What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    32
Description: To demolish a commercial building. (1 of 4 buildings) 12308/12310 - Jasper Ave.
Permit date: September 28, 2020
Type: Building Permit
Subtype: (99) Demolition
Category: Commercial Final
Class: Retail and Shops (510)
Status: Issued
Address: 12310 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Neighbourhood: OLIVER
Zoning: DC2
Value: $25,500.00
 
Description: To demolish a commercial building. (1 of 4 buildings) 10114 - 123 Street NW
Permit date: October 2, 2020
Type: Building Permit
Subtype: (99) Demolition
Category: Commercial Final
Class: Retail and Shops (510)
Status: Issued
Address: 10114 - 123 STREET NW
Neighbourhood: OLIVER
Zoning: DC2
Value: $25,500.00

Description: To demolish a commercial building. (1 of 4 buildings) 12312/12314 - Jasper Ave.
Permit date: October 2, 2020
Type: Building Permit
Subtype: (99) Demolition
Category: Commercial Final
Class: Retail and Shops (510)
Status: Issued
Address: 12314 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Neighbourhood: OLIVER
Zoning: DC2
Value: $25,500.00
 
20201003_104103.jpg
Soon to be gone.
 
BIGE said:
Does the Jasper Ave revitalization project come this far west?
Click to expand...
Eventually, yes. If the current pace is maintained, it would be finished somewhere between 2025 and 2026 (one side of 5 blocks per year). I would go ahead and bet that once they get past 116 street they might try to do it faster, maybe do 114 to 116 both sides in one year and then do the 116 to 124 north side on the next and the south side in 2024, but that's just wishful thinking.
 
the small CRU buildings being demo’d makes me sad. they aren’t particularly architecturally significant, but they are a good stretch of nice, human-scaled, fine-grained, walkable urbanism that, due to policy and economics, doesn’t really get built anymore except where land pressures are strong enough (there’s been a few of them pop up on whyte in the last 10 years and beljan is really good for it).

while this doesn’t look as bad as j22 across the street, i am still concerned something likewise will happen there. there used to be a similarly decent stretch of small buildings on that block and what replaced it was a hulking mess of a podium, where most of the jasper ave facing facade is a wall for the large bank and grocer only need one entrance. the podium is also very tight against the sidewalk, which means pedestrians are sandwiched between that and the roaring multi-lane jasper ave. it’s horrible from a pedestrian perspective and is very half-assed urban design. and it’s not like isn‘t ample space around the core for this type of condo tower. build on a parking lot, or strip mall, or *maybe* a walk-up apartment instead.
 
^^ This project does have more, smaller CRUs included in the podium; however the question of size/scale/affordability for local businesses is a big question in my mind. These new developments are a lot more expensive to build, and thus to rent, than older buildings. Although i appreciate the density in this area, we are seeing a bit of gentrification. the Find furniture store, for example, didn't relocate to the open retail space just up 124 (southwest corner of 124 and stony plain) or anything else nearby; they moved out to 149 street. This has happened a couple times recently, as redevelopment occurs in the area. the affordability of space is what drew businesses to 124 in the first place, and if we loose that, I worry the environment for local, niche businesses here will deteriorate.
I mean, we kinda need towers like this in the area to establish a customer base for businesses, but if CRUs are overbuilt and expensive, said businesses might all end up chains and franchises. I think it's really up to developers to figureo ut how big to build, but maybe we need better information/support/guidelines regarding urban retail spaces? IDK.
Also the building Find was in was lovely, i loved the very simple parti of the chamfers moving into window space, the dark (but not black) metal, the perfect human-scale height of the windows. it was a wonderfully modern storefront; clean, concise, and not ponderously large or tall.
 
Unfortunately I think this is the single most likely outcome (and we will continue to see it many times over) with Council being unwilling to approve any sort of meaningful density inside of neighbourhoods. Certainly in West Oliver, the city has pretty clearly given preference to larger-scale development on Jasper, 124th, and 121st pretty much exclusively. Until that changes we are going to lose a lot of good, (relatively) affordable, historical retail spots. All to placate residents and their parking concerns...
 
cliffapotamus said:
^^ This project does have more, smaller CRUs included in the podium; however the question of size/scale/affordability for local businesses is a big question in my mind. These new developments are a lot more expensive to build, and thus to rent, than older buildings. Although i appreciate the density in this area, we are seeing a bit of gentrification. the Find furniture store, for example, didn't relocate to the open retail space just up 124 (southwest corner of 124 and stony plain) or anything else nearby; they moved out to 149 street. This has happened a couple times recently, as redevelopment occurs in the area. the affordability of space is what drew businesses to 124 in the first place, and if we loose that, I worry the environment for local, niche businesses here will deteriorate.
I mean, we kinda need towers like this in the area to establish a customer base for businesses, but if CRUs are overbuilt and expensive, said businesses might all end up chains and franchises. I think it's really up to developers to figureo ut how big to build, but maybe we need better information/support/guidelines regarding urban retail spaces? IDK.
Also the building Find was in was lovely, i loved the very simple parti of the chamfers moving into window space, the dark (but not black) metal, the perfect human-scale height of the windows. it was a wonderfully modern storefront; clean, concise, and not ponderously large or tall.
Click to expand...

a very good point. many of the old businesses that were on the block to the east scattered around the city. ibon relocated to the calgary trail area by scona high, i believe. we need to have better safeguards against gentrification. which was also why i was very leery of recommendation of demo’ing a walk up apartment. like, this is a nicer design and way more density, but if it’s just pushing out more affordable rentals for high priced condos, i don’t think that‘s a net win,

and yeah, this one does seem to have better massing/scale.
 
rake said:
Unfortunately I think this is the single most likely outcome (and we will continue to see it many times over) with Council being unwilling to approve any sort of meaningful density inside of neighbourhoods. Certainly in West Oliver, the city has pretty clearly given preference to larger-scale development on Jasper, 124th, and 121st pretty much exclusively. Until that changes we are going to lose a lot of good, (relatively) affordable, historical retail spots. All to placate residents and their parking concerns...
Click to expand...

you see the same thing in toronto, particularly outside of the immediate core. whether for parking concerns or historic/aesthetic concerns, many don’t want their semi-detached and single-detached neighbourhoods densified. so, approvals take place along busy corridors with subway access like yonge or sheppard, or in old low-rent commercial zones like mimico (also along a streetcar line).

you get absurd situations like this in north york:
1602183731724.jpeg

basically, they created the wider roads of doris and beecroft as a “buffer” between the high-density and commercial yonge corridor in north york centre from the older single-detached neighbourhood (which is less and less old, as the area sees the rise of “monster homes” which is basically the toronto equivalent to “skinny homes” in terms of criticism).
 
yup on all points. In this particular case, much of Oliver (that hasn't already been rezoned with some kind of DC1/DC2) is RA8-RA9. Changes made in the last couple years to RA7-9 allow for greater density, and allow for ground-floor commercial, (even RA7, which is 4 stories max building height. This is super ahead of a lot of cities) but those changes don't help anything if developers aren't taking advantage of them. I dunno if this is a business case issue, no one being willing to try mixed-use RA buildings away from a main street, or what, but we do have this 'corridor' situation starting to unfold in this area. The $700k-$800k skinny houses we have in Westmount are a sign of the entrenchment of SFH in these areas, already happening (i appreciate the skinny houses tbh, they bring a lot of new life to neighbourhoods, and the construction processes have gotten a lot less disruptive) but they also mean land assembly for even a small RA7 aprtment building just got a hell of a lot more expensive.
I mean, I love the old streetcar suburbs we have in Edmonton, but a lot of Oliver is1960's walkups, some in dubious shape. the area between 124 and 121 especially would be perfect for density 'away' from a major corridor, if the forces at play would allow it. I mean, IDK how to resolve this coming issue, and I like J23 in and of itself on the whole, but i worry it will take years and years for the business and relative affordability that makes this area great return, if at all.
 
westcoastjos said:
It is nice that we can have conversations about gentrification (whether good or bad). Even 10 years ago, it would have been more or a less a null conversation in Edmonton.
Click to expand...

i get where this is coming from but i think it’d be better if we didn‘t have to deal with conversations about gentrification and it‘d simply be a non-issue. we’d have a city where people aren’t pushed out of neighbourhoods and things would be more equitable if there were better safeguards against it.
 
dunno said:
i get where this is coming from but i think it’d be better if we didn‘t have to deal with conversations about gentrification and it‘d simply be a non-issue. we’d have a city where people aren’t pushed out of neighbourhoods and things would be more equitable if there were better safeguards against it.
Click to expand...
Are there any examples of where gentrification has been a non-issue? As you well know, Edmonton is not even close to the first city that has had to deal with gentrification - gentrification is as much of a social problem as it is an economic issue. Property values are driven up, pushing property tax up and also the barrier to entry up for new individuals/businesses. It is not only existing tenants/residents that are affected with gentrification. Toronto (as you highlighted above), Brooklyn (particularly Wiliamsburg and now other neighbourhoods) are good examples of this in a larger context than what Edmonton has had to face. You can put up safeguards from a governance perspective, but there are still natural forces that you cannot control through regulation. I definitely understand the want for it to be a non-issue, but I also don't think that is realistic from a systemic perspective either.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top