I walked by the site earlier today. The street is filled with basic, dated low rise apartments and 4 heritage homes, 2 of which are being used for businesses. I'd like to know what "special character area" administration is referring to here. If anything, whatever is built here will breathe new life (unless the proposal is horrid) into a tired looking street. I think it would shortsighted to not allow this rezoning to pass, and it could set a precedent to reject whatever is proposed at the other end of the block in the old MEC parking lot.
 
Last edited:
It would have been nice to have had a peek of the massing/design concepts, but, being half a block from the "new Gotham" activity in this neighborhood, wtf? Admins explanation doesn't make sense to me. LRT (eventually), highrise activity galore, markets and new life...maybe a mid rise might fly here though? Or a park.
 
First post on here from a very long-time lurker (sorry, this one's a bit long).

First off, I fully agree that the proposed density seemed pretty reasonable, and I'm quite disappointed in this outcome. It's a half block of 124th and largely surrounded by commercial activity and should be an ideal spot. Really disappointed with the OCL response as well, but probably shouldn't have been surprised - that group is getting about as NIMBY'ish as Glenora these days.

While I agree with much of the analysis here, I do think it is worth remembering that, ultimately, administration's hand are tied on many of these decisions. They are working within a set of parameters/plans/etc. approved and supported by previous Councils. There is every chance the DO(s) responsible for this decision fully believe the rezoning is reasonable for the area. Don't let Councillors off the hook for the zoning mess they've either helped create, or refused to tackle during their tenure. I do have some faith in the upcoming zoning bylaw renewal to help push more density and lead to fewer of these confusing non-support decisions, but we still seem to have Councillors who are deeply, stubbornly out of touch with what it will actually take to deal with our extreme sprawl. This Council absolutely loves density....just not the dense parts of it!

I should add that I don't work in city administration, or the development industry. I have consulted to many municipal governments though, including for land-use and permitting approvals (though from a very operational/process perspective). So I have seen many situations where bureaucrats are blamed for poor decisions, inefficiency, etc. that is largely due to weak governance at a Council level.
 
That 1921 heritage home was not protected, but could have qualified for reevaluation for special character/historic designation. It's largely original and, as was stated, in excellent shape.
I think that is a huge loss.
I am all for development, and RA9 would balance out the economics for the developer, but I'm not for this now.
1)- We haven't seen what the developer is proposing, some seem to be skeptical of what Averton can produce.
2)- Administration did not support rezoning, but now supports demolition of a near perfect 100 year old house, so I'm PO'd.

I was in favor of this when it was 2 or 3 lots and was of possible "missing middle' status, and/or, would like a mid to 20's if great design but not taking-out heritage. I'd rather see them demo some of the crappy 3 or 4 story 1970's apartments common to the area.
 
2)- Administration did not support rezoning, but now supports demolition of a near perfect 100 year old house, so I'm PO'd

100 percent! On balance, I was in support of this rezoning, but I am still sensitive to the loss of a historic structure. I listened to the public hearing and the demolition of this house was administration's strongest reason for not supporting the rezoning based on its location in sub-zone 1 of the Oliver ARP (which explicitly aims to preserve these older houses). I am at a loss how they can turn around and let this demolition go through. I am also really not happy that there will now be an even larger empty lot in this prime area.

I don't blame the developer for trying though - there is every incentive in the current system to just keep trying until you get the answer you want (this process completely proves that it's a pretty successful strategy too!). What a mess.
 
That 1921 heritage home was not protected, but could have qualified for reevaluation for special character/historic designation. It's largely original and, as was stated, in excellent shape.
I think that is a huge loss.
I am all for development, and RA9 would balance out the economics for the developer, but I'm not for this now.
1)- We haven't seen what the developer is proposing, some seem to be skeptical of what Averton can produce.
2)- Administration did not support rezoning, but now supports demolition of a near perfect 100 year old house, so I'm PO'd.

I was in favor of this when it was 2 or 3 lots and was of possible "missing middle' status, and/or, would like a mid to 20's if great design but not taking-out heritage. I'd rather see them demo some of the crappy 3 or 4 story 1970's apartments common to the area.

Two notes; Firstly, it's not a 100 year old home, it's a 107 year old home if this 1913 fire insurance map is to be believed, which to me makes it even worse. It's the third down from 103rd Avenue;
79899539_1804113959720720_1381834860527616000_o.jpg

Secondly, its chances of being protected were never favourable to begin with, which is a crying shame. The City maintained Inventory of Historic Resources, which lists all the buildings the Edmonton Heritage Board has classified as architecturally, historically, culturally, or landmark-ly significant, is the stepping stone to being designated a legally-protected Municipal Historic Resource. For some some inexplicable reason this home was never listed, and one has to wonder why, given its brick construction, Craftsman influences, and size. That, coupled with the current draft of the provincial Historic Resources Act, which makes designations a purely voluntary endeavor on the land owners part, would force the City to compensate the developer fair market value if they wanted to imposed a designation on it, which almost never happens — the only recent example that comes to mind is the Edmonton Iron Works building on 96th Street, which last I heard cost the City a very pretty penny to expropriate. It's worth noting that looking back on previous Google Streetview's, the home was apparently restored in ~2015, when all its shingle sidings were redone.

Having said that, I really agree with your second point. For Administration to say they're not comfortable with a project because it demolishes a century plus, architecturally interesting home, and then to immediately go back and say 'nah, whatever' isn't a good precedent for tying to save undesignated, but nonetheless historic, properties.

I'll also echo Dave's thoughts and say that its a real missed opportunity. Given that they own up to the corner, one would suppose that (hypothetically), it be fairly easy to shift it there, and build around.

/End of ramblings
 
PERMIT_DATE January 29, 2020
JOB_CATEGORY Commercial Final
ADDRESS 10238 - 123 STREET NW
NEIGHBOURHOOD OLIVER
JOB_DESCRIPTION To Demolish a daycare.
BUILDING_TYPE Day Cares, Nursing Homes (650)
WORK_TYPE (99) Demolition
CONSTRUCTION_VALUE 18,200
 
Averton also appears to own the plots just east of these. 10247 & 10241? 123st.

It seems they've recently done more work, and it's now fenced off. I recognize the fencing from the Midtown project in St. Albert, which hasn't made its way to this forum. I wish that style of townhouses were built in Oliver.

Averton focusing on Urban development is a good thing. The Pivot/Midtown projects have attracted younger demos and families. The park they built in St. Albert is great.
PXL_20230820_010849852.MP~2.jpg
PXL_20230820_010927453.MP.jpg
 

Back
Top