EtoV
Active Member
Sorry, I usually try to refrain from politics on this site, but I couldn't resist the jab. Will keep it out of my posts from now on unless it actually directly effects a development.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Sorry, I usually try to refrain from politics on this site, but I couldn't resist the jab. Will keep it out of my posts from now on unless it actually directly effects a development.
Platinum107
Senior Member
Ughhhhhhh... I said I was happy under the downtown form but now I'm angry.
You see, UCP Government, we get that the wall may be a hassle to maintain and that it may seem like an unnecessary cost each year, but that isn't the f-ing point. The point is that it's an interesting and unique feature of the building's renovation that adds an air of beauty (literally) to the damn place, and keeping it is a statement that we as a province value these small but unique features to our physical landscape and are no longer an "out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new" society. My dad was one of the project managers for the federal building renovation project, and while he can vouch that the bureaucracy at times was a bit much, its still integrated with the actual building HVAC system and removing it could lead to some "unanticipated reno costs" in a little bit. it so pointless if you have to pay EITHER WAY!
Edit: I understand that with Covid there is a need to save money in certain areas, but as I said at the end there, either way they go it's gonna cost a chunk of money to maintain the wall or fix the HVAC systems.
You see, UCP Government, we get that the wall may be a hassle to maintain and that it may seem like an unnecessary cost each year, but that isn't the f-ing point. The point is that it's an interesting and unique feature of the building's renovation that adds an air of beauty (literally) to the damn place, and keeping it is a statement that we as a province value these small but unique features to our physical landscape and are no longer an "out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new" society. My dad was one of the project managers for the federal building renovation project, and while he can vouch that the bureaucracy at times was a bit much, its still integrated with the actual building HVAC system and removing it could lead to some "unanticipated reno costs" in a little bit. it so pointless if you have to pay EITHER WAY!
Edit: I understand that with Covid there is a need to save money in certain areas, but as I said at the end there, either way they go it's gonna cost a chunk of money to maintain the wall or fix the HVAC systems.
IES
New Member
Ughhhhhhh... I said I was happy under the downtown form but now I'm angry.
You see, UCP Government, we get that the wall may be a hassle to maintain and that it may seem like an unnecessary cost each year, but that isn't the f-ing point. The point is that it's an interesting and unique feature of the building's renovation that adds an air of beauty (literally) to the damn place, and keeping it is a statement that we as a province value these small but unique features to our physical landscape and are no longer an "out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new" society. My dad was one of the project managers for the federal building renovation project, and while he can vouch that the bureaucracy at times was a bit much, its still integrated with the actual building HVAC system and removing it could lead to some "unanticipated reno costs" in a little bit. it so pointless if you have to pay EITHER WAY!
Edit: I understand that with Covid there is a need to save money in certain areas, but as I said at the end there, either way they go it's gonna cost a chunk of money to maintain the wall or fix the HVAC systems.
This feature was the only ACTIVE green wall west of Toronto (at the time of construction) and I agree....there will be costs associated with the HVAC that are not being considered in the overall picture. It was a very complicated element to coordinate and I am very proud that this feature exists. I feel sad for the loss.
I mean, the fact that everyone is blaming the UCP when it was likely a public administration decision and not a political one speaks volumes to as to why I think political discussion belongs in the politics sub-forum.
Derks:
Description: To demolish a portion of a commercial building (demolition of building additions in the rear of 8113-102 ST) and to construct interior alterations inside an Automotive and Minor Recreation Vehicle Sales/Rental building at 10150-81 AVE
Permit date: November 17, 2020
Type: Development Permit
Subtype: Major Development Permit
Category: N/A
Class: Class B
Status: Approved
Address: 10150 - 81 AVENUE NW
Neighbourhood: RITCHIE
Zoning: DC1,DC1
Description: To demolish a portion of a commercial building (demolition of building additions in the rear of 8113-102 ST) and to construct interior alterations inside an Automotive and Minor Recreation Vehicle Sales/Rental building at 10150-81 AVE
Permit date: November 17, 2020
Type: Development Permit
Subtype: Major Development Permit
Category: N/A
Class: Class B
Status: Approved
Address: 10150 - 81 AVENUE NW
Neighbourhood: RITCHIE
Zoning: DC1,DC1
Rezoning to HDR scheduled for Public Hearing on November 17:
(Items 3.11 & 3.12)Charter Bylaw 19483 - Text Amendment to the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw - City Council Public Hearing - November 17, 2020
pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com
Rezoning passed.
Platinum107
Senior Member
Yeah that would be great, but it's one of those things that can just kinda slip into these conversations if we aren't careful. I'll also try and keep the discussion from that direction on any random forum too.
northlands
Senior Member
I wouldn't be so sure on that given the way the GoA works in my experience. Cabinet probably instructed their respective DMs to find examples of gov't "luxurious" spending from previous admins and cut it to make good belt tightening headlines, and this was one of the suggested outcomes that was approved. Way too much public scrutiny that could hurt the governing party for GoA admin to make this sort of public facing decision without the proper oversight. Especially in today's political climate.
EDIT: not to be a political statement either. Happens under any provincial gov't.
Avenuer
Senior Member
Won't notice much from 102 Street as the additions being demolished are located in the alley behind the main building.
IanO
Superstar
Indeed. I should not have said that the final decision lies with public administration officials, because as you pointed out, it does not.
Cost saving exercises are definitely driven by Cabinet; however, the instructions would be to find savings across the board and to make recommendations and include any risks. The interaction/relationship with the public service from the governing party is supposed to be apolitical.
I would still think that this was mostly a rubber stamp approval given the cost and relative low risk(versus a public program or piece of infrastructure with high usage/scrutiny). More small cuts like this are likely to come because by and large, there isn't a ton of public scrutiny on most small line items and they can add up fast over multiple years in savings. That said, as @IES alluded to, there is usually a lack of due diligence on small items too.
IES
New Member
If spaces in the building were utilized as originally designed, there would have been income that would have covered some of the maintenance costs that they are proposing to save....please note again, they will need to engage a mechanical consultant to redesign not knowing all that was discussed during the design phase......again, so sad
S3RI3S
New Member
Romanov
Active Member
97 Street and 122 Ave - Medical Offices and Retail
_urbanite
Senior Member
This one had a "coming soon" sign up for at least a couple of years. Nice to finally see this under construction