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.
 
IanO said:
Just like the last time where the guys from Montreal and Toronto were sold on our market and opportunity and then shocked when almost nothing had deposits and any firm sales. They packed up and went back home rather quickly; it was almost comical.
Click to expand...
You often say follow the money ... in this case we don't know if there is any money.
 
_Citizen_Dane_ said:
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:
Click to expand...
... because Limak is such a large and reputable company the city was afraid they would move to ??? if the city wanted more concessions ... because this is on the only remaining lot in the area to develop??

Nope and nope. The city is being played here and this all could end badly.
 
David A said:
... because Limak is such a large and reputable company the city was afraid they would move to ??? if the city wanted more concessions ... because this is on the only remaining lot in the area to develop??

Nope and nope. The city is being played here and this all could end badly.
Click to expand...
Extracting as much as you possibly can from developers isn't a good way to entice new development or build affordable cities.

The tenuous business case for new construction downtown is enough of a deterrent.
 
... yet a lot of new development and construction has actually happened over the last decade downtown and after a COVID lull, it seems to be picking up again.

I feel there is an entrenched group in our business establishment that doesn't have much confidence in our city. I think the problem is too often we sell ourselves short.

I am with the former mayor who said no more crap. It can be a boom bust cycle here, but the biggest mistake is letting the desperation of the bust lead to all sorts of crap being built when things recover.

A well thought out and developed city will entice people and can be affordable.
 
Avenuer said:
What are the odds when this building gets put up for sale now with an approved rezoning in place? 4 months? 6 months? 1 year? Limak does not build things.
Click to expand...

With a 5 year sunset clause on this zoning, with specific requirements in place in terms of maintaining the west and south facades, would another developer want to take this on unless it was relatively ready to proceed in the not too distant future?

What is the benefit for another developer to buy this now and do nothing? Is it that the value of the land would go up thereby increasing their asset? Would the value change in 5 years once the zoning reverts back?

And if there was a developer wanting to purchase this if it became for sale, and then proceed with building, is that not a win for everyone?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top