CaptainBL
Active Member
I looked through the city's development permits. There is no permit for construction of that tower.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
archited
Senior Member
kcantor
Senior Member
not in edmonton…
“The daily list of development applications is a collection of all development permit applications which have been submitted to our office. This listing identifies the type of development being applied for, the location, who the applicant is and on which date the application was made.@
all development permit applications dating back to november 2003 are available on line.
there may be “preconsultations” but those don’t constitute “permits in progress”.
Daily List of Development Applications | City of Edmonton
A list of all City of Edmonton development permit applications which have been submitted identifying the type of development being applied for, the location, who the applicant is and on which date the application was made.
CaptainBL
Active Member
Do you? Because you like to make a lot of claims and in certain cases “stake my reputation” on things that don’t end up turning out as you claim (I guess your reputation isn’t worth much).
See Kens post. There are no permits of a tower.
Edmontonian
Active Member
This is the only big permit I could find for the area, valued at $76.4 million. I think some of the confusion we're having is the total numbers of cost + units and the fact that this permit states its a 5 storey podium not a 4 storey one. As far as I can tell they are indeed only building the mid-rise for now, hopefully I'm wrong. It's likely a matter of them knowing they are going to have everything prepared for the tower and just wanting to feel out the market for the area with the mid-rise first. I suspect we won't be waiting on this tower for too long, especially with all that CRU space that needs to be filled in the podium.
archited
Senior Member
And if one wants to amend an existing permit...?
yeggator
Active Member
I, too, would like a bigger erection than 4 floors... The impact will be quite... considerable...
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
Taken July 22, 2023
Avenuer
Senior Member
Nope, any permit application sent to the City would be publicly available through Open Data. Qualico could very much be preparing an application package right now to submit, so perhaps that would be in line with your suspicion.
archited
Senior Member
What I am trying to find out... if someone has an existing permit let's say the Jameson for a 17-storey apartment tower and they wanted to increase that to a 22-storey tower would that instigate a new permit or would it be a reworking of an existing permit. For the Stationlands project might it have been a simple case of reworking an existing permit to accommodate the 25 storey tower or would it require an entirely new permit. In California jurisdictions we would simply amend the existing permit (assuming that it fits development restrictions) and it would be amended under the same initial permit. The answer here would be interesting for me for several reasons.
Clearshades
Senior Member
^^^
Wow! Very significantly changed here.
^
I would say so just from general construction experiences outside of this particularly permit realm. If they extend, that becomes a new specy, and I suspect the permit has to cover the newly potential hazards and potential added complexities associated.
Wow! Very significantly changed here.
^
I would say so just from general construction experiences outside of this particularly permit realm. If they extend, that becomes a new specy, and I suspect the permit has to cover the newly potential hazards and potential added complexities associated.
IanO
Superstar
Curious to see what is happening, for many jurisdictions now require new permits for EACH phase versus an omni-permit with multiple phases; often related to code and occupancy requirements, let alone lingering permits.
kcantor
Senior Member
^ ^^^
with a phased project in edmonton we used to have two options.
the first was to secure a development permit for each phase and then secure a building permit for that phase. minor variations between the two were theoretically possible but those were typically limited to the variations being either/or not as tall as the approved dp or not as large as the approved dp but still within the outlines of the approved dp provided neither of those things required a relaxation not included in the original and within the same scope that the original development officer would have been able to exercise his discretion if he chose to. construction would have to commence within 12 months of the development permit being issued although an extension of less than two years is possible.
the second was to secure a development permit for the entire project and then secure building permits sequentially for the various stages. minor variations at the building permit stage would be treated as above. the risk to the developer is that any development permit has a limited life span (ie. construction needs to commence within 12 months of the development permit being issued although an extension of less than two years is possible). for large projects that were under construction within that period, the development permit would still be considered to be valid until such time as there was no further construction activity for a period of 12 months failing a further extension being granted noting that all extensions were potential but not automatic. it's also worth noting that you could phase a project like this vertically as well as horizontally (ie you could build a podium and then the first 20 floors of a 40 story tower and then the second 20 floors of that tower but you couldn't get a development permit for 25 floors and then build 36).
the second option could be advantageous for a developer in that a new development permit would not be needed for each phase and the time and expense to secure a development permit for each phase could be eliminated. the disadvantage is that following sufficient inactivity the developer would effectively "go to jail: go directly to jail. do not pass go. do not collect $200" in regard to then having to reapply from square one and be subject to any zoning or other changes that may have been enacted or potentially imposed.
while changes to the original development permit could be applied for (in addition to the above noted minor changes that might be consented to at the building permit phase) at any time, these would still be formal applications requiring the same circulation and notifications internally and externally as any other development permit.
if anyone with the city has a different interpretation, i'm certainly open to being corrected on the above understanding but either option is intended to be fully transparent and accountable to the public.
with a phased project in edmonton we used to have two options.
the first was to secure a development permit for each phase and then secure a building permit for that phase. minor variations between the two were theoretically possible but those were typically limited to the variations being either/or not as tall as the approved dp or not as large as the approved dp but still within the outlines of the approved dp provided neither of those things required a relaxation not included in the original and within the same scope that the original development officer would have been able to exercise his discretion if he chose to. construction would have to commence within 12 months of the development permit being issued although an extension of less than two years is possible.
the second was to secure a development permit for the entire project and then secure building permits sequentially for the various stages. minor variations at the building permit stage would be treated as above. the risk to the developer is that any development permit has a limited life span (ie. construction needs to commence within 12 months of the development permit being issued although an extension of less than two years is possible). for large projects that were under construction within that period, the development permit would still be considered to be valid until such time as there was no further construction activity for a period of 12 months failing a further extension being granted noting that all extensions were potential but not automatic. it's also worth noting that you could phase a project like this vertically as well as horizontally (ie you could build a podium and then the first 20 floors of a 40 story tower and then the second 20 floors of that tower but you couldn't get a development permit for 25 floors and then build 36).
the second option could be advantageous for a developer in that a new development permit would not be needed for each phase and the time and expense to secure a development permit for each phase could be eliminated. the disadvantage is that following sufficient inactivity the developer would effectively "go to jail: go directly to jail. do not pass go. do not collect $200" in regard to then having to reapply from square one and be subject to any zoning or other changes that may have been enacted or potentially imposed.
while changes to the original development permit could be applied for (in addition to the above noted minor changes that might be consented to at the building permit phase) at any time, these would still be formal applications requiring the same circulation and notifications internally and externally as any other development permit.
if anyone with the city has a different interpretation, i'm certainly open to being corrected on the above understanding but either option is intended to be fully transparent and accountable to the public.
Glenco
Senior Member
MCXavierL
Active Member
BP:
| 2023-07-26 |
| Commercial Final |
| To construct FOUNDATIONS ONLY for underground pedway connector from Station Lands Parkade to Station Lands property line. |
| 10457 - 101 STREET NW |