[IanO]

Looks like a new rezoning submission for the group of houses at the north end of 99st.

Unsure who the developer/owner is (no not us), but I am very curious as this is a really, really neat site.

Link:

Clarity Development Advisory | Rezoning, Urban Planning & Development Services Scona

www.claritydevelopment.ca

 

[constance_chlore]

That's a prime site! I hope they'd make the most of it with a nice building.

 

[_urbanite]

That's a prime site! I hope they'd make the most of it with a nice building.

Haha...yeah let's hope...but we all know whatever is proposed here will probably disappoint us all.

Don't take a risk...it's the most Edmonton thing you can do

 

[ADob]

Hey, let's have a little faith! Miracles sometimes happen

 

[JMatt88]

Guess that block of old houses was finally bought. Its been for sale for well over a year.

 

[archited]

Just from the river valley view aspect alone one would think that a tall structure would be called for.

 

[bodsbods9090]

Oh I can see the pitchforks out from the folks who have houses behind for this proposal...

 

[David A]

Haha...yeah let's hope...but we all know whatever is proposed here will probably disappoint us all.

Don't take a risk...it's the most Edmonton thing you can do

Tear them down and have another empty lot for a decade or more, now that is really the most Edmonton thing to do.

 

[mcr]

Guess that block of old houses was finally bought. Its been for sale for well over a year.

Buddy of mine lived in the upstairs suite in one of them when he first moved out on his own, neat old houses. It'll be sad to see them go, even though quite a few aren't in good shape now. Hope whatever gets built is worthy of the location.

 

[archited]

Amen @mcr!

 

[degrandprix]

Hey, let's have a little faith! Miracles sometimes happen

Given that construction won't start on this for several years at least, maybe by then market conditions will be favorable for a well-designed building?

 

[johnnyboy]

Given that construction won't start on this for several years at least, maybe by then market conditions will be favorable for a well-designed building?

It's sad, but I'm not sure market conditions have much of an impact on good design in Edmonton.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

I just wish that more construction projects could at least appear to move faster such as the lilac and the lotus Downtown. Now I know behind the scenes might have taken a long time but in both of those cases the fences went up the buildings that were there were torn down and then the construction began fairly quickly afterwards. Unfortunately that is not the common way of doing things as it has been pointed out. Developer or Speculator purchase the property and tear down the building fairly quickly as to avoid additional costs and taxes with a possible plan to build but only if situation is perfect for them otherwise the property will sit empty for a potentially long long time. Can there not be some sort of rule that obligates the property owner to start building within a period of time if a building was already present on that property. Then we wouldn't get derelict lots like the one downtown at 101. If a building goes up here soon that's okay but if they tear the buildings down and then just let the property sit for the next 10 years until they are ready they should be obligated to pay a significant penalty for every month and every year that they do not build a replacement building for that specific lot, especially on a highly prominent corner like this one.

 

[Gronk!]

I just wish that more construction projects could at least appear to move faster such as the lilac and the lotus Downtown. Now I know behind the scenes might have taken a long time but in both of those cases the fences went up the buildings that were there were torn down and then the construction began fairly quickly afterwards. Unfortunately that is not the common way of doing things as it has been pointed out. Developer or Speculator purchase the property and tear down the building fairly quickly as to avoid additional costs and taxes with a possible plan to build but only if situation is perfect for them otherwise the property will sit empty for a potentially long long time. Can there not be some sort of rule that obligates the property owner to start building within a period of time if a building was already present on that property. Then we wouldn't get derelict lots like the one downtown at 101. If a building goes up here soon that's okay but if they tear the buildings down and then just let the property sit for the next 10 years until they are ready they should be obligated to pay a significant penalty for every month and every year that they do not build a replacement building for that specific lot, especially on a highly prominent corner like this one.

Because it makes absolutely perfect sense, and the city doesn't work that way.

 

[ADob]

I did ask Anne Stevenson precisely that in my response email: put a time limit on post-demo rebuild, and put a hard time limit on "temporary" parking. It seems like such a no-brainer. Anyone know if there is anything in the MGA that would prevent the City doing something like that?