adjustment).
Click to expand...
The bolded text above does not make sense to me - is the scale of this project increasing or decreasing the number of dwellings or is this application for just some of the buildings????
 
MCXavierL said:
This is going back to Council on August 17th.

Source: https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=108981

● Decreasing the proposed increase in density from 450 to 250 dwellings and making the increase in the number of two bedroom dwellings and dwellings designed to be suitable for families proportional with the increase;
Click to expand...
Does this mean that the building will remain the same size, it's just that they're adding more family-friendly and two bedroom units so there's less room for apartments? If so, I don't mind this at all considering there was just a conversation about the need for more apartment spaces in these sorts of towers that can accommodate families.
 
EdmTrekker said:
The bolded text above does not make sense to me - is the scale of this project increasing or decreasing the number of dwellings or is this application for just some of the buildings????
Click to expand...
You're right its wording is confusing. It is increasing in size, but not to the degree the developer wanted back in May.

In May they proposed an increase of 450 units to the project. Regency/DER is now applying for an increase of 250 (a decrease from the proposed increase).

The proportional increase in units should include a proportional increase in units suitable for families.
 
Last edited:
C6468844-D957-4F72-AB45-4C8F86B4862D.jpeg
 
ChazYEG said:
I'm disappointed, but not surprised, especially with Iverson. He seems to have thrown in the towel for good, in this last few months as mayor.
Click to expand...
Huh?! I see it the other way. You do know this is the same guy behind the Emerald and BMO pits downtown right? So now he’s gonna threaten to “pull” Phase 2 if he doesn't get his way? Get him outta here….he’s your buddy Ian
 
MacLac said:
Huh?! I see it the other way. You do know this is the same guy behind the Emerald and BMO pits downtown right? So now he’s gonna threaten to “pull” Phase 2 if he does t get his way? Get him outta here….he’s your buddy Ian
Click to expand...
Exactly, while he claims he is a community developer. Just like the last car salesman I bought a used car from told me he cares about his customers. This guy is a joke.

Edit: And I certainly do not know if this is the case but perhaps some councilors have spoken to him off record about his lack of community attention to his downtown developments as motivation to not negotiate on a vote for Holyrood. I certainly don't know if that's the case, I am speculating but perhaps some councilors have said enough is enough with this guy. Give him an inch and he thinks he is a ruler.
 
Last edited:
MacLac said:
Huh?! I see it the other way. You do know this is the same guy behind the Emerald and BMO pits downtown right? So now he’s gonna threaten to “pull” Phase 2 if he doesn't get his way? Get him outta here….he’s your buddy Ian
Click to expand...
You guys seem to have misunderstood me 🤣 I thought this was the perfect opportunity to put public pressure on Regency, tie in approval to an improvement in behavior regarding their other sites, and Iverson should've been the face of it.
 
Raj Dhunna should concentrate more on his other hellholes (Tower 101 and Emerald) and less on deal-breaking with Holyrood Gardens. Failing that, he should be chased out of town and let more reputable developers take over Tower 101, Emerald, and Holyrood Gardens (looking at you, Westrich and Beljan).
 
What exactly is his version of Phase 2? Is it the entire section that still houses all of those ghetto 4 plexes? Cause the pit that he is working on right now looks as though it might be a 1/3rd of the pit….so really, it appears that he is only progressing on 1/6th of his current parcel. He hasn’t even started the adjacent 12 storey yet. That 2/3 rd of a pit that he has right now even worries me. How long before he moves on that?
 
Same gestures that Katz did with Ice District and Rogers Place with the Oilers back in the day.

Regency have to dig their heels in a little bit too and play hard ball to get what they what want - hard to say what their margins are, especially in the fiscal environment we find ourselves in. Things are becoming more liquid so to speak, but I think lenders are still somewhat stingy. I imagine that plays into this and the other sites quite a bit. The Pearl had a long runway before it was built and I suspect Emerald/101 to be the same. One of the trademark corners in NYC after 9/11 sat empty for more than a decade before anything was built. Could they maintain the sites better? Absolutely. Should we expect development to be immediate? Depends on who you ask - I would temper your expectations.

The pit right now is essentially the first phase for Holyrood while the remaining apartment housing would be the second phase. There is the larger tower, two twelve floor towers and a six floor building slated for the first pit.
 
IanO said:
Raj is an acquaintance by way of industry, not a 'buddy'.

Is this a greedy move or reasonable and fair given our ambitions of TODs?

250 units ain't going to be material here, but I'm not overly pleased with the way they are doing it and their initial proposal/promise to the community seem in question.
Click to expand...
The problem with this developer is credibility. He has none. He reminds me of Pig Pen ... what ever he touches and walks through he leaves it dirty, Unfortunately he can not be trusted to develop anything he has proposed any more. Why allow this variance when he may walk away and sell it for a premium or leave it in the ground undeveloped. Pig Pen is not worthy of any consideration until he cleans up the trash sites he has left behind which litter our city.
PigPen_%28Peanuts%29.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top