crisp
Active Member
Hmm ok fair. Personally I never really considered the flow of vehicle traffic into RHW as that much of a concern. I'd pick my battle elsewhere.
Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
David A
Senior Member
I don't think a major building can be built on this site without a significant amount of parking. I suppose exactly how much, where and how to access it are reasonable matters to discuss or debate.
If we wanted something smaller with little or no parking, then we really should have just stuck with what was there, but we didn't, those decisions were made some time ago. At this point we have to work with what we have.
If we wanted something smaller with little or no parking, then we really should have just stuck with what was there, but we didn't, those decisions were made some time ago. At this point we have to work with what we have.
danimori
Active Member
Found this on the August 30 Council meeting !
IanO
Superstar
Only three years to get to that point. Bravo!
That Administration work with the owner of the vacant site located at 10199 101 Street, to improve the site conditions supporting downtown vibrancy, while ensuring that the demolition permit conditions are satisfied and provide a memo to Council with an update. ● Notice of Motion Given: August 16, 2021, City Council
_urbanite
Senior Member
Well their main excuse (LRT construction) is no longer valid since most of the major work is completed now, so I guess it's time to see what other excuse they might have now
kcantor
Senior Member
i don't believe they're entitled to use that as a main excuse (or as any excuse whatsoever).
if my recollection is correct, they were only issued a demolition permit without a dp in place so that they could complete the demolition and the cleanup prior to lrt construction precluding the completion of the work and the cleanup that was promised.
TAS
Senior Member
Why stop at this one site? The Regency site at 114 Street is terrible as well and a blight for the neighbourhood and Jasper Ave.
And as noted, Arlington as well.
And as noted, Arlington as well.
kcantor
Senior Member
the arlington had - at least at the beginning - a nominally different set of circumstances as it was destroyed by fire, not demolished under a permit issued by the city. i think that might have been the case for at lease some of the previous structures on the jasper and 114 street with the jasper frontage having already been a vacant lot used for parking by edmonton motors that the city refused to permit if i'm not mistaken.
TAS
Senior Member
I think regardless of the history, the bottom line is the vacant Regency site on 114 st appears to be in violation of the Community Standards Bylaw, which should then be enforced.
The Community Standards Bylaw sets minimum standards for nuisance on land with concerns like Regency's. Bylaw says...For the purpose of greater certainty a nuisance, in respect of land, means land, or any portion thereof, that shows signs of a serious disregard for general maintenance and upkeep, whether or not it is detrimental to the surrounding area some examples of which include...loose building or construction materials...unkempt grass or weeds higher than 10 centimetres...etc.
And the fact that this is not a one-off should weigh heavier or at least expedite enforcement.
The Community Standards Bylaw sets minimum standards for nuisance on land with concerns like Regency's. Bylaw says...For the purpose of greater certainty a nuisance, in respect of land, means land, or any portion thereof, that shows signs of a serious disregard for general maintenance and upkeep, whether or not it is detrimental to the surrounding area some examples of which include...loose building or construction materials...unkempt grass or weeds higher than 10 centimetres...etc.
And the fact that this is not a one-off should weigh heavier or at least expedite enforcement.
CaptainBL
Active Member
The city does quite well at enforcing bylaw tickets, for example, when you don't move your car during snow plowing regardless of if you couldn't move your car because you had a late shift at work the night before. A bylaw is a bylaw and should be enforced because it is there to protect the community from these exact derelict properties and blights to the community.
If you aren't going to enforce the bylaw after years of neglect (or decades in the case of the Arlington), what is the point in having the bylaw in the first place? It sets a terrible precedent that if the city doesn't enforce the bylaw on that empty lot after years of neglect, then I don't need to clean up my lot.
If you aren't going to enforce the bylaw after years of neglect (or decades in the case of the Arlington), what is the point in having the bylaw in the first place? It sets a terrible precedent that if the city doesn't enforce the bylaw on that empty lot after years of neglect, then I don't need to clean up my lot.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
I reported the site on 311 as a nuisance/unsightly property, but the City closed the ticket.
TAS
Senior Member
Looking forward to seeing what becomes of Iveson's motion.
As noted earlier, the mayor gave notice of motion last week in regards to the former BMO site, to get a report back from administration on any authority the City has in regards to forcing reclamation.
There finally seems to be a growing public sentiment among some of council that there are certain property owners/developers thumbing their nose at the rest of us.
According to one councillor, it is hoped that the mayor's motion will send a shot across the bow for these property owners, as well as administration.
If this councillor had his way, the city would begin expropriation proceedings or begin a series of escalating fines, but civic lawyers tend to be cautious and conservative.
As noted earlier, the mayor gave notice of motion last week in regards to the former BMO site, to get a report back from administration on any authority the City has in regards to forcing reclamation.
There finally seems to be a growing public sentiment among some of council that there are certain property owners/developers thumbing their nose at the rest of us.
According to one councillor, it is hoped that the mayor's motion will send a shot across the bow for these property owners, as well as administration.
If this councillor had his way, the city would begin expropriation proceedings or begin a series of escalating fines, but civic lawyers tend to be cautious and conservative.
Last edited:
CaptainBL
Active Member
While good to hear, its unfortunate that its taken council this far into their term to recognize that this is an issue (especially because it is literally within eye sight for them).
I walked by the site this weekend and it is an utter embarrassment from the developers standpoint but also the city's. It is in view from multiple towers downtown so imagine investors or corporate decision makers visiting Edmonton for a meeting at TD or Stantec or Manulife and looking down to a prime site in the exact condition it was at the time of demolition - completely untouched. In the first picture, note the pile of rubble that was not even cleaned up.
Attachments
MacLac
Senior Member
Geez! I didn’t realize it was ssssooo bad! It looks like they didn’t rip up any of the concrete foundation at all! Just the building?