Horne and Pitfield Building Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Limak Investments

to be fair, there is someone who effectively has control over every single plot of land in the city even if they don’t own it all and that’s the city of edmonton.

the current state of regency’s lot post demolition of the bank of montreal building is a result of the city approving its demolition. just as they approved the demolition of the tegler block to build it. just as their decisions will ultimately result in the demolition of the horne and pitfield building.
I do think that demolition permits SHOULD HAVE to be tied to building permits. You can't demo unless you already have your BP approved and starts construction within, say, 60 days of demo. But we cannot force a developer to purchase someone else's land to build, like sometimes is implied in some comments like "oh, but plot A or B is already empty, they have to build there instead of here"
 
Separated Demolition Permits, Excavation Permits, Foundation Permits, Structural Permits and Fit-up Permits are there to help speed up the process for large developments -- Construction companies would absolutely balk at an attempt to tie them all together (i.e. there would be no need to have them separated and the time advantage to get a project in motion would absolutely be lost -- a huge cost factor for some developments). More sense would be to say that Demolition Permits have a penalty clause that could be tied to one or more of:
-- Taxes (in perpetuity tax the proposed built-out as though it was already in existence thereby making holding onto undeveloped land unprofitable)
-- Council should enact a "no surface parking" mandate in any area zoned for mid-to-highrise development thereby making surface parking a "no-go"
-- Delay penalties for lack of response timing from one Permit to another (e.g. If a Demo Permit is granted then the actual demolition must begin within 180 days -- with one possible extension whereby half the demo fee must be paid in honor of the 180-day extension; once demo is complete then another 180-days deadline is imposed for an Excavation permit with the same parameters in place; once the excavation is complete then another 180 days deadline is imposed for the Foundation Permit, again with the same parameters in place... and so on to building completion).
You don't want to kill the development incentive -- in fact positive incentives could also be part of the picture (reduced municipal taxes for projects that exceed the Permit-to--Permit process from a time-frame perspective).
But tying Permits one to the other is not a very bright idea where you have to have one in order to get the other.
 
^

there is little to no time gained by allowing demolition prior to securing excavation and foundation permits.

they should also not be granted prior to the issuance of a development permit plus meeting any conditions attached thereto including the payment of all off-site fees and levies etc.

this isn't a disincentive to the development process, it should simply be considered a mechanism to prevent private speculation with what is public realm with public realm including streetscapes and heritage/built form protection.
 
^ My experience in all of the jurisdictions that I have worked in are completely counter to this -- and L.A. has a system quite close to what I have suggested and it works extremely well. I can offer up specific examples but it would put the Skyrise audience to sleep... there are huge benefits to separating the Permits in-line process. BTW Development permits are first in line -- all of the rest should follow.
 
Last edited:
a conservancy discussion on los angeles' demolition notification ordinance would appear to be counter to that experience for any properties older than 45 years:


the penalties for non-complinace are also pretty severe:

"If a building is found to have been demolished illegally, the City can also impose penalties under its "scorched earth" policy, including monetary fines and a five-year construction moratorium on the site."
 

FsFrrukaIAAIrzn
 
Odd how many 'fires' there are in these brick/beam/historic buildings... almost uncanny...

...
..
.
with the number of fires we are seeing for warmth and for drugs increasing across the board, it’s not surprising to see one in any vacant or nearly vacant building whether it’s brick/beam/historic or a vacant house or garage, or a loading dock or a church…
 
Very frustrating. I hope the damage isn’t too extensive.
the only thing being kept if they proceed with what’s been approved are the south and west facades and even then there are some approved “interventions”. the city already approved the demolition of everything else - including the structure if i’m not mistaken - fire damaged or not.
 
the only thing being kept if they proceed with what’s been approved are the south and west facades and even then there are some approved “interventions”. the city already approved the demolition of everything else - including the structure if i’m not mistaken - fire damaged or not.
Correct, if anything does get built there they will be required to retain those two facades, but little else (unless they choose to).
 
with the number of fires we are seeing for warmth and for drugs increasing across the board, it’s not surprising to see one in any vacant or nearly vacant building whether it’s brick/beam/historic or a vacant house or garage, or a loading dock or a church…

Very true. NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) recently highlighted the problem:
 

Back
Top