That 1921 heritage home was not protected, but could have qualified for reevaluation for special character/historic designation. It's largely original and, as was stated, in excellent shape.
I think that is a huge loss.
I am all for development, and RA9 would balance out the economics for the developer, but I'm not for this now.
1)- We haven't seen what the developer is proposing, some seem to be skeptical of what Averton can produce.
2)- Administration did not support rezoning, but now supports demolition of a near perfect 100 year old house, so I'm PO'd.
I was in favor of this when it was 2 or 3 lots and was of possible "missing middle' status, and/or, would like a mid to 20's if great design but not taking-out heritage. I'd rather see them demo some of the crappy 3 or 4 story 1970's apartments common to the area.
Two notes; Firstly, it's
not a 100 year old home, it's a
107 year old home if this 1913 fire insurance map is to be believed, which to me makes it even worse. It's the third down from 103rd Avenue;
Secondly, its chances of being protected were never favourable to begin with, which is a crying shame. The City maintained Inventory of Historic Resources, which lists all the buildings the Edmonton Heritage Board has classified as architecturally, historically, culturally, or landmark-ly significant, is the stepping stone to being designated a legally-protected Municipal Historic Resource. For some some inexplicable reason this home was never listed, and one has to wonder why, given its brick construction, Craftsman influences, and size. That, coupled with the current draft of the provincial
Historic Resources Act, which makes designations a purely voluntary endeavor on the land owners part, would force the City to compensate the developer fair market value if they wanted to imposed a designation on it, which almost never happens — the only recent example that comes to mind is the Edmonton Iron Works building on 96th Street, which last I heard cost the City a very pretty penny to expropriate. It's worth noting that looking back on previous Google Streetview's, the home was apparently restored in ~2015, when all its shingle sidings were redone.
Having said that, I really agree with your second point. For Administration to say they're not comfortable with a project because it demolishes a century plus, architecturally interesting home, and then to immediately go back and say 'nah, whatever' isn't a good precedent for tying to save undesignated, but nonetheless historic, properties.
I'll also echo Dave's thoughts and say that its a real missed opportunity. Given that they own up to the corner, one would suppose that (hypothetically), it be fairly easy to shift it there, and build around.
/End of ramblings
