Jake Gyllenhaal, Rachel Bilson and the Olson twins? 'Movin' on up to the east site' indeed...

kbeQsqE.jpg
 
No surprise here. A complete overbuilding of the site. Goofy and awkward towers on a boring lifestyle mall as you would expect from Kirkor Miami and Liberty Developments Edmonton.
 
Didn't that downtown Honda just get expanded? And the original dealership was only built in 2013
 
Could the city stipulate that the heritage building be rebuilt and configured into this development?

This will extend to Richmond St? I guess that means we'll lose these buildings?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6538...4!1s7qRkRLPySABLuzaDcdf0LA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

These are handsome buildings and deserve to be salvaged. It would be nice to see their outer walls retained at least, and have the towers rise behind them.

These modern additions could be removed (preserving the white warehouse on the right) and provide an access point from Ontario St.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6541...4!1sJuYuFcBDA39yKMWIwb_g9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 
Wow more than I expected. I too think that the interesting crowns of the tower should be be carried through to the base. Do we think there will be enough of a client base to support the retail in the base?
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
They are being incorporated into the podium

ArVsxTA.png


ZzWhIBM.png


Ru4tYtY.png
Click to expand...

Why incorporated? Why not work around them? So far this neighbourhood has avoided the podium template. This all just seems lazy and half assed. Tower triplets. One standard for the podium with the heritage facades slapped on it. The mews with the glass canopy is the extent of creativity here and is a pretty commonplace element.
 
So I just noticed that page 2 of the application form lists that there are less than 6 dwelling units, but there are actually several dozen people living in one of those buildings. Is that an error or do they just not want to file a Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Screening and Declaration form?
 
altpersona said:
So I just noticed that page 2 of the application form lists that there are less than 6 dwelling units, but there are actually several dozen people living in one of those buildings. Is that an error or do they just not want to file a Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Screening and Declaration form?
Click to expand...

From the supporting doc Planning & Urban Design Rationale:
Based on the analysis set out in our Housing Issues Report, which is attached as Appendix A to t his report, it is our opinion that Policy 3 .2.1(5) does not apply to the subject application, in that there are only two rental residential units currently on the site. The rental units at 90 Ontario Street are subject to leases that do not permit residential occupancy. In our opinion, illegal residential units do not reasonably fall within the definition of “rental housing” under the Official Plan.
 
Stupidandshallow said:
The rental units at 90 Ontario Street are subject to leases that do not permit residential occupancy. In our opinion, illegal residential units do not reasonably fall within the definition of “rental housing” under the Official Plan.
Click to expand...

No kidding, but then again at some point they must have all been "live and work studios" acknowledged by the landlord,
..i guess the installation of a shower stall without consent would have made them illegal living spaces in a commercial building

 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top