ICE District Phase 2 | 149.95m | ?s | ICE District Prop.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
There is some decent common ground.
Even those on council who would prefer to keep 8 units want to see esthetic and design changes to require greater setbacks, changes to entrances/locations, increased window coverage etc.
That is good. There were some (not all) poor designs that resulted and that is a course correction that can be achieved without throwing the baby out with the bath water (I think that's the first time I've used that expession).
The number of garbage/recycle bins I think is being addressed or will need to be.
And even many people who get labelled as nimbys are supportive of 4 units. That's moving the needle.
So maybe 6 (midblock)with some design improvements is an ok middle ground for now knowing that revisions can continue to happen over time. 8 on corners is still being maintained.
Even those on council who would prefer to keep 8 units want to see esthetic and design changes to require greater setbacks, changes to entrances/locations, increased window coverage etc.
That is good. There were some (not all) poor designs that resulted and that is a course correction that can be achieved without throwing the baby out with the bath water (I think that's the first time I've used that expession).
The number of garbage/recycle bins I think is being addressed or will need to be.
And even many people who get labelled as nimbys are supportive of 4 units. That's moving the needle.
So maybe 6 (midblock)with some design improvements is an ok middle ground for now knowing that revisions can continue to happen over time. 8 on corners is still being maintained.
supplanter
Active Member
Right, because this doesn’t happen with original houses already, right? Probably better to have 20 year old builds without maintenance than what will be nearly 100 year old houses, also in their original state.
whattheheck
Active Member
So, there was then something called COMPROMISE from a politician right? A concept you appear to have no interest in, it seems - all while talking down to those who are worried about the impacts to their homes and communities. How ironic.
inclusion
Active Member
It is clear to me that you didn’t read the entirety of my first post which is all about continuous improvement. It clearly stated that I was interested in improving the zoning bylaw over time. There is an 8 plex across the street from my place that I don’t love, yet I understand that the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw will improve future builds. I didn’t talk down to you, I provided a different point of view of not proceeding with a moratorium and how it could be harmful to the industry. If you aren’t willing to discuss this in a civil manner in good faith without personally attacking me, please don’t reply to me.
whattheheck
Active Member
The election can't come soon enough. As someone who supports infill, the ball has swung too far. One-bedroom eight plexes and even six-plexes don't belong on lots originally intended for SFH's. One-bedrooms means no room for families. Thoughtfully designed four-plexes with 2 or 3 bedroom units is the best compromise. That would have a much better impact on revitalizing a community compared to the (future) boarding houses being built right now.
And one should note the irony of the city's push for infill means that, essentially, the mom/ pop landlord is pushed out. It's all corporations now. At least with a homeowner renting out a basement suite, there is a better chance of a lower rent, a more friendly relationship. (When I rented a basement suite in my 20s, my upstairs landlord didn't charge rent in December, for example.) The corporatization of infill removes any sense of community. How ironic, don't you think. A little too ironic, yeah, I really do think. It's like raaiannn on your wedding day, it's a free riiiiide,, when you're already there. It's some good adviiiiice, that ya just didn't take... but who would have thought it figured..
And one should note the irony of the city's push for infill means that, essentially, the mom/ pop landlord is pushed out. It's all corporations now. At least with a homeowner renting out a basement suite, there is a better chance of a lower rent, a more friendly relationship. (When I rented a basement suite in my 20s, my upstairs landlord didn't charge rent in December, for example.) The corporatization of infill removes any sense of community. How ironic, don't you think. A little too ironic, yeah, I really do think. It's like raaiannn on your wedding day, it's a free riiiiide,, when you're already there. It's some good adviiiiice, that ya just didn't take... but who would have thought it figured..
Last edited:
TAS
Senior Member
Where are you seeing 8-plexes with all one bedroom units? I'm mostly aware of a mix of multiple bedrooms and then 1 bedroom basement suites within an 8-plex in the several that I have seen such as this midblock below.
Are you opposed to a development like this in Central McDougall?
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Back on topic, I'm super excited to see this project come to fruition (assuming Council doesn't fumble this in August/September, and the Katz Group sticks with its current vision). I think it'll be as transformational as the original Ice District. Between the thousands of people who will be living in such a concentrated section of the core, the public realm improvements, and its location right by Rogers Place, it'll mean tons more foot traffic for stores and eyes on the street for safety, a better impression being left on visitors coming here for hockey games and events, and a badly needed northern expansion of the downtown footprint.
Altogether, this will mean that the Ice District proper isn't at the frontier facing a sketchy and barren sea of parking lots and decrepit stores, Station Lands won't be its own island anymore, and the area will be that much less at the mercy of corporate and government policies regarding working from home.
Altogether, this will mean that the Ice District proper isn't at the frontier facing a sketchy and barren sea of parking lots and decrepit stores, Station Lands won't be its own island anymore, and the area will be that much less at the mercy of corporate and government policies regarding working from home.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Thanks for bringing this back on topic. The infill debate is more suited to other existing threads.
Question:
Who is the Non-Participating Landowner who owns the land on 106 Ave between 102 St and 103 St?
inclusion
Active Member
Maybe an owner that outbid OEG. Looks like it was for sale in April 2018. I believe OEG/Katz were already assembling land at that point. Looks like it has condo addresses on Slim maps. Wonder if a project was proposed at some point that went sideways during the pandemic. I can’t find any other references to the property online though.
Actually, looking up the zoning it has this DC1 with an attachment that shows what was proposed.
Last edited:
Kosy123
Senior Member
For reference, here's the last renders of Phase II. We're definitely not getting this but it's an interesting way to see how the area could change.
The_Cat
Senior Member
I just hope that these multiplex properties aren’t crammed together.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
what is you evidence for saying this?
whattheheck
Active Member
What evidence do you have that it won't?
Listen, I base my concerns on human nature. Not some rendering or blueprint where everything is perfect. How much do you wanna bet than when this building was built: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26996494/10603-107-av-nw-edmonton-central-mcdougall
that they envisioned a cool urban place to live, great for up and comers. Yeah, so how did it turn out in reality?!
There's nothing inherently wrong with an 8 plex. But an 8 plex, in a neighbourhood with schools and amenities for families should at least have 4 of those units at 3 bed, two bath. And the 8 plex itself should NOT be on a lot where it barely fits, forcing homes to be so tiny, it makes it so people (who have the means) to want to eventually leave for something bigger, leaving the small, tiny apartments, clad in cheap plastic siding to people without the means. So, in 40 years, as the eigh-plex starts to age, it will be more disadvantaged that will take up residence, turning it into a rooming house.
Listen, I base my concerns on human nature. Not some rendering or blueprint where everything is perfect. How much do you wanna bet than when this building was built: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26996494/10603-107-av-nw-edmonton-central-mcdougall
that they envisioned a cool urban place to live, great for up and comers. Yeah, so how did it turn out in reality?!
There's nothing inherently wrong with an 8 plex. But an 8 plex, in a neighbourhood with schools and amenities for families should at least have 4 of those units at 3 bed, two bath. And the 8 plex itself should NOT be on a lot where it barely fits, forcing homes to be so tiny, it makes it so people (who have the means) to want to eventually leave for something bigger, leaving the small, tiny apartments, clad in cheap plastic siding to people without the means. So, in 40 years, as the eigh-plex starts to age, it will be more disadvantaged that will take up residence, turning it into a rooming house.
Last edited:
constance_chlore
Senior Member
This is, quite notably, not an eightplex in a quiet neighborhood; it's an apartment building alongside a major avenue. Do you think we should make those illegal? Otherwise, I have no idea what this example is meant to show.