Airboy
Senior Member
If that Westmount proposal was 3 blocks east it may not be a problem. But I can see the issues on 128st.
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
tkoe_
Active Member
Don't assume that everyone in the neighbourhood is against this type of development just because there are some vocal opponents.
Certain people might even be looking forward to a few new shops opening up nearby...
Certain people might even be looking forward to a few new shops opening up nearby...
thommyjo
Senior Member
As someone who bought 2 blocks from sherwood LRT stop, 1 block in from 156st, I fully expect density around me to increase. I hope nothing more than 4 or 5 stories, but its the reality of the location. Anyone who bought in these areas near the LRT in the last 10 years had all the information they needed to know where development would likely come. So I dont get how you can complain. And outside of the sun blocking, I dont find many other complaints legit. 100 new residents won't be noticeable for traffic or anything. Maaaaybe parking?
Anger always motivates though, so sadly there will keep being a loud vocal minority to these projects. It's a huge risk to our 50% infill goal if we dont set precedent that homeowners don't have the right to squash sensible projects in their areas just cause they don't like them.
Anger always motivates though, so sadly there will keep being a loud vocal minority to these projects. It's a huge risk to our 50% infill goal if we dont set precedent that homeowners don't have the right to squash sensible projects in their areas just cause they don't like them.
mBertan
New Member
I'm 100% against nimbyism, and you raise a good point: would compensating affected property owners work to soften the blow (and the blowback?) I dunno, maybe "up to $5k" compensation from the new property owners, per neighbour; all based on some formula that takes into account shadow studies, privacy loss, visual obstruction, etc? That *might* dampen the crankiness and the outcry that we're seeing every time something new is proposed.
IanO
Senior Member
A slippery slope.
Do we compensate business owners for a water main repair, a bridge that got all bent out of shape, an LRT that took 2 yrs longer?
How about compensation for construction noise of 2yrs plus for parkade repairs and jackhammering next door?
Do you get compensation for losing your river valley view if a new tower goes up adjacent to you?
Do we compensate business owners for a water main repair, a bridge that got all bent out of shape, an LRT that took 2 yrs longer?
How about compensation for construction noise of 2yrs plus for parkade repairs and jackhammering next door?
Do you get compensation for losing your river valley view if a new tower goes up adjacent to you?
Mattyeg
Active Member
Most of the things I was reading about compensating neighbouring properties (specifically for right to light) seem to be out of the UK. I guess there’s not really an equivalent in Alberta. It is a super tricky situation. If the majority of people see value in preserving the feel of a neighbourhood and/or “right to light” then one step would be incremental development only when neighbouring properties have similar density. In this specific neighbourhood, allow density starting closer to 124th then over the years allow it to slowly spread west. Or alternatively with the right to light in mind, start from 107 ave and work south. This may still cause shadowing for those north of 107th but at least there’d be some separation
But if the majority don’t care, then oh well, sucks to be the minority lol. But it doesn’t hurt to have the discussion about what can be done to allay the fears of at least some in the neighbourhood…
But if the majority don’t care, then oh well, sucks to be the minority lol. But it doesn’t hurt to have the discussion about what can be done to allay the fears of at least some in the neighbourhood…
_Citizen_Dane_
Active Member
Another update on DeVines. The home's going up for sale:I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else, but the old DeVine's house at 9712 111th Street is getting a restoration/renovation. A concrete pump was out there earlier. It looks like Amnor Group is doing it.
Error - Page not found | Amnor Group
Amnor Group - Error - Page not found | Amnor Groupwww.amnorgroup.com
The Provincial Archives' van Hogezand Fonds have a bunch of pictures of the home, showing what it looked like in the '40s:
IanO
Senior Member
Indeed.
I still am amazed that it has sat like this for what, twenty years?
I'd love to acquire it, live upstairs, rent a couple of units and have a cafe/rest/bar on the main.
The patio was and could be amazing again.
I still am amazed that it has sat like this for what, twenty years?
I'd love to acquire it, live upstairs, rent a couple of units and have a cafe/rest/bar on the main.
The patio was and could be amazing again.
EtoV
Active Member
Does anyone know if there was a more recent update to these townhomes? I swear there was something more recent than 2019, but I can't find anything:
www.thestar.com
Edmonton council rejects three-storey townhouse in Glenora, angering both density advocates and area residents
Councillors voted down a three-storey, three-unit townhouse in Glenora, but said they might approve two and half storey townhouse. That wasn’t enough for density advocates and was too much for residents who say row housing would endanger their “gem” of a neighbourhood.
www.thestar.com
_Citizen_Dane_
Active Member
According to Situate Planning & Placemaking's website:Does anyone know if there was a more recent update to these townhomes? I swear there was something more recent than 2019, but I can't find anything:
Edmonton council rejects three-storey townhouse in Glenora, angering both density advocates and area residents
Councillors voted down a three-storey, three-unit townhouse in Glenora, but said they might approve two and half storey townhouse. That wasn’t enough for density advocates and was too much for residents who say row housing would endanger their “gem” of a neighbourhood.
There was a thread for it but the last posts date to 2020, with no mention of any movement:
Bainbridge | ?m | 2s | Haynes Homes | designtwogroup
Not sure which rendering is most current, but I believe the site can allow up to five units. 10342 138 St. in Glenora Single-family lot recently rezoned RF1 to RF3 (March 10) https://situateinc.ca/project/missingmiddleglenora/ https://www.designtwogroup.com/ Can we all just take a moment to...
Buy — Haynes Homes
www.hayneshomes.ca
Last edited:
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Reading this article, and the whole "I'll be listing my house and moving" thing makes my blood boil.Does anyone know if there was a more recent update to these townhomes? I swear there was something more recent than 2019, but I can't find anything:
Edmonton council rejects three-storey townhouse in Glenora, angering both density advocates and area residents
Councillors voted down a three-storey, three-unit townhouse in Glenora, but said they might approve two and half storey townhouse. That wasn’t enough for density advocates and was too much for residents who say row housing would endanger their “gem” of a neighbourhood.
But on the other hand, if all of the nimbys move out, you'll get better neighbors
David A
Senior Member
So, two storey skinny houses ok, but three storey nice brownstone is not. I guess someone in Glenora got worried that they would detract from the suburban feel of the area.
However, as usual what Glenora wants, Glenora gets. Nimby's can be fatal for a city's development and growth. Fortunately the nimby's is most other areas of Edmonton are not as powerful.
This is a beautiful project and I hope it can be built somewhere else. It would be a great addition to our city and the nimby's of Glenora can suck lemons. They are probably elitist snobs.
However, as usual what Glenora wants, Glenora gets. Nimby's can be fatal for a city's development and growth. Fortunately the nimby's is most other areas of Edmonton are not as powerful.
This is a beautiful project and I hope it can be built somewhere else. It would be a great addition to our city and the nimby's of Glenora can suck lemons. They are probably elitist snobs.
Platinum107
Senior Member
Does anyone know if there was a more recent update to these townhomes? I swear there was something more recent than 2019, but I can't find anything:
Edmonton council rejects three-storey townhouse in Glenora, angering both density advocates and area residents
Councillors voted down a three-storey, three-unit townhouse in Glenora, but said they might approve two and half storey townhouse. That wasn’t enough for density advocates and was too much for residents who say row housing would endanger their “gem” of a neighbourhood.
Oh my lord... I genuinely cannot see how this project would do anything but add to the character of this wealthy and exclusive area that is Glenora. These would have been expensive and classy townhome units by all measures, turning a lot of one dwelling into only three dwellings. The fact that a project like this gets torn to shreds and not the dozens of narrow-lot homes (which are arguably less classy in most cases) proves something to me: When it comes down to the true opposition here, it's not really about the "character of the area", it's not about there being "too much" density or the "traffic".
It's all about the fact that these homes are connected to each other by walls, making them inherently multi-family, and the people who buy multi-family aren't who should be living in Glenora.
Platinum107
Senior Member
P.S. could someone move this discussion to this thread please: https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/database/projects/bainbridge
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Yup, they're elitist snobs alright. But the funny thing is that they seem to think that this would open the neighbourhood to " peasants".... how much do they think that this would cost? Probably more than their "character" houses