whattheheck said:
Listen, I base my concerns on human nature. Not some rendering or blueprint where everything is perfect. How much do you wanna bet than when this building was built: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26996494/10603-107-av-nw-edmonton-central-mcdougall

that they envisioned a cool urban place to live, great for up and comers. Yeah, so how did it turn out in reality?!
Click to expand...
This is, quite notably, not an eightplex in a quiet neighborhood; it's an apartment building alongside a major avenue. Do you think we should make those illegal? Otherwise, I have no idea what this example is meant to show.
 
Gronk! said:
Thanks for bringing this back on topic. The infill debate is more suited to other existing threads.

Question:
Who is the Non-Participating Landowner who owns the land on 106 Ave between 102 St and 103 St?

View attachment 664233
Click to expand...
Landmark Homes owns this property, I believe it was the former 'Aurora' proposal from 15-20 years ago
 
whattheheck said:
What evidence do you have that it won't?

Listen, I base my concerns on human nature. Not some rendering or blueprint where everything is perfect. How much do you wanna bet than when this building was built: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26996494/10603-107-av-nw-edmonton-central-mcdougall

that they envisioned a cool urban place to live, great for up and comers. Yeah, so how did it turn out in reality?!

There's nothing inherently wrong with an 8 plex. But an 8 plex, in a neighbourhood with schools and amenities for families should at least have 4 of those units at 3 bed, two bath. And the 8 plex itself should NOT be on a lot where it barely fits, forcing homes to be so tiny, it makes it so people (who have the means) to want to eventually leave for something bigger, leaving the small, tiny apartments, clad in cheap plastic siding to people without the means. So, in 40 years, as the eigh-plex starts to age, it will be more disadvantaged that will take up residence, turning it into a rooming house.
Click to expand...
Lol that apartment on 107 Avenue is not the same at all as an infill 8-plex. For one, it was an office buiding that was converted to residential. It is also in a neighbourhood and context much different than almost all of these 8-plex proposals people are complaining about.

Also, these 8-plexes are charging market rents for gentrified neighbourhoods and the units are all self-contained, compared to rooming houses that are charging below-market on a per-bedroom basis with shared amenities. Not the same thing at all and they never will be, either.
 
whattheheck said:
What evidence do you have that it won't?

Listen, I base my concerns on human nature. Not some rendering or blueprint where everything is perfect. How much do you wanna bet than when this building was built: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26996494/10603-107-av-nw-edmonton-central-mcdougall

that they envisioned a cool urban place to live, great for up and comers. Yeah, so how did it turn out in reality?!

There's nothing inherently wrong with an 8 plex. But an 8 plex, in a neighbourhood with schools and amenities for families should at least have 4 of those units at 3 bed, two bath. And the 8 plex itself should NOT be on a lot where it barely fits, forcing homes to be so tiny, it makes it so people (who have the means) to want to eventually leave for something bigger, leaving the small, tiny apartments, clad in cheap plastic siding to people without the means. So, in 40 years, as the eigh-plex starts to age, it will be more disadvantaged that will take up residence, turning it into a rooming house.
Click to expand...
Single parents exist. 1 kid families exist. Not every family is 4 plus a dog.

The apartments behind my house are full of new Canadian families with 1-3 kids. All 1 and 2bdrm units.

Not every family can afford 3bdrms or needs it.
 
There's plenty of good examples of old apartments that were built pre-zoning, out-of-scale with existing homes at no detriment to the long term health of the neighbourhood. There's one on my block, built in 1916 and apparently has 11 units.
109 years later and it's still providing valuable housing! Though I do wish the old CRU could be resurrected.

Screenshot 2025-07-07 192639.png
 
Last edited:
JuliallThat said:
There's plenty of good examples of old apartments that were built pre-zoning, out-of-scale with existing homes at no detriment to the long term health of the neighbourhood. There's one on my block, built in 1916 and apparently has 11 units.
109 years later and it's still providing valuable housing! Though I do wish the old CRU could be resurrected.

View attachment 664576
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the Schneider Block. Love that myself - I’d love to see a cafe on the ground floor open with a few chairs and tables on the wide sidewalk in front.

Alas, that would require converting housing units to commercial which I’d be reluctant to do as they’re someone’s home right now.
 
edmonton.skyrisecities.com

Connect Centre | SkyriseEdmonton

Connect Centre, Edmonton by 1, DIALOG
edmonton.skyrisecities.com edmonton.skyrisecities.com

"Block BG (also known as Tower B) is the next phase of the ICE District development in downtown Edmonton, by Katz Group Properties, ONE Properties, and designed by DIALOG. The podium is scheduled to open in late 2022, and the residential tower has been replaced by a shorter commercial tower anchored by CWB."

With the project changing so many times (especially with CWB going elsewhere) and the names being pretty generic, I could definitely understand the confusion.
 
The impact of a tower being constructed here will be immediately felt. Daily foot traffic, the workers grabbing lunch and a drink after work.

I remember when Eleanor/Laurent was being build you'd see guys come from that tower grab food and drinks at the Sherlock's.

Ice District adjacent, but I'm really hoping something is built north of O'Byrne's for this same reason.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top