Oliver Crossing | 21m | 7s

Clearshades

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
389
Reaction score
1,017
It gives me a peace of mind when a good reputable developer snatched a parcel of land. I appreciate they taken in community concerns through various forms including this site, others, and former communications avenues. There's a couple of you here...đź‘Ś

Certain names scares me right now.
 

CaptainBL

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
271
Reaction score
1,120
Which specific buildings are you talking about?

The homeless/vagrants issue is something all downtowns are experiencing right now and that's because 80% of the daytime population is WFH. Things will get back to normal over the coming months (I am thinking more September).

Another 'uninspiring City Council', too premature to say that at this moment.

Garbage and dirt, we deal with this every year around this time. I really do hope the City gears up their streetcleaning.

Anyways, I am proud of the types of developments we're doing to make this a better City - The Strathcona Hotel, Substation 600, Station Park, Scona Garage, Oliver Exchange 2. Richards Block renovation, with more coming that I would love share. We're doing this because we love this City and believe in its future. Reality is that we could be doing this anywhere, but we remain committed doing it here. It's easy to get 'distracted' with what pisses you off and complaining is easy. Actually wanting to make a difference and influence change takes hard work, perseverance and patience.
Well for starters these buildings, the soon to be Mirador and Annex and the Ring Houses, the Minchau Blacksmith building and Ritchie school and that’s all within the last year or so. You’re in the business of saving a lot of buildings so I’m sure you’re aware of these and more should I go on?

You guys do great work, I love your projects and frequent quite a few of them but can I also be disappointed at the continual lose of all these other buildings that I just mentioned and more? Unfortunately as good as work that you guys and Ken Cantor do there are developers willing to demolish buildings like on this thread to leave with something not nearly as good as what you guys are doing. So you should absolutely be proud of what you do, but we can still be disappointed about what isn’t being done.
 

strata

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
115
Reaction score
622
Well for starters these buildings, the soon to be Mirador and Annex and the Ring Houses, the Minchau Blacksmith building and Ritchie school and that’s all within the last year or so. You’re in the business of saving a lot of buildings so I’m sure you’re aware of these and more should I go on?

You guys do great work, I love your projects and frequent quite a few of them but can I also be disappointed at the continual lose of all these other buildings that I just mentioned and more? Unfortunately as good as work that you guys and Ken Cantor do there are developers willing to demolish buildings like on this thread to leave with something not nearly as good as what you guys are doing. So you should absolutely be proud of what you do, but we can still be disappointed about what isn’t being done.

I don't disagree with some of the points you are making here, but also feel compelled to play devil's advocate.

The issues you described occur in every City, not just Edmonton.

Sometimes there are issues beneath the surface that make these projects and existing buildings more complex than you may appreciate. I wouldn't be so quick to point the finger unless you have been intimately involved in these projects and understand all the variables.

Why aren't you developing these fantastic projects you are talking about? I mean, if all these other developers are stupid and lazy, surely there is a lane for you to come in and execute? And if the issue is a lack of capital, seeing as the kind of development you have described is easy to make a return, surely you can put together a business plan to attract outside investment? There is no lack of people looking to invest in cool development projects that provide the necessary return for the risk of the project.


Of course I am being over the top just to get across my point. If you believe the issue is that dire, step out behind the keyboard and do something about it. Otherwise, you are 100% entitled to your opinions and complaints, but come at it from a position of balance. Aspiration is a great thing, but I choose to believe that most developers don't wake up going "I really want to build a piece of shit". If it was sustainable to make every project the coolest project ever, I have to assume that most developers would be setting the bar there because the combination of financial return and personal enrichment sounds pretty darn sweet.
 

CaptainBL

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
271
Reaction score
1,120
As an open forum for development everyone is here to share their dissapoitments, excitements and critiques.....that’s the point of this forum. I don’t have to be in the business of development to discuss my excitement at Beljans projects or my disappointment that others are torn down as that would entail all but a select few on this forum to be able to critique. Many people discuss their distaste for projects on here, do they have to be architects to be able to do that? You can probably take your keyboard warrior hat off as well cause you do not know my situation, and what I do and do not contribute to the city and in what capacity.

Yes I do believe the issue is dire. It’s simply not good enough for Edmonton to continue to losing history and character buildings.
 

Mattyeg

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
234
Reaction score
1,504
my attempt to shift the convo back to constructive rather than hyperbolic pitty party:

Main issue is the loss of the building. However, the site is super awkward.

Options: Existing building would either be moved or hidden. Potentially we could see the same thing done here with activated courtyard/alley areas like recent proposals for whyte ave/Calgary trail and 124st/102ave. But like discussed before, not every site needs commercial. So if they were to do all residential incorporating the existing building, they would probably limit access to residents only. So the developer would be forced to take on additional costs for something that may have little to know public benefit? Or do some kind of weird façadism, moving parts of the building to front 111?

Depending on the materials, this looks like another “vibe lofts”. Better than the boring garbage Westrich put up recently on 105th ave. Eventually there will be potential for mid to high rise on the corner site facing 104, and a redevelopment of the Tim hortons/Wendy’s. Not every site needs to be a high rise showstopper. I don’t see a problem with this interior Oliver area (jasper to 104th and 111 to 121 or so) being slightly nondescript mid/low rise utilitarian buildings to hopefully preserve some level of affordability in the neighbourhood.

The purchaser of this lot did so (recently) with no restrictions on redevelopment. Should they now be punished? If we want buildings protected we have to actually do something about it, not just complain after it’s done. So what’s the answer? Should the city have some kind of incentive program to encourage incorporation of buildings that don’t yet have full historic status?
 

IanO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
19,438
Another nondescript, maxed out FAR, how much density can I squeeze out of this at the expense of some of the few remaining character buildings in our core.

clap
clap
clap
 

Mattyeg

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
234
Reaction score
1,504
Great, another parrot post. how do you fix it. If people are entitled to max their FAR with no strings attached why wouldn’t they. And why shouldn’t they.
 

CplKlinger

Senior Member
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
8,812
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
my attempt to shift the convo back to constructive rather than hyperbolic pitty party:

Main issue is the loss of the building. However, the site is super awkward.

Options: Existing building would either be moved or hidden. Potentially we could see the same thing done here with activated courtyard/alley areas like recent proposals for whyte ave/Calgary trail and 124st/102ave. But like discussed before, not every site needs commercial. So if they were to do all residential incorporating the existing building, they would probably limit access to residents only. So the developer would be forced to take on additional costs for something that may have little to know public benefit? Or do some kind of weird façadism, moving parts of the building to front 111?

Depending on the materials, this looks like another “vibe lofts”. Better than the boring garbage Westrich put up recently on 105th ave. Eventually there will be potential for mid to high rise on the corner site facing 104, and a redevelopment of the Tim hortons/Wendy’s. Not every site needs to be a high rise showstopper. I don’t see a problem with this interior Oliver area (jasper to 104th and 111 to 121 or so) being slightly nondescript mid/low rise utilitarian buildings to hopefully preserve some level of affordability in the neighbourhood.

The purchaser of this lot did so (recently) with no restrictions on redevelopment. Should they now be punished? If we want buildings protected we have to actually do something about it, not just complain after it’s done. So what’s the answer? Should the city have some kind of incentive program to encourage incorporation of buildings that don’t yet have full historic status?
The city does offer financial assistance for companies who want to renovate and reuse historic buildings, and they tried working with Eagle. Eagle decided not to proceed after participating in some talks, because they wouldn't be able to build as many units if they did. I'm not blaming them, they're a business after all. But as a history buff, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least try to get them to change their mind.
 

IanO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
19,438
Great, another parrot post. how do you fix it. If people are entitled to max their FAR with no strings attached why wouldn’t they. And why shouldn’t they.
I'm all for reasonably maximizing your zoning rights, but it's clear that there are gaps in our LUB and or MGA if the DO cannot consider the exiting site elements as a means of negotiations for other requirements or requests.

Tricky, but should be an option.
 

IanO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
19,438
The bar has been raised, but is still rather low.

So long as we have SS appliances, laminate and 3/4" 'stone' countertops, few care about the exterior it seems.

A high tide lifts all boats.
 

westcoastjos

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
1,256
Reaction score
3,825
Location
Edmonton, AB
The bar has been raised, but is still rather low.

So long as we have SS appliances, laminate and 3/4" 'stone' countertops, few care about the exterior it seems.

A high tide lifts all boats.
Hey, I know you jest, but I still remember when I first moved to Edmonton and how hard it was to find rental with a dishwasher and in suite laundry. That was only ten years ago. At that time, often, you would go to check a place out and there would be five other people/couples checking the place out at the same time as you, because there was zero supply and such high demand.

As someone that had lived in several other cities across Canada and had no problem finding that elsewhere, I was quite surprised that Edmonton was so far behind, especially in the core of the city. I'm glad we have improved and continue to improve on that front. I think design is important, but I also think giving people a variety of housing options on all ends of the affordability spectrum is important too. This reminds me of Cascade condos in Bonnie Doon, but rental I presume - small windows, but okay build quality (not stucco).
 

Top