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

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    41
@chrisvazquez7 In theory sure. In reality the site is loaded with challenges that I am too tired to rehash right now.

Even so, 1200 was a difficult number to come to terms with and we fought bitterly to make it work best for our community in the zoning that was done two years ago. Going back and changing it again now is a slap in the face to everyone who put in all that effort, including Administration and Council to say nothing of us volunteers.
 
@chrisvazquez7 I'm sure Dave could answer this better, but from what I understand this new info is pretty bad for Regency and the Holyrood community's relations. For the past couple of years, Holyrood residents have been in consultation after consultation trying to make this project as suitable as possible for their community, even going as far as city council. The end product (or what was the end product now) is a compromise between the developer and the community on the project, so now that Regency has literally broken all of that by being sneaky and trying to pass this behind the resident's heads, there's going to be more problems and possible discussions rising on an issue that should've been solved eons ago 😒.
 
Daveography said:
Regency is looking to increase the unit count from 1200 to 1650, or a 37.5% increase
Click to expand...
So basically that increase in the unit count is akin to adding an Augustana and an Encore! How do you tuck that volume into this design without having a "circus-like landscraper come out the other end"?
They probably want to reduce green space, amenity as well.
 
^^^^ more height in the towers is my guess... they are also probably looking to remove all surface parking with the blessing of the new bylaw (the pit has already been dug so I don't see them reducing parking much there -- except possible conversions to "amenity space"). The original 1200 units probably was arrived at in relation to how much parking was required under former standards; now that those standards no longer apply, I can see the impetus for adding additional units without having to provide additional parking (we should have seen that coming). This probably is going to be a short-term impetus for new highrise construction in Edmonton; if Regency succeeds here watch the ripple effect through other projects either under construction or planned downtown. Let's imagine that each sub-grade parking space costs $45,000.00 per stall and that a 1,000 sq.ft unit prices out at $600,000.00 (allowing for common space add-in) -- total = $645,000.00 a 14 1/3% differential. If a developer doubles the number of units over what has been approved without having to build-in additional parking then his prospective profit margin on the project overall increases by 7%+ -- nothing to sneeze at since the original planned-for profit margin was probably on the order of 8-10%. The new profit margin therefore increases in this model to 15-17%!
 
Daveography said:
The proposed amendments so far don't include any changes to heights, FAR or site layout.

Which makes me wonder if Regency wasn't always planning for 1600 units.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, they don't get away with it. I realize Bonnie Doon is a long build out, but this is a lot more stock to contend with.
 
IMG_20200809_220357.jpg

IMG_20200809_220158.jpgIMG_20200809_220938.jpgIMG_20200809_220505.jpgIMG_20200809_220527.jpgIMG_20200809_220145.jpg
 
@Daveography I didn't get a shot of it, but they have put in a temporary long term asphalt path on 90th Ave. Do you know if the permanent path will be the responsibility of Regency or Transed? The concrete work seems to mostly be done and my partner noted that the asphalt looks permanent at the corner of 90th Ave and 85th St, but I said it is not. Don't know if this came up in the consultations.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top