VaultBoy
Active Member
Development permit for the Costco
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
YEG imagineer
Active Member
Costco on 50th likely closed then
David A
Senior Member
I feel the style of buildings there has more to do with the money available to spend on them and the fact that companies generally put more effort into their head offices.Although I like where Edmonton's downtown core skyline is going, you just can't compare Edmonton's conservative core to Calgary's beautiful and TALL downtown core! I see ultra conservative thinking in E-Town and ultra aggressive thinking in C-Town when it comes to the core of each city !
At some point Edmonton became content with just being a branch plant city and with that comes branch plant offices and buildings.
mcr
Active Member
Unconfirmed reports that it's being turned into a Costco Business Centre.
fromyeg
Active Member
Couple houses on 83rd Ave getting demoed across the street from Douglas Manor (in between 107th and 108th St.)
Last edited:
constance_chlore
Active Member
Did you catch a look at the sign at all?View attachment 699604
Couple houses on 83rd Ave getting demoed across the street from Douglas Manor (in between 107th and 108th St.)
Could be the 7th multifamily building along the 83rd Ave bike path under construction soon.
fromyeg
Active Member
Those are just demolition permit signs, no development permits signs up, so I’m not sure what might be going there.
archited
Senior Member
See... this is the kind of house that should be protected.
Out of Towner
Active Member
Appears to be in decent shape and has some some nice arts and crafts detailing of a craftsman but without all the defining elements of a craftsman, it's a bungalow That's probably why it's not getting the love and will get the wrecking ball. The new infill zoning bylaws aren't helping its cause either and I'm wondering why you haven't yet been attacked for being a NIMBY obstructionist. You understand that there's a housing crisis don't you?
Last edited:
JNO1
Active Member
If that house is 10742 (I can't see the address clearly but the address of its partly torn down neighbor to the right is 10738), then it is on the CoE's Inventory of Historic Resources. Klyft Residence, built in 1933. Being on the Inventory means it is a building of significant interest (in terms of heritage resource status) but not on the protected list. Another little gem lost, unfortunately.
Out of Towner
Active Member
Most of the private residences on the protected or designated list predate 1933. There are only a couple on the protected that don't. Funding for a designation very likely plays into the decision making process as designation also make the "building" eligible for public funding to preserve it. Obviously as the designation grows so to does the amount of public funding needed.
constance_chlore
Active Member
My understanding is that the greatest barrier to expanding heritage protections is the property owners' choices. The city can decree that a certain property is a Municipal Historic Resource against the owner's will, but what I've heard is that they then have to compensate the owner for any potential lost value. In this sense, the budget is a constraint, but I think the expenses for contributing to keeping up the historic character of voluntarily designated properties are relatively modest.
I'm all for expanding heritage protections, but we should be careful about what we advocate for. Just because a house is old and it's a 'named' house (i.e. we know who lived there in like, 1920), doesn't mean it's historically or architecturally important. I don't think our goal should be to keep entire neighborhoods frozen in time.
I'm all for expanding heritage protections, but we should be careful about what we advocate for. Just because a house is old and it's a 'named' house (i.e. we know who lived there in like, 1920), doesn't mean it's historically or architecturally important. I don't think our goal should be to keep entire neighborhoods frozen in time.
archited
Senior Member
^ I agree -- we don't want to keep entire neighborhoods frozen in time; on the other hand when something substantial is subjectively superseded by a retrograde then both the neighborhood and the social fabric are tattered.
Out of Towner
Active Member
A building must demonstrate that it has historic value before its designated as a historic resource. Anybody can fill out an application to have a property considered a historic resource and be eligible for rehabilitation or maintenance funding but the standards and guidelines of historic building still applies and if the governing criteria cannot be established then no funding is forthcoming. So in that sense you are correct but don't forget that the cost of rehabilitating or maintaining a historic building is more than the cost for buildings without a designation. Consider the arts and craft style windows in the house being discussed. If those windows needed to be replaced at some point in time, unlike a building without a designation, you can't just walk into All Weather Windows showroom and say I'll take those because those windows won't be in the showroom. They perhaps need to been made from scratch which is expensive and you can go down the line of things in a historic building that are no longer readily available
archited
Senior Member
^ With rapid prototyping on the table (granted builders and suppliers need to catch up) reproducing historic elements isn't the challenge that it once was.