The Hudson | 108m | 33s | Westrich Pacific | J+S Architect

What do you think of this project?

  • I dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dislike it a lot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30

Avenuer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
10,275
Location
Inside the Henday
The DP for this was refused because the proposed height exceeded the maximum height by 33 metres and the separation from the Falcon I tower was deficient by 14-ish metres. The developer has appealed the refusal to the SDAB on grounds that the tower is similar in height to the CWB building across the street, however it sounds as if they may not need to follow through with the appeal as they are trying to work through the issues with the Development Officer.
 

Valveman

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
33
Reaction score
104
The DP for this was refused because the proposed height exceeded the maximum height by 33 metres and the separation from the Falcon I tower was deficient by 14-ish metres.
Oh no, we wouldn't want to infringe on the separation from the Langham Falcon 1... not like the Fox 2 separation from Fox 1, which was deficient by 18-ish metres.
 

Avenuer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
10,275
Location
Inside the Henday
Stupidity reigns -- and yet the City wants to give tax holidays to encourage development -- wha???

Not stupidity, it's what the Zoning Bylaw says. There are plenty of developers that have had their DPs approved and issued after the first go around, so not like it's the City's fault the architect/developed for The Hudson proposed something much outside of the maximum height, tower setback and FAR.
 

David A

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
898
Reaction score
3,389
Stupidity reigns -- and yet the City wants to give tax holidays to encourage development -- wha???

Yeah. Maybe the proximity of municipal elections tends to make politicians and bureaucrats even more risk adverse in approving things.

The nearby area is primarily commercial and office spaces, you would think it might be a good place to develop without too many problems.

I suppose it can just stay a parking lot for another 30 years - that probably fits the grand ambitions of those that run this city.
 

archited

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
14,017
Location
Ojai
Not stupidity, it's what the Zoning Bylaw says. There are plenty of developers that have had their DPs approved and issued after the first go around, so not like it's the City's fault the architect/developed for The Hudson proposed something much outside of the maximum height, tower setback and FAR.
Yes, and in terms of core high-rise development aren't those zoning bylaws exceeded more often than not -- therein lies the stupidity -- twice-over stupidity in fact: 1. changing zoning guidelines on a case-by-case basis to suit the reality, and 2. trying to encourage development while tripping up the very thing the City is aiming for by fronting an archaic zoning system. Actually, stupidity seems to be too soft of a term!
 

Clearshades

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
478
Reaction score
1,150
Stupidity reigns -- and yet the City wants to give tax holidays to encourage development -- wha???
That is what happens when anyone can run for alderman. They dont realize they're actually running a business- multi billion to be infact. As I stated on the Coliseum rink, how do you learn to be a business individual in 4 years while you're making decisions that you have no knowledge; furthermore, you're still learning your craft as council. This is exactly the issue we have and the end game is a lost for Edmontonians by some degree.
 

Avenuer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
10,275
Location
Inside the Henday
Yes, and in terms of core high-rise development aren't those zoning bylaws exceeded more often than not -- therein lies the stupidity -- twice-over stupidity in fact: 1. changing zoning guidelines on a case-by-case basis to suit the reality, and 2. trying to encourage development while tripping up the very thing the City is aiming for by fronting an archaic zoning system. Actually, stupidity seems to be too soft of a term!
Luckily the Zoning Bylaw is being completely re-written, which should hopefully avoid such issues in the future.
 

Avenuer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
10,275
Location
Inside the Henday
^^^^ That's what I am saying. And in light of that, very little emphasis should be placed on the existing. Development for the downtown core needs fewer stumbling blocks.
You're in luck, as the number of zones will be dramatically reduced. For instance, the ZBL currently has 15 residential zones. The new ZBL is proposing to only have 3.
 

IanO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
5,795
Reaction score
20,656
Reference ID:Job No 365069283-007
Description:To demolish a portion of an Above Grade Parkade, and to construct a Multi-unit Housing building (249 Dwellings) with main floor General Retail Store Use.
Location:10040 - 103 STREET NW
Plan 3136KS Blk 3 Lot 70
Applicant:J+S ARCHITECT
Status:In Development Review
Create Date:3/11/2021 9:47:14 AM
Neighbourhood:DOWNTOWN
 

Top