Metro 78 | 23m | 6s | Pinto Properties | Frank Hilbich

[archited]

Good luck with this one, Marco. From a density, a TOD project, and an excellent architectural project (design perspective) you have hit this one out of the park! This is precisely the kind of project that this area needs; I am 100% in favor.

 

[rake]

Just re-upping this - unfortunately the Engaged Edmonton page is not going so great on this one. I would encourage everyone to put in a good work to balance the viewpoints a bit. As @IanO mentioned, this closes on September 6th.

https://engaged.edmonton.ca/metro78

 

[MacLac]

Just re-upping this - unfortunately the Engaged Edmonton page is not going so great on this one. I would encourage everyone to put in a good work to balance the viewpoints a bit. As @IanO mentioned, this closes on September 6th.

https://engaged.edmonton.ca/metro78

Whoa now, whoa now….are these Nimbys that insane? Good God! I’m ashamed to call these people fellow citizens…..lol! Venom spewing, god fearing, torch carrying……

 

[Marcolangzi]

Just re-upping this - unfortunately the Engaged Edmonton page is not going so great on this one. I would encourage everyone to put in a good work to balance the viewpoints a bit. As @IanO mentioned, this closes on September 6th.

https://engaged.edmonton.ca/metro78

Thank you! I would appreciate the effort.

 

[northlands]

I don't ever read those Engaged Edmonton pages, so I'm not sure what is par for the course on those, but there are close to a 100 feedback comments submitted on there, almost all VERY up in arms about this. Gotta hand it to BelMac residents, that's some serious push back, lots with somewhat justifiable points about it violating the established ARP guidelines etc.

This one was pretty funny though (or is this all tongue-in-cheek?):

1. My husband and I would love to thank the city planner for listening to us. My husband goes to work every day and he is an Uber driver (as a hobby) . Pre-COVID he already did not like coming into the neighborhood during rush hour, and now with the new development and congestion on 78 avenue, it will decline all pickups from Belgravia.

2. OH!! I forgot!! It will be dangerous to have my children walk through the plaza on their own with all the traffic and vehicles backing up. I'm worried for their safety,particularly two of my children with not that much vision (it came from my husband, not me).

3.
I am scared of heights, and to be honest with you, me and my entire fam (cousins, cousinettes, and even great-grandmother Bumble) were kinda hoping to live in the development. But, since I am scared of heights, 7,6, and 5 stories is a bit to much for moi.

4.
I have to go with my gut on this one: The building could fall down...
I will leave it at that.

 

[archited]

...and these people can vote?!?! Naysayers are such a pain in the Applecart. Mumble, mumble -- development bad; mumble, mumble -- Edmonton bad; mumble mumble -- let's move to Kelowna

 

[thommyjo]

Hop on there and make your comments heard people!

We can't allow projects like this to be stopped or we are in deep trouble as a city!

I believe in democracy, but also believe in valuing the opinions of experts. Most opinions expressed by the community go against good urban planning principles and logic. We can't let nimbys overturn planning professionals. Same reason we trust doctors when it comes to all the covid stuff. Every voice should be heard, but not all opinions are equal for every topic. Those educated in a field should have greater say.

Build this thing! Please!

 

[Marcolangzi]

I don't ever read those Engaged Edmonton pages, so I'm not sure what is par for the course on those, but there are close to a 100 feedback comments submitted on there, almost all VERY up in arms about this. Gotta hand it to BelMac residents, that's some serious push back, lots with somewhat justifiable points about it violating the established ARP guidelines etc.

This one was pretty funny though (or is this all tongue-in-cheek?):

We plan to respond to all comments on a report to the City, but since you brought it up, I'm happy to dedicate a special response to this one.

This idea of not following the ARP policies is flawed.

Anyone, developer, consultant or resident can apply to amend an ARP. This is the rule which we are following. The ARP fails to provide an economic mechanism to implement its vision. It explicitly says that developers should bear with the costs which may be done through direct control zoning, but doesn't say if the DC2 can increase the FAR, height or both. The ARP also fails to recognize that 78 Avenue is a pedestrian gateway. It only talks about vehicular gateways. This is the 2014 Planning mindset. We really question this approach.

Most importantly, the new City Plan approved last year takes precedence over any ARP. While the ARP restricts the height to four storeys, the City Plan designates the UofA area a Principal Node and 114 Street a Secondary Corridor. These designations open up opportunities for a range of building forms much more intense than four-storey buildings.

And before I forget, only firetrucks can back onto the plaza in case of an emergency. I doubt there would be kids playing there in case of a fire. Just saying...

 

[thommyjo]

We plan to respond to all comments on a report to the City, but since you brought it up, I'm happy to dedicate a special response to this one.

This idea of not following the ARP policies is flawed.

Anyone, developer, consultant or resident can apply to amend an ARP. This is the rule which we are following. The ARP fails to provide an economic mechanism to implement its vision. It explicitly says that developers should bear with the costs which may be done through direct control zoning, but doesn't say if the DC2 can increase the FAR, height or both. The ARP also fails to recognize that 78 Avenue is a pedestrian gateway. It only talks about vehicular gateways. This is the 2014 Planning mindset. We really question this approach.

Most importantly, the new City Plan approved last year takes precedence over any ARP. While the ARP restricts the height to four storeys, the City Plan designates the UofA area a Principal Node and 114 Street a Secondary Corridor. These designations open up opportunities for a range of building forms much more intense than four-storey buildings.

And before I forget, only firetrucks can back onto the plaza in case of an emergency. I doubt there would be kids playing there in case of a fire. Just saying...

Amen! As a new board member of a community league that redid its ARP a few years ago, I strongly disagree with the methods used for ARP community engagement and creation.

The average age of the committee that developed our west jasper/sherwood ARP was over 65 years old.

How can we allow mostly retired, non children raising, soon to be moving out or passing away (sorry to be harsh) people to determine what can and cannot be built? Shouldn't the newer, younger residents...those with children, etc have a greater say? And they might argue anyone is allowed to voice their opinions, but the reality is that cranky old retired people can go to months and months of 2-3hr meetings, while young families are simply too busy for that type of process.

People are too transient to get a huge say in their existing neighbourhood IMO. The city needs to hire good planners, people need to make buying decisions or renting choices based on the city plans, and then we have to live with it.

As a homeowner, I get the stress and impacts changes around you can have on your quality of life, asset value, etc. But residents are not qualified to build a great city. Thats why there are professionals with degrees in this. Its hard work. Reaidents can help, but they shouldn't overpower educated planning decisions.

 

[archited]

Your comments @thommyjo are loaded with ageism-tainted bigotry. In a democracy everyone should get an equal say. I sense and understand your frustration. In your opinion at what age should people's ideas and opinions become irrelevant? "Planning" should not be a rigid platform and that is what "zoning" tends to do. "Planning" should not be prescriptive; it should be reactive to current needs -- and therefore planners should not lead development, they should qualify it in terms of community trends and growth generators. Cities have many examples of poor planning decisions... and what is valid for Central Paris, or Central New York City, or Central Los Angeles shows that Cities cannot and should not be planned in a one-size-fits-all idiom. Thinking more granular, neither should communities be designed in that manner. In Edmonton, Strathcona should not emulate the U of A precinct, nor the downtown precinct, nor Terwilliger. Marco's project maybe doesn't fit existing zoning, but it should be allowed to proceed because it is "need generated" in a location that is increasing in density. "Planning" should support it, not mandate it -- there is a difference.

 

[Edmonchuk]

Belgravia is a very nice neighbourhood, some streets were totally demolished and replaced with, again, new SINGLE-DETACHED houses. I kinda get the feeling what kind of community that is - very much opposed to any development, but single-detached. Very central with great access to LRT, UofA, hospital. It's going to be a fight!

 

[rake]

Your comments @thommyjo are loaded with ageism-tainted bigotry. In a democracy everyone should get an equal say ..... "Planning" should not be a rigid platform and that is what "zoning" tends to do. "Planning" should not be prescriptive; it should be reactive to current needs ..... "Planning" should support it, not mandate it -- there is a difference.

I didn't really read any problematic ageist rhetoric into the post. It is well documented that typical 'community engagement' processes consistently over-represent older, whiter, and wealthier resident interests relative to actual community demographics. This was backed up by a legitimate piece of evidence from a recent ARP update in the post. If anything, the overreliance on this sort of traditional community engagement is in and of itself a 'capturing' of democratic processes by a relatively small group of homeowners - the exact opposite of everyone getting an equal say.

In light of this historical over-representation, it is pretty reasonable to ask how engagement processes could be adjusted to provide greater levels of engagement from younger families, renters, and other community groups that would better reflect the actual community. I think a lot of people (I would count myself among them) are going to look at the problem and conclude that these engagement processes are fundamentally prone to being captured by special interests - thus becoming undemocratic - and the only solution is to simply reduce our reliance on them.

I can see how this could be viewed as turning over the whole process to 'Planning,' but the reality is that simply cannot occur within the legalities of our current system. Planning can be a catalyst for change (too often, it isn't even that), but it has real legal limitations placed on it, and final approvals will always lay in the hands of Council. If these folks have strong NIMBY sentiments, they have every opportunity to vote for NIMBY Councilors who can cast NIMBY votes - that's actual democracy at work.

Having said that, as long as these engagement processes persist, we may as well capture them for our own special interests - comment on that Engaged Edmonton board people!

 

[northlands]

We plan to respond to all comments on a report to the City, but since you brought it up, I'm happy to dedicate a special response to this one.

This idea of not following the ARP policies is flawed.

Anyone, developer, consultant or resident can apply to amend an ARP. This is the rule which we are following. The ARP fails to provide an economic mechanism to implement its vision. It explicitly says that developers should bear with the costs which may be done through direct control zoning, but doesn't say if the DC2 can increase the FAR, height or both. The ARP also fails to recognize that 78 Avenue is a pedestrian gateway. It only talks about vehicular gateways. This is the 2014 Planning mindset. We really question this approach.

Most importantly, the new City Plan approved last year takes precedence over any ARP. While the ARP restricts the height to four storeys, the City Plan designates the UofA area a Principal Node and 114 Street a Secondary Corridor. These designations open up opportunities for a range of building forms much more intense than four-storey buildings.

And before I forget, only firetrucks can back onto the plaza in case of an emergency. I doubt there would be kids playing there in case of a fire. Just saying...

Thanks for the insight sir! Neat stuff to read.

 

[thommyjo]

I'm just not sure everyone should get an equal say in zoning. We don't gove everyone an equal say in education or Healthcare or dozen other areas of society. We recognize that many areas require specialized knowledge and therefore should be left to professionals. Places for stakeholder engagement and democratic elections of officials make sense, but there can't be equal weighting of opinions for every decision. Nothing would get done.

Also, ill reflect on the ageism. That's not my intent, so im sorry. There is a problem though in the current model. It gives preferential treatment to, like mentioned, wealthier, older, retired, and white residents.

As a city, we need to be thinking about how to serve our aging demographics, 100%. We also need to look to the next generations though and the tens of thousands of immigrants moving to our city. The opinions of stay at home moms in glenora can't represent their communities or the city, let alone those hoping to live in the city.

The ARP in my neighbourhood was mostly developed by seniors. Is that appropriate when many of the decisions made will disproportionately affect families and younger residents?

This doesn't even step into the more sensitive areas like how ARPs can reinforce discrimination and racism. Our residents, for example, are on record going to council meetings and arguing against rental projects because of the types of people who rent. The explicit and suggestive comments were laced with dislike for lower income people, university students, singles, and ethnic minorities.

APPs often hide behind language for density, safety, charm, etc. But whether intentionally or not, they can become tools of gatekeeping, privilege, and increasing structural inequality.

 

[Kaizen]

As expected there was a lot of opposition to this project, so disappointing...

WHAT WE HEARD REPORT
Online Public Engagement Feedback Summary
LDA20-0066 - Metro 78
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11416, 11419, 11420, and
FEEDBACK SUMMARY
This section summarizes main themes collected.
Number of Responses:
In Support: 9
In Opposition: 108
Mixed: 10