If development pressure gains any kind of mass, it will bode well for an extra 5 floors being added to the third ICE district office tower, subleased until the CWB grows into it. It will also put Mr. Katz in a frame of mind to develop his property on 104th Street north of the Limak development, perhaps linking to that development via pedway and in turn to the ICE District. I also believe that tremendous pressure will be put on what was formerly known as the "Bay Parkade" to redevelop into a mixed use tower, especially being attached to ECC and its redevelopment.
 
archited said:
The article suggests that Stantec is a co-developer in partnership with Limak and not simply an architectural/engineering consultant -- if true, the development has gained the substance that it needs. Limak likely was able to bring the hotel operator to the table which peaked Stantec's interest. A boutique hotel will do very well here, as will retail and eatery hospitality considering the proximity to the ICE district. The development stands to plug in some of the holes that the ICE District missed when catering ground floor space to banks. The whole will also help with the leasing up of space within the ICE District and put pressure for "more" in the area. I really like the evident results here. And as an added thought -- the building's design really does play off of the Stantec tower design (as noted by @itom987) -- a good thing -- kind of wedding the building more closely to the ICE District -- all positive.
Click to expand...

The article does suggest that, but alas, Stantec is only acting as consultant here and possibly additional design work when/if a hotelier/condo are solidified. I called Stantec to confirm.
With some momentum of Ice District and CWB plus the lrt getting closer and closer by the year and the nearby warehouse park and the Parks project, maybe those will provide the extra boost needed.

As noted, they originally wanted a 10 year sunset clause and that was reduced by council to 5.
 
ChazYEG said:
Stantec being involved is something to celebrate, though.
Click to expand...
How do you figure? Stantec is rarely involved in multi-family developments in Edmonton, and the ones that they have been involved with haven't gone ahead (Milner Building as an example). I have nothing against Stantec, but they're not a big player in this market in Edmonton. Dialog is the big player, along with a few others like Jim Der, Hodgson Schilf, Brian Gardner, etc. I see no reason to assume that Stantec is acting as a co-developer or that they're putting their own capital behind the project. Certainly not from ready some tea leaves in a CBC article. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Glad that council put a 5 year sunset on this. Limak has little or no capability to actually build a project like this. Tick tock.
 
Marcel said:
How do you figure? Stantec is rarely involved in multi-family developments in Edmonton, and the ones that they have been involved with haven't gone ahead (Milner Building as an example). I have nothing against Stantec, but they're not a big player in this market in Edmonton. Dialog is the big player, along with a few others like Jim Der, Hodgson Schilf, Brian Gardner, etc. I see no reason to assume that Stantec is acting as a co-developer or that they're putting their own capital behind the project. Certainly not from ready some tea leaves in a CBC article. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Glad that council put a 5 year sunset on this. Limak has little or no capability to actually build a project like this. Tick tock.
Click to expand...
So in 5 years, will they then have to replace the building they took down exactly, brick by brick?

It doesn't seem to permeate Edmonton's collective mind that tearing buildings down in usually a permanent thing, where the plans to replace them are sometimes ephemeral. When will we learn, if ever?

I am somewhat hopeful hearing Stantec is involved, but some of the comments here have diminished this hope somewhat. Does Stantec really want to get a reputation like the owner of the Arlington? I hope they are seriously considering this, if this goes badly it will blow up on them.
 
Are people not reading MY post above before commenting? Haha
Not to be self-centred but I already shared that Stantec was only involved as a consultant. In terms of developer, Limak is flying solo on this.
 
TAS said:
Are people not reading my post above before commenting? Haha
Not to be self-centred but I already shared that Stantec was only involved as a consultant. In terms of developer, Limak is flying solo on this.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I only read the two posts after yours. I read a couple of news articles earlier and they were vague on Stantec's role but they seemed to imply they were more involved.

I suppose that makes it even worse. Fly by night developer flying solo. I thought our new city council was smarter than the last one. Apparently not.
 
My understanding is that council can't evaluate the developer's wherewithal or track record, merely the merits of the proposal itself. And on that basis the proposal was acceptable.

So in 5 years, will they then have to replace the building they took down exactly, brick by brick?
Click to expand...

Don't issue any demolition permits without a slew of conditions and guarantees from the owner that they are proceeding with the entire development.
 
Marcel said:
Don't issue any demolition permits without a slew of conditions and guarantees from the owner that they are proceeding with the entire development.
Click to expand...
Exactly! If there are doubts about whether it would proceed as proposed or not, I think it might not be unreasonable to ask the developer to set aside the funds to rebuild the building if necessary.

If that is an issue, then that says something about the likelihood of the project proceeding.
 
Also worth mentioning is that the facades won't be "rebuilt" per se. This development came up at a recent meeting of the Historic Resource Review Panel and David Johnston, City Heritage Planner, explained that if it ever goes ahead the west and south faces will be retained in-situ, like the Pendennis Building's was. They don't want to keep encouraging less-than-accurate rebuilds.
 
_Citizen_Dane_ said:
Also worth mentioning is that the facades won't be "rebuilt" per se. This development came up at a recent meeting of the Historic Resource Review Panel and David Johnston, City Heritage Planner, explained that if it ever goes ahead the west and south faces will be retained in-situ, like the Pendennis Building's was. They don't want to keep encouraging less-than-accurate rebuilds.
Click to expand...
That is good to know. In the picture I saw the west facade looks accurate, however, the south one not so much. Perhaps the picture will be updated.

With Kelly Ramsay, the Alberta Hotel, and now Pendennis it shows we do have the ability to do a good job in preserving the facades, if there is the will to do so.
 
David A said:
That is good to know. In the picture I saw the west facade looks accurate, however, the south one not so much. Perhaps the picture will be updated.

With Kelly Ramsay, the Alberta Hotel, and now Pendennis it shows we do have the ability to do a good job in preserving the facades, if there is the will to do so.
Click to expand...
The south facade will have some modifications - bottom windows will be expanded as there will be access to building/CRUs there I believe.
 
_Citizen_Dane_ said:
Also worth mentioning is that the facades won't be "rebuilt" per se. This development came up at a recent meeting of the Historic Resource Review Panel and David Johnston, City Heritage Planner, explained that if it ever goes ahead the west and south faces will be retained in-situ, like the Pendennis Building's was. They don't want to keep encouraging less-than-accurate rebuilds.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. In the CBC article , which interestingly also refers to it as a project by Stantec and Limak, in that order, the picture of the south wall still seems to look quite different to me than what is there now, beyond the modifications to the bottom windows. Perhaps those pictures haven't yet been updated to reflect the most current plans.

 
David A said:
Oh, I see. In the CBC article , which interestingly also refers to it as a project by Stantec and Limak, in that order, the picture of the south wall still seems to look quite different to me than what is there now, beyond the modifications to the bottom windows. Perhaps those pictures haven't yet been updated to reflect the most current plans.

Click to expand...
Yeah, they're using one of the old pictures. @archited posted one of the more up-to-date elevations. As told to us at the HRRP, including the south facade in the revisions was the only concession Limak would give to the City — they have no intention of trying to salvage anything else:
archited said:
The Plan, Stan...
View attachment 394378
Click to expand...
 
Frankly, I prefer keeping the façades in-situ as much as possible since developers in Edmonton seem hell-bent on taking classic designs and turning them into non-functional dumpster fires.... like making prominent, street fronting entrances into fire exits... painting tindall stone dark gray... or bricking up windows halfway across a façade to install a cheap backlit sign.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top