News   Apr 03, 2020
 8.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 9.4K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Miscellaneous

I imagine the cut came through Infrastructure (the ministry).

While the wall in question is nice, there are better things to spend $70k on in our current fiscal environment. Sure, it sucks that the Federal building doesn't have x, y, or z, but at the end of the day, this cut is an easier argument to make as far as cuts go than many other things on the table.

Anyway, it'd be nice if political conversations could take place in the politics area - in particular, political ad lib doesn't really add to the conversation on development, especially when people likely have dissenting/diverging political views.

Sorry, I usually try to refrain from politics on this site, but I couldn't resist the jab. Will keep it out of my posts from now on unless it actually directly effects a development.
 
Ughhhhhhh... I said I was happy under the downtown form but now I'm angry.

You see, UCP Government, we get that the wall may be a hassle to maintain and that it may seem like an unnecessary cost each year, but that isn't the f-ing point. The point is that it's an interesting and unique feature of the building's renovation that adds an air of beauty (literally) to the damn place, and keeping it is a statement that we as a province value these small but unique features to our physical landscape and are no longer an "out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new" society. My dad was one of the project managers for the federal building renovation project, and while he can vouch that the bureaucracy at times was a bit much, its still integrated with the actual building HVAC system and removing it could lead to some "unanticipated reno costs" in a little bit. it so pointless if you have to pay EITHER WAY! :mad:

Edit: I understand that with Covid there is a need to save money in certain areas, but as I said at the end there, either way they go it's gonna cost a chunk of money to maintain the wall or fix the HVAC systems.
 
Ughhhhhhh... I said I was happy under the downtown form but now I'm angry.

You see, UCP Government, we get that the wall may be a hassle to maintain and that it may seem like an unnecessary cost each year, but that isn't the f-ing point. The point is that it's an interesting and unique feature of the building's renovation that adds an air of beauty (literally) to the damn place, and keeping it is a statement that we as a province value these small but unique features to our physical landscape and are no longer an "out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new" society. My dad was one of the project managers for the federal building renovation project, and while he can vouch that the bureaucracy at times was a bit much, its still integrated with the actual building HVAC system and removing it could lead to some "unanticipated reno costs" in a little bit. it so pointless if you have to pay EITHER WAY! :mad:

Edit: I understand that with Covid there is a need to save money in certain areas, but as I said at the end there, either way they go it's gonna cost a chunk of money to maintain the wall or fix the HVAC systems.


This feature was the only ACTIVE green wall west of Toronto (at the time of construction) and I agree....there will be costs associated with the HVAC that are not being considered in the overall picture. It was a very complicated element to coordinate and I am very proud that this feature exists. I feel sad for the loss.
 
Sorry, I usually try to refrain from politics on this site, but I couldn't resist the jab. Will keep it out of my posts from now on unless it actually directly effects a development.
I mean, the fact that everyone is blaming the UCP when it was likely a public administration decision and not a political one speaks volumes to as to why I think political discussion belongs in the politics sub-forum.
 
Derks:

Description: To demolish a portion of a commercial building (demolition of building additions in the rear of 8113-102 ST) and to construct interior alterations inside an Automotive and Minor Recreation Vehicle Sales/Rental building at 10150-81 AVE
Permit date: November 17, 2020
Type: Development Permit
Subtype: Major Development Permit
Category: N/A
Class: Class B
Status: Approved
Address: 10150 - 81 AVENUE NW
Neighbourhood: RITCHIE
Zoning: DC1,DC1
 
I mean, the fact that everyone is blaming the UCP when it was likely a public administration decision and not a political one speaks volumes to as to why I think political discussion belongs in the politics sub-forum.

Yeah that would be great, but it's one of those things that can just kinda slip into these conversations if we aren't careful. I'll also try and keep the discussion from that direction on any random forum too.
 
I mean, the fact that everyone is blaming the UCP when it was likely a public administration decision and not a political one speaks volumes to as to why I think political discussion belongs in the politics sub-forum.

I wouldn't be so sure on that given the way the GoA works in my experience. Cabinet probably instructed their respective DMs to find examples of gov't "luxurious" spending from previous admins and cut it to make good belt tightening headlines, and this was one of the suggested outcomes that was approved. Way too much public scrutiny that could hurt the governing party for GoA admin to make this sort of public facing decision without the proper oversight. Especially in today's political climate.

EDIT: not to be a political statement either. Happens under any provincial gov't.
 
Derks:

Description: To demolish a portion of a commercial building (demolition of building additions in the rear of 8113-102 ST) and to construct interior alterations inside an Automotive and Minor Recreation Vehicle Sales/Rental building at 10150-81 AVE
Permit date: November 17, 2020
Type: Development Permit
Subtype: Major Development Permit
Category: N/A
Class: Class B
Status: Approved
Address: 10150 - 81 AVENUE NW
Neighbourhood: RITCHIE
Zoning: DC1,DC1

Won't notice much from 102 Street as the additions being demolished are located in the alley behind the main building.
 
This feature was the only ACTIVE green wall west of Toronto (at the time of construction) and I agree....there will be costs associated with the HVAC that are not being considered in the overall picture. It was a very complicated element to coordinate and I am very proud that this feature exists. I feel sad for the loss.
Pennywise and pound foolish
 
I wouldn't be so sure on that given the way the GoA works in my experience. Cabinet probably instructed their respective DMs to find examples of gov't "luxurious" spending from previous admins and cut it to make good belt tightening headlines, and this was one of the suggested outcomes that was approved. Way too much public scrutiny that could hurt the governing party for GoA admin to make this sort of public facing decision without the proper oversight. Especially in today's political climate.

EDIT: not to be a political statement either. Happens under any provincial gov't.
Indeed. I should not have said that the final decision lies with public administration officials, because as you pointed out, it does not.

Cost saving exercises are definitely driven by Cabinet; however, the instructions would be to find savings across the board and to make recommendations and include any risks. The interaction/relationship with the public service from the governing party is supposed to be apolitical.

I would still think that this was mostly a rubber stamp approval given the cost and relative low risk(versus a public program or piece of infrastructure with high usage/scrutiny). More small cuts like this are likely to come because by and large, there isn't a ton of public scrutiny on most small line items and they can add up fast over multiple years in savings. That said, as @IES alluded to, there is usually a lack of due diligence on small items too.
 
Indeed. I should not have said that the final decision lies with public administration officials, because as you pointed out, it does not.

Cost saving exercises are definitely driven by Cabinet; however, the instructions would be to find savings across the board and to make recommendations and include any risks. The interaction/relationship with the public service from the governing party is supposed to be apolitical.

I would still think that this was mostly a rubber stamp approval given the cost and relative low risk(versus a public program or piece of infrastructure with high usage/scrutiny). More small cuts like this are likely to come because by and large, there isn't a ton of public scrutiny on most small line items and they can add up fast over multiple years in savings. That said, as @IES alluded to, there is usually a lack of due diligence on small items too.

If spaces in the building were utilized as originally designed, there would have been income that would have covered some of the maintenance costs that they are proposing to save....please note again, they will need to engage a mechanical consultant to redesign not knowing all that was discussed during the design phase......again, so sad
 
One of these two?

Reference ID: Job No 347399158-002
Description: To construct a 2 Storey Restaurant Use building with 922 m2 of inside and outside Public Space (Canadian Brewhouse).
Location: 3408 - 153 AVENUE NW
Plan 1223987 Blk 3 Lot 5
Applicant: CAMERON CORPORATION
Status: Issued
Create Date: 11/21/2019 2:01:10 PM
Neighbourhood: GORMAN

Reference ID: Job No 357320259-002
Description: To construct a Convenience Retail Store building, a Rapid Drive-through Vehicle Service building, and a Gas Bar.
Location: 3408 - 153 AVENUE NW
Plan 1223987 Blk 3 Lot 5
Applicant: CAMERON CORPORATION
Status: Issued
Create Date: 3/11/2020 9:03:26 AM
Neighbourhood: GORMAN

You sir are amazing, looks like its the brewhouse.

Thanks!
 
97 Street and 122 Ave - Medical Offices and Retail

20201114_113139.jpg20201114_113211.jpg
 

Back
Top