Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: The Wedge - Jasper Ave - Proposed

  1. #1
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    33

    Default The Wedge - Jasper Ave - Proposed


  2. #2
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parkview
    Posts
    328

    Default

    We've already got a thread going on this one

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...ories-Proposed
    Edmonton is a very exciting place to be right now.

  3. #3
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,373
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  4. #4

    Default

    Sounds like Building Permit concerns that are resolved behind the scenes and not in the effort of a DP appeal.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    Impressive list of objections to derail this project.

    Good job Melcor. Interesting how they are concerned about encroachment to their property that's existed for over 50 years. They probably want some money.

  6. #6
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Impressive list of objections to derail this project.

    Good job Melcor. Interesting how they are concerned about encroachment to their property that's existed for over 50 years. They probably want some money.
    this one is definitely not about the money - the total value of this project would barely be a rounding error for melcor.

    the underlying issues raises are non-compliance with prescriptive zoning regulations. you are free to agree or not on whether they should be complied with or not. sdab will make that determination here.

    you are also free to agree or not on whether such prescriptive zoning regulations should exist or not. that’s not likely to be addressed by sdab but is still a topic that warrants much more attention than it gets.
    Last edited by kcantor; 16-03-2019 at 09:43 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #7
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Impressive list of objections to derail this project.

    Good job Melcor. Interesting how they are concerned about encroachment to their property that's existed for over 50 years. They probably want some money.
    this one is definitely not about the money - the total value if this project would barely be a rounding error for melcor.

    the underlying issues raises are non-compliance with prescriptive zoning regulations. you are free to agree or not on whether they should be complied with or not. sdab will make that determination here.

    you are also free to agree or not on whether such prescriptive zoning regulations should exist or not. that’s not likely to be addressed by sdab but is still a topic that warrants much more attention than it gets.
    Sure I don't agree though, because with land development and property rights it's always about money, be it cash now or value later. It looks like a petty squabble that ultimately would stop the redevelopment of a blight property on the main street of Edmonton.
    But such is the process when good faith discussions don't seem to be going anywhere.

  8. #8
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Impressive list of objections to derail this project.

    Good job Melcor. Interesting how they are concerned about encroachment to their property that's existed for over 50 years. They probably want some money.
    this one is definitely not about the money - the total value if this project would barely be a rounding error for melcor.

    the underlying issues raises are non-compliance with prescriptive zoning regulations. you are free to agree or not on whether they should be complied with or not. sdab will make that determination here.

    you are also free to agree or not on whether such prescriptive zoning regulations should exist or not. thatís not likely to be addressed by sdab but is still a topic that warrants much more attention than it gets.
    Sure I don't agree though, because with land development and property rights it's always about money, be it cash now or value later. It looks like a petty squabble that ultimately would stop the redevelopment of a blight property on the main street of Edmonton.
    But such is the process when good faith discussions don't seem to be going anywhere.
    then i guess we shall have to agree to disagree on this and on your opinions of the [land] development industry even though based on your post you seem to know it much better than me.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Impressive list of objections to derail this project.

    Good job Melcor. Interesting how they are concerned about encroachment to their property that's existed for over 50 years. They probably want some money.
    this one is definitely not about the money - the total value if this project would barely be a rounding error for melcor.

    the underlying issues raises are non-compliance with prescriptive zoning regulations. you are free to agree or not on whether they should be complied with or not. sdab will make that determination here.

    you are also free to agree or not on whether such prescriptive zoning regulations should exist or not. that’s not likely to be addressed by sdab but is still a topic that warrants much more attention than it gets.
    Sure I don't agree though, because with land development and property rights it's always about money, be it cash now or value later. It looks like a petty squabble that ultimately would stop the redevelopment of a blight property on the main street of Edmonton.
    But such is the process when good faith discussions don't seem to be going anywhere.
    then i guess we shall have to agree to disagree on this and on your opinions of the [land] development industry even though based on your post you seem to know it much better than me.
    I'm sure you did lots for free in your career and none of it was to entrench value in your brand and relative current and future properties.
    It was just good will with nothing ever expected in return. Just like every business,always doing things for free.

  10. #10
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Impressive list of objections to derail this project.

    Good job Melcor. Interesting how they are concerned about encroachment to their property that's existed for over 50 years. They probably want some money.
    this one is definitely not about the money - the total value if this project would barely be a rounding error for melcor.

    the underlying issues raises are non-compliance with prescriptive zoning regulations. you are free to agree or not on whether they should be complied with or not. sdab will make that determination here.

    you are also free to agree or not on whether such prescriptive zoning regulations should exist or not. thatís not likely to be addressed by sdab but is still a topic that warrants much more attention than it gets.
    Sure I don't agree though, because with land development and property rights it's always about money, be it cash now or value later. It looks like a petty squabble that ultimately would stop the redevelopment of a blight property on the main street of Edmonton.
    But such is the process when good faith discussions don't seem to be going anywhere.
    then i guess we shall have to agree to disagree on this and on your opinions of the [land] development industry even though based on your post you seem to know it much better than me.
    I'm sure you did lots for free in your career and none of it was to entrench value in your brand and relative current and future properties.
    It was just good will with nothing ever expected in return. Just like every business,always doing things for free.
    iíve already agreed to disagree, thatís all youíre going to get from me on this one.

    as for my brand and my reputation, they can speak for themselves and stand on their own without my having to defend them from your accusations/attributions.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #11
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Impressive list of objections to derail this project.

    Good job Melcor. Interesting how they are concerned about encroachment to their property that's existed for over 50 years. They probably want some money.
    this one is definitely not about the money - the total value if this project would barely be a rounding error for melcor.

    the underlying issues raises are non-compliance with prescriptive zoning regulations. you are free to agree or not on whether they should be complied with or not. sdab will make that determination here.

    you are also free to agree or not on whether such prescriptive zoning regulations should exist or not. that’s not likely to be addressed by sdab but is still a topic that warrants much more attention than it gets.
    Sure I don't agree though, because with land development and property rights it's always about money, be it cash now or value later. It looks like a petty squabble that ultimately would stop the redevelopment of a blight property on the main street of Edmonton.
    But such is the process when good faith discussions don't seem to be going anywhere.
    then i guess we shall have to agree to disagree on this and on your opinions of the [land] development industry even though based on your post you seem to know it much better than me.
    I'm sure you did lots for free in your career and none of it was to entrench value in your brand and relative current and future properties.
    It was just good will with nothing ever expected in return. Just like every business,always doing things for free.
    i’ve already agreed to disagree, that’s all you’re going to get from me on this one.

    as for my brand and my reputation, they can speak for themselves and stand on their own without my having to defend them from your accusations/attributions.
    You made it personal, don't get mad at me. Have a good Saturday, too nice out to be fighting.

  12. #12

    Default

    Now, as I was saying, being anonymous on the forum tends to avoid the personal challenges. It also lessens a concern for character and career assassination attempts. (Itís just simplifying as Iíd rather debate the topic, the idea, the philosophy, psychology, ďfactsĒ, etc without reference to my personal background.)

  13. #13
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Now, as I was saying, being anonymous on the forum tends to avoid the personal challenges. It also lessens a concern for character and career assassination attempts. (Itís just simplifying as Iíd rather debate the topic, the idea, the philosophy, psychology, ďfactsĒ, etc without reference to my personal background.)
    which also means youíre prepared - forced - to accept everything at face value with no reference or credit - or discredit for that matter - for the expertise and experience of the poster making the argument. fair enough - your call in both directions but i think there is more lost in both directions than gained in either with that position. itís maybe worth itís own thread so as not to derail this one any further but iím not sure the prevalence/ease of anonymous positive feedback loops isnít a large underlying factor in what we see in the headlines too much and too often. they donít materialize out of nowhere and they canít be countered anonymously.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #14

    Default

    Melcor wants to protect its investment, concerns about snow loads, structural integrity of the Birks building are valid. However, Melcor trying to force changes to the Wedge's design and protect a ghost sign that protrudes on the Wedge's airspace are not valid.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  15. #15

    Default

    Seem fair enough to me.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  16. #16
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    Melcor wants to protect its investment, concerns about snow loads, structural integrity of the Birks building are valid. However, Melcor trying to force changes to the Wedge's design and protect a ghost sign that protrudes on the Wedge's airspace are not valid.
    it is the existing building being demolished - and possibly the proposed new one - that encroaches on the birks building site between .25 and .54 metres according to the documentation submitted and linked above. assuming the ghost signage diamond is within that, it is not protruding on the wedge’s airspace and is entirely within melcor’s airspace above their lot. there is nothing invalid about that.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Now, as I was saying, being anonymous on the forum tends to avoid the personal challenges. It also lessens a concern for character and career assassination attempts. (It’s just simplifying as I’d rather debate the topic, the idea, the philosophy, psychology, “facts”, etc without reference to my personal background.)
    which also means you’re prepared - forced - to accept everything at face value with no reference or credit - or discredit for that matter - for the expertise and experience of the poster making the argument. fair enough - your call in both directions but i think there is more lost in both directions than gained in either with that position. it’s maybe worth it’s own thread so as not to derail this one any further but i’m not sure the prevalence/ease of anonymous positive feedback loops isn’t a large underlying factor in what we see in the headlines too much and too often. they don’t materialize out of nowhere and they can’t be countered anonymously.
    I don’t need any credit or respect via an online forum. I’m almost certain that you don’t either. I suspect that had c2e gone in the direction I suspect creators wished, many posters would have been fine with full disclosure, however it never did achieve that positive, creative, promotional and constructively critical level. That said, since my posts are anonymous I don’t really have to care at all what people think about my posts.

    As I’ve stated I think it would be very interesting to have every post having to stand completely on its own via totally anonymity with no real or fake user names attached to them at all. However when they get extreme, maybe users could flag or vote on the comment of pattern of comments and the real users name would them be attached to the posts.

    So each thread would appear more like a Wikipedia article in a conversational form. A problem with Wikipedia is that users can delete other user’s information and wording. This has both an up and downside but is aimed at creating a singular presentation and not an string of evolving and growing information.
    Last edited by KC; 16-03-2019 at 03:54 PM.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    Melcor wants to protect its investment, concerns about snow loads, structural integrity of the Birks building are valid. However, Melcor trying to force changes to the Wedge's design and protect a ghost sign that protrudes on the Wedge's airspace are not valid.
    it is the existing building being demolished - and possibly the proposed new one - that encroaches on the birks building site between .25 and .54 metres according to the documentation submitted and linked above. assuming the ghost signage diamond is within that, it is not protruding on the wedge’s airspace and is entirely within melcor’s airspace above their lot. there is nothing invalid about that.

    The existing building is flush up against the Birks building, and is probably just as old. The diamond protrudes out into the Wedge's airspace as shown in google maps. If Melcor's property line does extend half a meter into the existing building then they will need to pull up the original agreement that was had between both buildings. I honestly don't understand how an adjacent property owner would own the wall of a building beside it, unless they were originally built as one building.


    Here is a steetview of both buildings.
    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5409...7i13312!8i6656

    Zooming into the air shows the relationship both buildings from above. I guess Melcor might be upset about the loss of sunlight in the back of the Birks building.
    Last edited by ThomasH; 16-03-2019 at 05:09 PM.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  19. #19
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    Melcor wants to protect its investment, concerns about snow loads, structural integrity of the Birks building are valid. However, Melcor trying to force changes to the Wedge's design and protect a ghost sign that protrudes on the Wedge's airspace are not valid.
    it is the existing building being demolished - and possibly the proposed new one - that encroaches on the birks building site between .25 and .54 metres according to the documentation submitted and linked above. assuming the ghost signage diamond is within that, it is not protruding on the wedge’s airspace and is entirely within melcor’s airspace above their lot. there is nothing invalid about that.

    The existing building is flush up against the Birks building, and is probably just as old. The diamond protrudes out into the Wedge's airspace as shown in google maps. If Melcor's property line does extend half a meter into the existing building then they will need to pull up the original agreement that was had between both buildings. I honestly don't understand how an adjacent property owner would own the wall of a building beside it, unless they were originally built as one building.


    Here is a steetview of both buildings.
    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5409...7i13312!8i6656

    Zooming into the air shows the relationship both buildings from above. I guess Melcor might be upset about the loss of sunlight in the back of the Birks building.
    from the link above:

    "Background Brief

    ... It was discussed that the existing building was currently encroaching on Melcor’s land anywhere from 0.25 metres to 0.54 metres (see attached Appendix A for the Lot Boundary Plan as provided by Holo Blok)."


    "2. Property Encroachment Unresolved Issues

    Melcor is very concerned that the encroachment of the existing building (and possibly the new Wedge building) was not addressed in the conditions of the development permit. A review of the DP drawings at the City revealed that it was not clear whether the intent of the new building was to encroach on Melcor’s property, however, the existing condition is shown on the Lot Boundary Plan that was submitted as part of the application. This question should have been raised by the Approving Authority prior to the approval of the permit. Furthermore, a condition should have been inserted on the permit that if the intent is for the new building to encroach on neighbouring property, that an agreement must be in place before drawings are released for building permit review.


    i would put more confidence in a survey plan that a street view from google to determine the property lines between the two lots. and while it's not uncommon for buildings - particularly old buildings to encroach on neighboring parcels, just the fact they did doesn't mean the owner is entitled to continue that in the future without the consent of the adjacent owner which clearly has not been obtained here.
    Last edited by kcantor; 16-03-2019 at 06:10 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  20. #20

    Default

    Fair enough Ken, but all buildings tend to shift and settle over time. If the building is leaning onto the Birks building, or vice versa then the structural integrity of the Birks building must be addressed as I have mentioned in post #14. It makes me wonder about the Wedge's relationship with the building on the other side. Property lines aren't meant to move, but if a winding creek separates two square shaped plots of land, one being forested, and the other being farm. The farmer will plow the soil right up to the creek's edge, even if the creek moves onto the other property. Where the creek moves onto the farm land that area remains forested. Both landowners have an unwritten agreement to allow the creek to separate the plots of land, but legally the divide line is straight. This common sense approach tends to lead to legal problems later on. I'm sure they will find a way to hammer it out.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Impressive list of objections to derail this project.

    Good job Melcor. Interesting how they are concerned about encroachment to their property that's existed for over 50 years. They probably want some money.
    Good to know i didn't have a sinister mind. Perhaps they don't care for the particular design?

    I'm still adamant that the design- although nice and unique- is in the wrong location.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    I can't understand why people would have objections to Melcor wanting a new building on a neighbouring property to be built on the neighbouring property and not on theirs. When the old building is being demolished is the time to have the encroachment corrected.

  23. #23

    Default

    If it is that simple, why all the "princess drama" though? I agree with your position if that is the case as it would be straight forward as that.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  24. #24
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,875

    Default

    Princess drama is the best kind of drama.

  25. #25

    Default

    If it was at 'Princess Theatre' lol.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •