Wadhurst Townhomes | 11.75m | ?s

[ChazYEG]

not if I beat you to it!

Stunning, Classy, Talented, Extrordinary... What other adjectives could I possibly add?? Amazing project

@ChazYEG I'll be there with ya... in like 10 years

We'll all have bbq's at each other's places and go at each other's throats in person, rather than here,

But joking aside, this is one of the most exciting developments in this area, for me. It is a rare occurrence of low-to-mid-density in an area that has only been getting towers with 1-2 bedroom units, so it has the potential to attract families and diversify the demographic pool of " east-Westmount"/West Oliver.
Add to the fact that Wadhurst is a gem of a street and this will be preserving the human scale, while increasing density a little bit, this close to 124 street, Jasper Ave and Stony Plain Rd/104, we have a really good project that can help show how attractive core neighbourhoods can be.

I kid you not, when I say that, regardless of pricing, I'm interested in these and will follow closely the movements on the project. I also have more than one acquaintance living in Wadhust Rd, so I'll try to keep everyone in the loop regarding how the feel is, in terms of community reaction to it.

 

[TAS]

These were some of the original concerns from residents: height of the 3 storey townhomes, the loss of all the trees, blocking the sun affecting adjacent homes gardens, and parking/traffic concerns.

 

[_urbanite]

Is the difference in height from 12.5 M to 11.75 M really a big deal here when these will be across the back alley from multi-storey commercial and residential buildings, and when there's literally no neighbouring homes adjacent to them? Seems a bit silly

 

[ChazYEG]

Is the difference in height from 12.5 M to 11.75 M really a big deal here when these will be across the back alley from multi-storey commercial and residential buildings and there's literally no neighbouring homes adjacent to them? Seems a bit silly

It doesn't make any difference at all, a number of houses in the street already have 12~12m of height anyways, and very few have gardens with actual living things, other than a tree or two.

I believe (and I'll confirm later) that the issue has more to do with the perceived scale. Because it's row-houses, the bigger footprint might've given the impression that they are taller than the actual height and that it would have more impact.

Also, there's a neighbouring house south of it, in the corner of Wadhust and 103 Ave, which won't be particularly affected, because of its positioning relative to the sun.

 

[Gronk!]

Had to double-check the location on this, but yeah - great addition to one of the best pockets of residential in the city.

Now if they could just get rid of that monstrosity at 12428 down the block (on the corner), I would be elated.

I'm having a hard time figuring out this monstrosity on Google Maps

 

[strata]

We'll all have bbq's at each other's places and go at each other's throats in person, rather than here,

But joking aside, this is one of the most exciting developments in this area, for me. It is a rare occurrence of low-to-mid-density in an area that has only been getting towers with 1-2 bedroom units, so it has the potential to attract families and diversify the demographic pool of " east-Westmount"/West Oliver.
Add to the fact that Wadhurst is a gem of a street and this will be preserving the human scale, while increasing density a little bit, this close to 124 street, Jasper Ave and Stony Plain Rd/104, we have a really good project that can help show how attractive core neighbourhoods can be.

I kid you not, when I say that, regardless of pricing, I'm interested in these and will follow closely the movements on the project. I also have more than one acquaintance living in Wadhust Rd, so I'll try to keep everyone in the loop regarding how the feel is, in terms of community reaction to it.

I have no "insider info", but if you are looking for a preview of what the floorplans may look like, I would bet they are a riff off their Park View Home collection:

3-Storey Single Family Homes Edmonton | Cantiro Homes

A new and innovative home design to Cantiro featuring three floors of functional living space above ground with a rear attached garage.

cantiro.ca

 

[ChazYEG]

I have no "insider info", but if you are looking for a preview of what the floorplans may look like, I would bet they are a riff off their Park View Home collection:

3-Storey Single Family Homes Edmonton | Cantiro Homes

A new and innovative home design to Cantiro featuring three floors of functional living space above ground with a rear attached garage.

cantiro.ca

Thanks man!

 

[cloney]

I'm having a hard time figuring out this monstrosity on Google Maps

The closest intersection would be 103ave NW and 125st/Wadhurst Road, this site is about 50m north of that intersection

 

[Gronk!]

^ Thanks!

12428 doesn't look so bad to be regarded as a monstrosity, though it needs more trees.

 

[cloney]

^ Thanks!

12428 doesn't look so bad to be regarded as a monstrosity, though it needs more trees.

View attachment 365284

I dont think it looks bad, but labeling it as a monstrosity does seem fitting just given how damn big it is lol. For a sense of density, this proposed development will have nearly 6x the units over 75% of the land size compared with the 2 houses south of it. what's incredible is this (imo) wont be intrusive at all on the neighborhood, yet there will be an increase of over 7x the density of the southern lot and increase of about 3.5x compared to what was pre-existing on this lot. You do this over a bunch of the city and, voila, a city of 2 million without any more greenfield development

 

[David A]

This city is chock full of a lot of small post WWII houses many which are at the point where something needs to be done with them. Townhomes would work well in a lot of these places and increase the density a lot without being to overwhelming for the areas.

 

[Omega Prime]

I dont think it looks bad, but labeling it as a monstrosity does seem fitting just given how damn big it is lol. For a sense of density, this proposed development will have nearly 6x the units over 75% of the land size compared with the 2 houses south of it. what's incredible is this (imo) wont be intrusive at all on the neighborhood, yet there will be an increase of over 7x the density of the southern lot and increase of about 3.5x compared to what was pre-existing on this lot. You do this over a bunch of the city and, voila, a city of 2 million without any more greenfield development

I think it looks terrible. There's something about the aesthetics that make it look like its trying to be some roman palace/castle but with that fantastical pink-shade stucco that people seem to love using in this province. I don't see any form or function to this. Basically looks like weathered Duplo blocks. Then you go down 125th street and the for the most part - lovely houses with mature tree-lined growth.

That said, it's the size of the property that really gets me - completely unnecessary for that location. I believe it was for sale not long ago; developers should have picked this thing up and used that lovely curb frontage for some missing middle housing.

 

[Greenspace]

I kid you not, when I say that, regardless of pricing, I'm interested in these and will follow closely the movements on the project. I also have more than one acquaintance living in Wadhust Rd, so I'll try to keep everyone in the loop regarding how the feel is, in terms of community reaction to it.

I doorknocked this area with now Councillor Stevenson and the reaction from the neighbourhood is pretty mixed. Certainly there were concerns and she met informally with a group of residents to discuss but was pretty clear of her support of this kind of density in appropriate locations.

 

[ChazYEG]

I doorknocked this area with now Councillor Stevenson and the reaction from the neighbourhood is pretty mixed. Certainly there were concerns and she met informally with a group of residents to discuss but was pretty clear of her support of this kind of density in appropriate locations.

I know that they had various concerns before, let's hope that the addressing of most of them by the developer quenches their thirst.
As for the two people I know that live there, they were actually quite happy with the new iteration and should be supportive of it, which makes me happy. Hopefullyothers will feel the same as they do

View attachment 363969
Edmonton still tied with Toronto but this time in last place. Vancouver, still enjoying a break in the liquid sky, is first -- with Winnipeg and Ottawa tied for second.

I think it looks terrible. There's something about the aesthetics that make it look like its trying to be some roman palace/castle but with that fantastical pink-shade stucco that people seem to love using in this province. I don't see any form or function to this. Basically looks like weathered Duplo blocks. Then you go down 125th street and the for the most part - lovely houses with mature tree-lined growth.

That said, it's the size of the property that really gets me - completely unnecessary for that location. I believe it was for sale not long ago; developers should have picked this thing up and used that lovely curb frontage for some missing middle housing.

It's not pretty, but far from being a monstrosity. It was for sale, indeed, but it's sold and currently occupied, so I don't think it was ever an option for the developer to buy it. Add to that the fact that real estate prices in this place are over the charts and the already mentioned density issue that was pointed as a problem by residents of the area, and they would have maybe added one or two homes and barely covered the costs (or hyperinflated the prices, which sucks).

I'll bet that we will see that property sold and redeveloped in the future, if these townhomes get built up, though.

 

[David A]

I dont think it looks bad, but labeling it as a monstrosity does seem fitting just given how damn big it is lol. For a sense of density, this proposed development will have nearly 6x the units over 75% of the land size compared with the 2 houses south of it. what's incredible is this (imo) wont be intrusive at all on the neighborhood, yet there will be an increase of over 7x the density of the southern lot and increase of about 3.5x compared to what was pre-existing on this lot. You do this over a bunch of the city and, voila, a city of 2 million without any more greenfield development

I don't think it is terrible either. It looks like something from the 90's that would have built in a suburban area or perhaps on a small acreage. I think the biggest problem is it is not well suited for an older area.

This type of thing sort of destroys the character of older areas and doesn't fit with the density appropriate either, but I think at that time it was anything goes with infill. We are not very good at maintaining the character of older areas while increasing density. Both can be done together and have been in other cities.