What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    46
The_Cat said:
edmontonjournal.com

Saturday's letters: Downtown eyesore says a lot about city hall

Having had a retail business in downtown Edmonton for 25 years and having seen firsthand the steady decline in business that has only accelerated since we closed ou…
edmontonjournal.com edmontonjournal.com
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. For all the debate that goes on on this site, at the end of the day city council and the mayor are this city's brand ambassadors. To allow such a high profile site just blocks away from city hall to remain in such poor condition for so long is nothing short of embarrassing to the city, council and the developer. If you had guests coming to your house, you'd probably tidy up simply as a matter of pride. How not enforcing, or not being able to enforce a minimum standard of care, community, or safety on empty lots like this is any different is a blatant shame and reflects on the brand ambassadors and the developer.
 
IanO said:
It's the best site in Downtown and will most certainly move forward in due time, but how this continues to be left is abhorrent.
Click to expand...
i thought that was 101st and 104 ave?

oops, i must have been thinking 101 st and jasper... or was that 101 street and jasper... or maybe it was 100 st and jasper...

oh well, regardless of whether it's "the best site in downtown" in downtown or not, you are absolutely correct - the condition it's been left in is abhorrent.
 
kcantor said:
i thought that was 101st and 104 ave?

oops, i must have been thinking 101 st and jasper... or was that 101 street and jasper... or maybe it was 100 st and jasper...

oh well, regardless of whether it's "the best site in downtown" in downtown or not, you are absolutely correct - the condition it's been left in is abhorrent.
Click to expand...
I am curious about this. One would think that if the city had the power to require property owners to do something in particular with their land (i.e. landscaping/hardscaping) they probably would do so. Is there a lack of authority under the Municipal Government Act or is this a true case of the municipality lacking the will to take on large land owners? Is it not possible to tie a demo permit to the subsequent development permit to keep parcels from sitting vacant for too long?
 
tkoe_ said:
I am curious about this. One would think that if the city had the power to require property owners to do something in particular with their land (i.e. landscaping/hardscaping) they probably would do so. Is there a lack of authority under the Municipal Government Act or is this a true case of the municipality lacking the will to take on large land owners? Is it not possible to tie a demo permit to the subsequent development permit to keep parcels from sitting vacant for too long?
Click to expand...
I decided to look into this and ironically but not surprisingly, I found a CBC article from 2019 highlighting Regency's other unkept downtown site at the Emerald. Back then, Regency had the balls to justify why the site was in such poor condition, yet almost two years since that article, it is still in the same embarrassing condition.

In the article, the City said it does not have the authority to compel an owner to develop their land, fair enough. BUT the article refers to the Community Standards Bylaw to set a minimum standards for nuisance on land like concerns like Regency's. I looked into this bylaw and it does lay out the following "...For the purpose of greater certainty a nuisance, in respect of land, means land, or any portion thereof, that shows signs of a serious disregard for general maintenance and upkeep, whether or not it is detrimental to the surrounding area some examples of which include...loose building or construction materials...unkempt grass or weeds higher than 10 centimetres...that obstructs any sidewalk adjacent to the land...any accessible excavation, ditch, drain or standing water that could pose a danger to the public...any construction project or activity not completed within five years of the date the building permit for the project or activity was issued by the City"

So it appears there are bylaws that are intended to protect the city and the community from exactly what Regency continues to do at multiple sites downtown. My questions are:1. are these bylaws strong enough (they appear to be?) or 2. is the city simply not enforcing any of those bylaws quoted above that Regency and/or others like the owner of the Arlignton site continue to consciously ignore?

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/jasper-avenue-vacant-lot-recency-developments-1.5278155; https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/assets/Bylaws/C14600.pdf
 
KreationYEG said:
View attachment 263586
Click to expand...
The fact this photo is a week away from being one year old, and still not a single thing has been done to improve the site, is one of the most disturbing displays of civic apathy I've seen in my quarter century in this city. Woof.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit surprised the downtown community league in the case of the 101 st site and Oliver community league in the case of the Emerald site are not more publicly objecting about this as I've seen some community leagues be regarding issues in their neighbourhoods.

That CBC article referenced above regarding Emerald was brought on by an individual Oliver resident that was upset about Regency.

Do developers like Regency sometimes provide money to community league initiatives as part of these big projects? I thought I've read that in the past. If so, I wonder if this could be a reason these community leagues are so quiet on these two issues. If not, I still would like to see these community leagues advocating that these sites be cleaned up.


A couple months back I forwarded the above article to CBC to do a follow up. No response.
I forwarded to Oliver community league as well to see if this was an issue they would take on... no update a few months later.
 
Last edited:
As per this article below on Emerald, the Oliver community is in line for $200,000 as compensation for this project. Since that money was part of the development approval, i don't imagine Regency could backtrack on that even if the OCL publicly advocated for Regency to clean up this site. Although if Regency was to do any future projects in the area, perhaps any future contributions could be impacted?
I don't know how community leagues work or how dollar amounts are set for developers to compensate communities, so if someone is in the know, maybe they could share.

 
The old BMO/Tegler site downtown is particularly embarrassing, being in such a high profile location. It seems to be cursed by bad decisions by both developers and local politicians.

At this point, all of this is reflecting badly on the company. If they do not have the ability to move ahead with this project or their other eyesore further down Jasper Ave, they should just sell the sites off to someone who can move projects ahead.

You would have thought by now they might have at least put in some sod and cleaned up the sites, but either PR is not their forte or they just don't care.
 
BFitzStructEng said:
Someone should crowdfund a large billboard next to this site informing everyone that this mess belongs to Regency, including verbiage and contact info to effectively shame them.
Click to expand...

"This mess brought to you by Regency Developments"

Might as well make it 2 large billboards so we can also put one up by their swampy hole in the ground on Jasper Ave
 
Last edited:
They don't even need to sod it or anything close to that fancy. Just bring in a crew and equipment to at least clean up the rubble and put in proper construction hoarding. It's like basic table manners.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top