occidentalcapital
Senior Member
Very simply, it is not a contract. It is a form of regulation, which is unilateral, whereas a contract is bilateral.
Metro 78 | 23m | 6s | Pinto Properties | Frank Hilbich
- Thread starter SRC Admin
- Start date
David A
Senior Member
I realize this is getting into semantics, but maybe the word commitment would have made more sense to use here.
Sure, the City can do all sort of things unilaterally, but often consults extensively with citizens to get feedback for plans in the hopes what is developed will work for people in the communities affected. This is not unreasonable.
Things can change over times and perhaps there are other reasons to depart from previously agreed plans, but its not going to go over well to just ignore those previous plans and argue it can be done unilaterally.
I suppose if you look at it more as a partnership that arises from extensive consultation, you might use the word contract even if it is not a formal written one. If you look at it as someone who wants to ignore or dismiss the concerns of those pesky residents you might focus on unilateral power.
The mayor and councilors are elected, so they can't completely ignore those concerns. Bureaucrats are sheltered from all that to some degree.
Sure, the City can do all sort of things unilaterally, but often consults extensively with citizens to get feedback for plans in the hopes what is developed will work for people in the communities affected. This is not unreasonable.
Things can change over times and perhaps there are other reasons to depart from previously agreed plans, but its not going to go over well to just ignore those previous plans and argue it can be done unilaterally.
I suppose if you look at it more as a partnership that arises from extensive consultation, you might use the word contract even if it is not a formal written one. If you look at it as someone who wants to ignore or dismiss the concerns of those pesky residents you might focus on unilateral power.
The mayor and councilors are elected, so they can't completely ignore those concerns. Bureaucrats are sheltered from all that to some degree.
7-8-0
New Member
I'm not as concerned/frustrated as others seem to be. I got the impression that most supported the proposal and motion is really just ass-covering on the part of council. It will pass in December. Previous councils would have just outright voted it down if they got this much organized opposition from some in the community.
Marcolangzi
Active Member
#saveMetro78
That’s all I am asking.
I think this issue about betraying the residents if Council amend the ARP needs a broader discussion.
The MDP takes precedence. That is the law, period.
As a taxpayer, I will feel betrayed for not having “a” TOD project along the south leg of the Capital LRT Line.
Again, good conversation. But I am not ready to give up just yet.
One more round…
That’s all I am asking.
I think this issue about betraying the residents if Council amend the ARP needs a broader discussion.
The MDP takes precedence. That is the law, period.
As a taxpayer, I will feel betrayed for not having “a” TOD project along the south leg of the Capital LRT Line.
Again, good conversation. But I am not ready to give up just yet.
One more round…
CplKlinger
Senior Member
This is coming back to council on December 6. The attached Admin report details what changes were made to the proposal.
strata
Active Member
Good for them holding their ground on the height.
Will be interesting to see how council handles this one. I have no doubt the biggest concern residents had was with the height...but by also making such a big deal out of the waste management, they have given the developer an easy win so they can show they are willing to work with the residents, but not actually compromise on the big ticket.
Hope it passes, and the development lives up to the renders.
Will be interesting to see how council handles this one. I have no doubt the biggest concern residents had was with the height...but by also making such a big deal out of the waste management, they have given the developer an easy win so they can show they are willing to work with the residents, but not actually compromise on the big ticket.
Hope it passes, and the development lives up to the renders.
Canadian 001
Active Member
Ummmm! Wrong thread (That one is for Mckernan Gates)
This one is U/C
But also I hope that one also goes ahead
This one is U/C
But also I hope that one also goes ahead
Avenuer
Senior Member
Definitely, this is the exact type of development you want immediately adjacent to an LRT station. If Council says no or requires revisions than there is no hope, as it's classic NIMBYism with these folks.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Oops, my bad lol
Marcolangzi
Active Member
Quick update on Metro 78:
We are ready for December 6 public hearing.
We’ve made significant changes to the site plan to preserve the design of the buildings. The details are in the administration report - items 3.25-3.28.
City Council Public Hearing - December 06, 2022
I will speak about the ARP covenant issue upfront.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Our community league got an email from someone using the slippery slope fallacy. “You’re next if this sets precedent”.Quick update on Metro 78:
We are ready for December 6 public hearing.
We’ve made significant changes to the site plan to preserve the design of the buildings. The details are in the administration report - items 3.25-3.28.
City Council Public Hearing - December 06, 2022
pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com
I will speak about the ARP covenant issue upfront.
I responded haha. 1) this is a great project and I hope we are next! 2) the city plan aligns with this and the LRT is Nextdoor. 3) young people deserve housing options close to the core and university. Making space in our mature communities is the right thing to do and makes a more financially and environmentally sustainable city.
We’ll see how they respond not getting the usual support of nimbys in other leagues.
Fetch
New Member
This was passed in the public hearing last night, thankfully.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
That many more people close to the LRT is great to see.
Marcolangzi
Active Member
Just checking in to thank you all for the conversation and input.
I will try to provide updates on the next steps of this project every once in a while.
We were the Urban Planning and Urban Design consultants on two other projects for Pinto Properties, both in Garneau.
One is a three storey with rooftop amenities that is currently under construction on 110 Street and 88 Avenue (DC2.1179).
The other is Altarius on 108 Street and 86 Avenue (DC2.1178), which we have already talked about on another forum. The development permit for Altarius was submitted in August and is being reviewed.
Metro 78 is next.
For us at Green Space Alliance, more projects are coming up in mature neighbourhoods in 2023, just to keep cracking those silos for a change.
Cheers!
.
I will try to provide updates on the next steps of this project every once in a while.
We were the Urban Planning and Urban Design consultants on two other projects for Pinto Properties, both in Garneau.
One is a three storey with rooftop amenities that is currently under construction on 110 Street and 88 Avenue (DC2.1179).
The other is Altarius on 108 Street and 86 Avenue (DC2.1178), which we have already talked about on another forum. The development permit for Altarius was submitted in August and is being reviewed.
Metro 78 is next.
For us at Green Space Alliance, more projects are coming up in mature neighbourhoods in 2023, just to keep cracking those silos for a change.
Cheers!
.
Oilers99
Active Member
Why would anyone want to try to do anything of scale within the infill context after this boondoggle. Good for Pinto for fighting the good fight here but what a mess as well as a waste of time and resources to get something approved that should have been approved from day one. City council needs to figure out how they are going to actually achieve their city plan and intensification goals when good projects like this have so many obstacles to getting approved.