News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.3K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.7K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.6K     0 

Miscellaneous

Saw this by Connor's road today. It's a really small project, but i thought the idea (and more importantly, the example) it presents is really cool, and really relevant given the City Plan's push for 25%-50% infill over the next 250k of population growth. It's a 4plex circa 1971 (according to maps.edmonton) that is taking advantage of the secondary suite clauses recently added to the Zoning Bylaw.
It's a simple idea; the RF3 on this site (and a whole lot of the rest of central edmonton, to that point) allows for multi-unit housing, in to form of Principal Dwellings requiring 150m2 of site each. the recent amendments allow for secondary and garden suites to be added in on top of the Principal Dwellings, provided the suites are each tied to a principal dwelling. We're seeing some of this in new construction, the ubiquitous corner 2 storey 4plex is now getting built with basement suites in some neighbourhoods, (for 8 units total) and it will probably become more common in time.
What caught my eye with project was the way the garden (garage) suite was being added behind an existing 4plex, itself recently renovated. The awkwardness of the retrofit aside (the original building is awkwardly placed close to the lane, so the new garage is gonna take up almost the whole yard in this case) I think it's really clever that the owner of this property is using these new zoning rules. although the site is maxed out in terms of Principal Dwellings, they are using the secondary suite rules to add a unit over the garage. I know garage suites aren't exactly new, but seeing one being added to an existing income property really struck me. I wonder how this is gonna work, I hope it ends up being worth it. We certainly have a lot of these existing, older, affordable, central-city duplexes and 4plexes on large sites, easily capable of fitting a garage with suite above.
anyways, not a shiny new thing, but a cool introduction to the neighbourhood i thought. does this seem feasible or am i being overly-optimistic?
IMG_9354.JPG

IMG_9355.JPG
 
Here's a picture of the work on the Terrace Building. I didn't see any actually cladding installed yet. Sadly the only redeeming quality of this bunker, the great mid-century tile work above the entranceway, looks to also be getting recladded:
20200923_194435.jpg


And I didn't see it elsewhere on here, but the small condo block at 9804 112th Street is getting a pretty extensive facelift. It looks like work is well underway. Here's a render of it included on the City permit sign:
20200923_194340.jpg
 
Not sure if we have a thread for this but Edgar Developments is planning on developing the MEC store downtown. They own the land currently.
This was mentioned a while back on that now defunct website some of us frequented once upon a time, but I believe they only own the parking lot, not the actual building itself.
If they do intend to develop this lot next, then they must've shifted (see what I did here) their attention here from another approved project in the core
 
Last edited:
Hey, I just thought of something cool: I was zooming around Google Earth and stopped by the massive Elmwood Townhomes site and then imagined the Misericordia Station being right across the street, then it hit me! This site, with it's massive size, amenity access (WEM) and future mass transit connection is the perfect TOD opportunity, one of the best in the whole city if you ask me. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be surprised if down the line (😏 ) we see a developer pick this up in the near future and announce a massive project 🤷‍♂️

View attachment 264552

On a similar note, I have to think that GEF's Meadowlark Place Lodge (8609 161 street) would be ideal for redevelopment too. A single storey structure and so much excess land serviced only by an ice cream trailer for 5 months of the year, directly across from a future LRT stop.
 
This was mentioned a while back on that now defunct website some of us frequented once upon a time, but I believe they only own the parking lot, not the actual building itself.
If they do intend to develop this lot next, then they must've shifted (see what I did here) their attention here from another approved project in the core

I think with the Shift, they don't want to start construction, only to have it open to tenants when 102 Ave is torn up for Valley Line West. All about timing of construction with that.
 
@Whyte There is a proposal for the vacant part of their land:
 

Back
Top