[Mattyeg]

This wouldn’t have been awful, but it would have basically been Mettera II. I feel very neutral about this not going ahead lol. Not sure how big the site is, but It sounds like if they push the height to the alley and keep whyte façade human scale they could make something work?

 

[cmd uw]

You know that just because the EDC is issuing a non-support doesn't mean the project is dead or they will reduce the height of the building. The applicant can and has the right to advance to Council and let them decide.

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

LDA20-0216 Strathcona The Baron Rezoning

Because of public health issues, the City can't host an in-person Public Engagement Event to share information and collect feedback, as usual. This page is to help you find out information and tell us what you think, instead of having an in-person meeting. Please watch the video and review...

engaged.edmonton.ca

A new(?) render was included in the video here that has a more 'Edwardian' influenced Whyte-facing facade. The planner notes that "the podium of the building is intended to be compatible in character and scale with the surrounding historic area."

Normally I hate when the term “faux-historical” gets thrown around by people who describe buildings that dare to use more classical proportions or materials, but in this case I think it’s a perfect use. To replace an extant historical structure with something that’s trying to look old, just to maintain the idea that this is an old area, while actively chipping away at that old character, is mind bogglingly silly to me. For all that effort why not just maintain the original facade as your mandated historic frontage?

 

[archited]

I say incorporate the facades of the existing buildings modified to build the retro version back to the date of original construction -- anything less leads to the slow drip... drip... drip... of the destruction of Old Strathcona away from its intended historical functionality. This is an important case that needs to be heard loud and clear!

 

[rake]

I could certainly get on board with incorporating the (historical) facade into this project, assuming it was done well. Obviously, I would love to just see a restoration of the existing building to undo the horrible 'face lifts' it's been subjected to over the years, but that feels very unlikely to occur any time soon.

I am about as YIMBY as they get, but I have to say this one has broken me a little bit - the building in it's current form is a mess, but a properly restored version would absolutely be worth protecting at all costs.

 

[DutchBoy]

New renders posted on Twitter (note: community folks have pointed out this format of feedback solicitation may be problematic). I'm kind of impressed at how realistic the existing buildings look in this render. I like the look much better here than in the original cartoony pictures. I'm also a huge fan of CLT construction! Changing my vote up, though a bit irked at the feedback solicitation.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1340037270892494848

(City of Edmonton responded saying they will look into this.)

 

[IanO]

I have warmed up to this one.

 

[archited]

 

[Guy 1]

Big props for going with mass timber on this one. However, I still don't like the podium much - I don't really see how it fits the area at all.

Also, very strange comment from the legit doc regarding the issues with the engagement process. The City's engagement platforms are all online right now, and sorting through the relevant and irrelevant feedback gathered in an engagement session is nothing new. Unless the developer is directing randoms to skew the feedback (which, from that tweet is a pretty big stretch), seems like a bit of an odd complaint to direct at a specific project.

 

[thommyjo]

I like it! Hope we see more mass timber proposals in edmonton.

 

[David A]

I don't know if the developer has an agreement with existing tenants, if not it seems a bit presumptuous to put their name in the picture. Also, there are good reasons for the four storey limit in the area, one of them is to preserve the historical character. I might be a bit more charitable towards exceeding it a bit, if it was an empty lot or a building with no historical character that was not being used or could not be repurposed.

 

[Fetch]

Honestly I would be more empathetic to the four storey limit on this site if it wasn't immediately adjacent to the Meterra and Raymond Block.

The new renders look great and have certainly changed my tune on this project. I like the mass timber construction too.

 

[David A]

I don't dislike the building, but the location is wrong. I suspect Meterra was built before limits were put in place and I feel it detracts from the area. Raymond Block was done much better and tries to fit in with the historical feel of the area and is closer to the 4 storey limit. I believe an exception was made for it in part because it was a lot that had been empty for years.

This has the danger of becoming a slippery slope argument to destroy more of one of the few historical areas we have in this city. I realize some Edmontonians do not value history much, that is evident from development in our city over the years, but some of us do.

 

[Windermere]

Love it!

 

[quit]

I don't dislike the building, but the location is wrong. I suspect Meterra was built before limits were put in place and I feel it detracts from the area. Raymond Block was done much better and tries to fit in with the historical feel of the area and is closer to the 4 storey limit. I believe an exception was made for it in part because it was a lot that had been empty for years.

This has the danger of becoming a slippery slope argument to destroy more of one of the few historical areas we have in this city. I realize some Edmontonians do not value history much, that is evident from development in our city over the years, but some of us do.

So if a lot is vacant for a while, you toss out your principles relative to the neighbourhood history you are trying to protect? If so, I think those arguing that this development is out of place lose a lot of credibility. There are other lots around Whyte Ave that have been vacant for a while, so it seems odd to simply bend the rules for those as well. Note I am playing devil's advocate here - I support this development and think Whyte Ave is pretty much the perfect fit for mid rise development. If not here, where else? Given the post pandemic world we are going to find ourselves in, I think mid rise residential is going to be required to drive business in areas such as Whyte as less people go out of their way for destination type of places.

As someone that lived in the area for quite a while and still lives relatively close in Bonnie Doon, Whyte Ave is in a pretty sad place right now. It needs well thought out developments like this to give it a chance.