West Garneau | 27m | 6s | Westrich Pacific | J+S Architect

What do you think of this proposal?

  • Total voters
    26
@Gus Haynes Perhaps, but the city needs to follow its own guidelines, it may not always be clear but they are the way they are for a reason.

I'll give you a good example: During Holyrood Gardens, Planning tried to say the building heights met appropriate site angles from most sides. But they were using a site angle number that Toronto uses (55°), not the one that's in the city's own guidelines (45°). The problem? Edmonton is much further north than Toronto, you can't use the same sight angles because the sun has completely different angles here.

We made sure they got absolutely clocked on that one at Public Hearing.

Similarly, an extra 200m in winter is not the same as an extra 200m in a climate with less snow, ice, and freeze-thaw issues. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason for the difference in our TOD definition.

ETA actual angles
 
Last edited:
Daveography said:
@Gus Haynes Perhaps, but the city needs to follow its own guidelines, it may not always be clear but they are the way they are for a reason.
Click to expand...

I suppose you'll have to forgive me for not being overly deferential to the City of Edmonton's guidelines. If winter conditions constrain the "normal" definition of a TOD radius, perhaps we should look at the guidelines of other winter cities?

Calgary: 600m https://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages...ivities/Transit-Oriented-Development-TOD.aspx
Winnipeg: 400-800m (!) https://winnipeg.ca/ppd/planning/TOD/default.stm

I can't find anything out of Toronto, but Ryerson academics use 800m as their radius in city studies: https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/cur/events/CUR_TOD_Seminar_Final_Presentation.pdf

Really, a two-minute difference is splitting hairs. Access to Edmonton's mainline LRT system is going to be a major amenity to the residents of this building. I know plenty of LRT commuters who live further away than this site.
 
Why would TOD definitions even be relevant here? This is a Development-oriented-development, or a walk-oriented development.

400m to transit is kinda short but whatever, any TOD definition is the distance to the station, which is always in addition to the time spent on transit itself plus the walk from transit to the actual destination. There's plenty of employment and student seats with the 1200m or 1500m that's a reasonable door-to-door walk even in the winter.
 
This is literally a perfect location for something of this height, even if it is "luxury condos." There are plenty of university students, healthcare workers and professionals who'd live there. Does Councillor Henderson expect every arbitrary council decision on rezoning to be precedent-setting?
 
Stoop said:
This is literally a perfect location for something of this height, even if it is "luxury condos." There are plenty of university students, healthcare workers and professionals who'd live there. Does Councillor Henderson expect every arbitrary council decision on rezoning to be precedent-setting?
Click to expand...

Henderson has never saw a proposal he's liked, especially a high rise proposal
 
@Grandinite I don't think that's accurate or fair, Henderson has supported many towers. His vote is often a reflection of community concerns. Where developers have managed to get community buy-in, Henderson tends to vote in favour
 
Daveography said:
@Grandinite I don't think that's accurate or fair, Henderson has supported many towers. His vote is often a reflection of community concerns. Where developers have managed to get community buy-in, Henderson tends to vote in favour
Click to expand...

Such as with Maclab's Garneau project on 86 Avenue. Maclab did a lot of consultation even before submitting the rezoning application, which definitely helped with getting the majority of the community on board with the project. When it went to Council, very few within the community spoke in opposition. Henderson, subsequently, voted in favor.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top