News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 7.9K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 8.9K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 2.9K     0 

Gateway Boulevard Centre | ?m | 2s | Entity Developments | N53 Architecture

Daveography said:
I know there's a pending land sale on the sliver between Gateway and the CPR tracks; could be that?
Click to expand...

EDC Formal presentation tentatively scheduled for May 21 on this one:

E. UPCOMING APPLICATIONS, CONFLICTS AND REGRETS (May 21, 2019)
Gateway Boulevard + 34 Ave (Development Permit) - Formal - Leah Mantyka - Krahn

https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/EdmontonDesignCommittee_May07_Agenda.pdf
 
Daveography said:
EDC Formal presentation tentatively scheduled for May 21 on this one:

E. UPCOMING APPLICATIONS, CONFLICTS AND REGRETS (May 21, 2019)
Gateway Boulevard + 34 Ave (Development Permit) - Formal - Leah Mantyka - Krahn

https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/EdmontonDesignCommittee_May07_Agenda.pdf
Click to expand...

This one was apparently deferred to July 16:

E. UPCOMING APPLICATIONS, CONFLICTS AND REGRETS (June 18, 2019)
Gateway Boulevard + 34 Avenue (Development Permit) - Formal - Leah Mantyka - Krahn

 
Daveography said:
This one was apparently deferred to July 16:

E. UPCOMING APPLICATIONS, CONFLICTS AND REGRETS (June 18, 2019)
Gateway Boulevard + 34 Avenue (Development Permit) - Formal - Leah Mantyka - Krahn

Click to expand...

C.2 Gateway + 34 Avenue (Development Permit / Formal)
Leah Krahn - Krahn

MOTION: W. Sims
Motion of Support with Conditions

The Committee recommends the Applicant work with Administration on the following:
● Refining the proposed landscape treatment along Gateway Boulevard. More
thought should be given to framing the development, while ensuring appropriate
species selection in terms of size/ spread (at maturity) and hardiness.
● Addressing the likelihood that the noise attenuation fence along the east property
boundary will create a CPTED issue. At a minimum, the Committee recommends
limiting access to this area and increasing lighting.

SECONDED: D. Brown
CARRIED
FOR THE MOTION: W. Sims, A. Zepp, T. Antoniuk, D. Deshpande, S. Kaznacheeva, D.
Brown, A.Benoit

 
Daveography said:
C.2 Gateway + 34 Avenue (Development Permit / Formal)
Leah Krahn - Krahn

MOTION: W. Sims
Motion of Support with Conditions

The Committee recommends the Applicant work with Administration on the following:
● Refining the proposed landscape treatment along Gateway Boulevard. More
thought should be given to framing the development, while ensuring appropriate
species selection in terms of size/ spread (at maturity) and hardiness.
● Addressing the likelihood that the noise attenuation fence along the east property
boundary will create a CPTED issue. At a minimum, the Committee recommends
limiting access to this area and increasing lighting.

SECONDED: D. Brown
CARRIED
FOR THE MOTION: W. Sims, A. Zepp, T. Antoniuk, D. Deshpande, S. Kaznacheeva, D.
Brown, A.Benoit

Click to expand...

Permit Type Major Development Permit
Permit Class Class B
Permit Date Dec 17, 2019
Status Approved
Description of Development To construct seven (7) Commercial Use buildings (Building 1: Main floor - Convenience Retail Stores & Personal Service Shops, 2nd floor -Professional, Financial and Office Support Services; Building 2: Main floor - Convenience Retail Stores & Personal Service Shops, 2nd floor -Professional, Financial and Office Support Services; Building 3: Convenience Retail Stores & Personal Service Shops; Building 4: Convenience Retail Stores & Personal Service Shops; Building 5: Restaurant; Building 6: Restaurant; Building 7: Restaurant with Accessory Drive-in Food Services).
Address 3415 - GATEWAY BOULEVARD NW
 
Last edited:
Daveography said:
E. UPCOMING APPLICATIONS, CONFLICTS AND REGRETS (July 21 Aug 4, 2020)
Gateway + 34 Ave - Tyler Fritz / N53 Architecture

Click to expand...

I guess this will be a CWB?

C.3. CWB Calgary Trail (Development Permit)
Tyler Fritz - N53 Architecture

Motion of Support

CARRIED
Click to expand...

 
Daveography said:
Reference ID: Job No 385688390-002
Description: Construction of (a) new building(s)
Location: 3415 - GATEWAY BOULEVARD NW
Plan 1620808 Blk A
Applicant: KRAHN GROUP OF COMPANIES
Status: Intake Review
Create Date: 2/4/2021 9:35:24 AM
Neighbourhood: STRATHCONA INDUSTRIAL PARK
Click to expand...
'Gateway Boulevard Centre'

385693959 2-8-2021 12-36-40 PM.png
385693959 2-8-2021 12-36-51 PM.png
385693959 2-8-2021 12-37-03 PM.png
 
Platinum107 said:
Ahh well, not really sure what else could go in that awkward location anyway
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with the building, but the site layout and orientation. Especially since this area is either in an identified secondary corridor (Or very close to, hard to tell for sure with this map). Here is the City's description of what secondary corridors should be like:
"Secondary corridor is the vibrant residential and commercial street that serves as a local destination for surrounding communities. A secondary corridor feels more residential in nature than a primary corridor. Some secondary corridors will include city-wide mass transit with the others near or served by district transit"

I wish the developer would add sidewalks (with some distance from gateway) and have more side/rear parking vs. front parking. Again, nothing wrong with the buildings or amount of parking provided. I get that this is a car dominant area but we should be trying to chip away at that to make it more friendly for other ways of getting around.

Having the buildings more oriented to the street, with parking between not in front of buildings would allow for lots of parking now, and intensification in the future if feasible. Having this parking in the front will leave this site like that until it is demolished/redeveloped.
1612817604439.png
 
This site backs onto CP land which will certainly get developed at some point in the future. I think the right move in this case is to have parking in the front (perhaps screened with shrub-sized landscaping). This would provide a good visible location for retail outlets that specialize in construction materials -- floor tiles, lighting, etc. I think putting parking in the rear (in this case in particular) would make the viability somewhat less than ideal. The architecture isn't outstanding but for this type of centre it is serviceable -- I like that the structure is broken up into a series of buildings, each with a varied facade, one from the other, but strung together by some detail commonality.
 
The development looks to be not too bad at all. Definitely considering the location it is very much not going to be oriented to the pedestrian. As mentioned to the direct east the closest residential is east of 91 Street and to the west there is residential just on the other side of 104 street but no access from the residential for at least a couple blocks further west. I hope that there will be some decent retailers move in, as well I hope that auto dealership just on the other side of the tracks resumes construction.
 
Interesting. I did some very preliminary work a few years ago with a prospective buyer on this piece of property. At that point, squeezing the required parking onto the site + working in such close proximity to the railway made it unfeasible. Glad to see somebody has managed to make it work. I'm sure the elimination of parking minimums made it a bit easier.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top