Stationlands Residential Towers | 90m | 25s | Qualico | DIALOG

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    55
Ken, I do not believe that they are carelessly building without a permit (that is a fact!) but I also have faith in my own eyes vis-a-vis what has been photographed in process on site. You, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge that they are 2 levels above the podium and are building out transfer beams at that level. The answer I believe (and have said so previously) is that their tower plans are currently in Plan-check and that they are complying with inspection requirements by going as far as they can before their permit is approved by way of completion of Plan-check (i.e. they are not covering anything up that needs to be inspected once the building permit is issued). And as to @Avenuer's comments about Development Permit's approval for 25 Storeys for the tower being considered -- it just might be that the hold-up for Building Permit Approval might be related to an increase in tower height and a reworking of the Development Permit (subtended by extra work being developed at the Parking Level/Footings level).
So -- to be very clear -- I believe that if there is no building permit issued for the current above podium work on the second residential tower that is situated on the currently existing podium base, then Qualico and thereby Ledcor are prepping for work that will fall into a "current" status by building out as much as they can -- pre-inspection -- while their permits are being readied (perhaps "Development" and most certainly "Building").
 
sooo…

you’re now saying they are only completing “work for which they have a permit” or “work for which a permit is not required” as if there is somehow work for which a permit is not required.

does that not mean “They have continued without a permit PERIOD!!!” was indeed a false statement?

as for “what your eyes see”, you don’t know without seeing copies of the permit drawings whether there are some slabs that will serve as horizontal exits, as interstitial mechanical spaces or as mezzanine spaces, none of which are “stories” from a development permit or building permit perspective.

the risks and the consequences of building without a permit are the same whether done “carelessly” or intentionally and your accusation is more slanderous - imho - by rationalizing/stating it not to be careless but to be intentional.
 
Ken it is r-e-a-l-l-y hard to respond to you when you continue to see "X" when I am referring to "Y" (that is why I don't respond to you). I am not at all saying that anyone is completing work for which a permit is not required -- I am saying that if the permit that is in place is for podium only and not for any portion of the tower (remember you had said that they are only extending rebar above the podium and then capping it until some future date... well that is definitely not happening!)... continuing -- is for podium only then why-oh-why are we two levels above the podium and then why-oh-why are they arranging rebar and building in situ forms for same if they don't intend on pouring concrete into those forms leading to a continuation of tower construction. ALL that I am pointing out is that there seems to be an impetus to continue with the tower build-out (to be clear: tower 2 at the east end of the podium) that enables that tower to continue to be built out to completion. I responded to @Clearshades yelling they "can't continue without a permit, period" because he thinks he is the end-all authority on this particular discussion when, in fact, he is far from it.
If they are going beyond the bounds of the existing in-place Permit (several of you on this thread have justified it in other terms) then I can only suggest the reasons for it. In my experience in many jurisdictions contractors have gone beyond the end points of existing permits as long as they have not covered work that has not yet been permitted so that it can be inspected when the permit process catches up to the in-field reality -- I grant that You may not have experienced this; conversely, I have experienced it many times including a current project in Ripon, California AND several projects years ago in Edmonton.
Neither are You nor Me the end-all say-so on this matter -- that is why I have emailed and phoned Qualico for clarification on this subject. Hopefully they respond in short order.
 
They're negotiating with what IS PERMITTED.
archited said:
They have continued without a permit PERIOD!!!
Click to expand...
They're continuing construction on PORTIONS THAT IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED. The portion of the 25 story is presently unavailable as stated to you, so why are YOU playing like ke you know something? If you, as you say, is a member of an architect firm, you know nothing. THIS IS GENERAL KNOWLEDGE FOR ANYONE IN CONSTRUCTION.

Just out of curiosity, due you know the contents in a permit?
 
Taken: October 13, 2023
20231013_103824.jpg
20231013_104443.jpg
20231013_104446.jpg
20231013_104453.jpg
 
hopefully this will provide some clarity, the bickering can be considered a draw, and we can get back to discussing construction and development:

“All permits are in place for the mid-rise tower and for the two levels above the podium where the transfer slab exists for the high rise tower. We had to go for a DP amendment for the additional floors for the high rise and we do not have a BP for the second tower. Contract drawings will likely proceed this fall for the second tower so that we can be in a position to commence construction on the second tower in 2024. Mid rise apartments will be ready for June 2024 and we will want to get a check on the absorption.”
 
Precisely as I had imagined -- a hold-up for a reconfigured Development Permit for additional floors being added to the second tower and the time frame needed to prepare drawings for same and the time needed for PlanCheck. Thanks Ken. Construction of the 2nd tower continuing in 2024 is also the expectation that I had based on the time frame required for a new DP, CDs, Plan Check and BPs -- in other words a continuing process, end to end. The only mental "catch" is if they got a permit for the transfer beam matrix (which must be recorded somewhere) they must be pretty assured of getting DP approval for the additional height, likely a function of discussions with senior City Admin. in the Planning Department.

"Well speaking for the glass-half-full crowd (who would want to be anything other unless you hate everything around you or you want to profess to know more than you actually do) there are several interesting points regarding the "25-storey tower":
1. on the Urban Design competition the tower in reference was shown to be 39 storeys not 25 in the rendered submission
2. the current construction pics show a floor that is comprised of a matrix of transfer beams -- a good hint that the proposed structure is going to be more than 25 storeys.
3. the last pics show the current construction efforts to be two levels above the podium with additional structural elements that are not accounted for in the structural rendering of a month-plus ago.
I believe that there is a re-design making its way through the plan-check process and that that will be known in the near future (30 to 60 days). Before anyone in the glass-half-empty crowd loses their sh*t I ask that they wait for the results that are surely imminent."
 
Last edited:
kcantor said:
hopefully this will provide some clarity, the bickering can be considered a draw, and we can get back to discussing construction and development:

“All permits are in place for the mid-rise tower and for the two levels above the podium where the transfer slab exists for the high rise tower. We had to go for a DP amendment for the additional floors for the high rise and we do not have a BP for the second tower. Contract drawings will likely proceed this fall for the second tower so that we can be in a position to commence construction on the second tower in 2024. Mid rise apartments will be ready for June 2024 and we will want to get a check on the absorption.”
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of win, lose, or draw. What you're permitted is what you built. Even a shed in the back yard with permanent footing requires a building permit let Lone here.
Thank you for juicy detail.
 
This is going to be very exciting... the increase in height is going to be in the 40 storey range for tower two in phase 2 (2024) and I believe it will be an impetus for future development of the Qualico "urban village". A lot of this stuff will be experimental to see what works and what supports what works, particularly in the Retail vein. There will be all the elements of a "village" (almost competitive with ICE but complementary too). The "cool" part of this is that it is located in close proximity to the Civic Precinct and will help propel interest in the core high-tone Arts District (Winspear (with the new wing opening in 2024), AGA, Central Library, and the Citadel and whatever else we can arrange to happen there) -- of course it will be adjacent to RAM. This is extremely good for Edmonton -- two focal points Downtown -- ICE plus ??? (Qualico needs to come up with an appealing name). Stay tuned for positive news going forward.
 
archited said:
This is going to be very exciting... the increase in height is going to be in the 40 storey range for tower two in phase 2 (2024) and I believe it will be an impetus for future development of the Qualico "urban village". A lot of this stuff will be experimental to see what works and what supports what works, particularly in the Retail vein. There will be all the elements of a "village" (almost competitive with ICE but complementary too). The "cool" part of this is that it is located in close proximity to the Civic Precinct and will help propel interest in the core high-tone Arts District (Winspear (with the new wing opening in 2024), AGA, Central Library, and the Citadel and whatever else we can arrange to happen there) -- of course it will be adjacent to RAM. This is extremely good for Edmonton -- two focal points Downtown -- ICE plus ??? (Qualico needs to come up with an appealing name). Stay tuned for positive news going forward.
Click to expand...
Is this what Qualico responded with to the email you sent them?
 
I will referee.

Curious to see the lease up of these given that they will be nice, well connected, but it will be very difficult to convince women or those from out of town to choose there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top