LDA21-0129 La Reina Tower- Downtown

I would like to reiterate the Historical Significance of the building, one of the very last building on our very historical street.

"Originally constructed in 1911, the Horne & Pitfield Building was constructed for Foley Bros., Larson & Co. as a wholesale grocery warehouse. The architect was E.C. Hopkins from Montreal, who designed buildings in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina and Edmonton. Hopkins is also credited as being involved with the design of the Great West Saddlery Building and the Prince of Wales Armoury. Foley Bros.'s Canadian grocery interests began in Winnipeg in 1902, and were extended to Edmonton in 1905. The Edmonton business handled "staple and fancy groceries of all kinds, biscuits and confectionery", including "leading brands of groceries, canned goods, sweet stuffs, tinned and bottle goods". The building continued in its original use through a succession of subsequent owners as the firms were absorbed and amalgamated with others. In 1943, the owners became Horne & Pitfield, a firm of wholesale grocers started in Calgary in 1904 by John Horne.

The building is significant as a good example of Commercial design from the Chicago School of Architecture, and as an excellent example of a single-purpose warehouse of which few survive. The original building received a two storey extension to the north in 1923. Two upper storeys were added to that extension in 1947 to complete a doubling of the building's size. The additions closely copied the details of the original building. The strong visual form and massing of the Horne & Pitfield Building gives it an important urban presence on 104 Street. Its prominent corner location, medium-rise scale, continuous street frontages and masonry materials add to its characteristics as a significant historic resource in the Downtown."

It would be sad indeed if we lost this very significant history of Edmonton's history. We urge strongly that the council members be very aware of the impact of their decision.

Others have mentioned that given Edmonton's current economy where other developers have already halted their projects a decision to have a historical landmark being torn down and have another block fenced off to collect garbage in the area that attracts visitors into the arena district would affect our cities first impressions.

There is mention of wind studies. Let me tell you personally any engineer can come up with a boiler plate study of minimal impacts to surroundings. We can tell after living on the street the effect of the surrounding highrises have dramatically affected our ability to enjoy our balconies where there is constant wind tunnel effect of one side of building as opposed to the other side of the building after having a tower built next to us. Anyone who also walks the corners of 102 and jasper avenue cross streets of 104 street will notice constant wind tunnel effects. This also affects the patrons of the patios on the 104 st eateries.

We donot need another highrise in this area as it is guaranteed the wind tunnel to affect the Rogers arena public area at the ground level as well as surrounding streets and avenues.

If the existing facades on the west and south side were incorporated, I would support this development. The MacLaren development on 124th Street is a good example of how this can be done.

Do not agree that the downtown should be further congested with unsold condos - this is a heritage district and granting a rezoning is a big deal. The heritage overlay should not be altered to facilitate more density when the look and feel of 104 St. is at issue. Money needs to be put into revitalizing existing development, keeping the area green (more trees and roof-top patios) and keeping the look and feel of this area heritage - this the only area in the core consistent with the history of our city.

The more density we can build downtown brings additional services, restaurants, and shopping and entertainment which encourages more development in the downtown core. We need a much higher residential density in the core because there is no requirement to build additional commercial space without the residential density. The more the better. The design of this building maintains the integrity of the warehouse district at the street level which is very important while adding a new tower above it. I’m not in love with the design of the tower, but the idea is cool

I love the reuse of the original structure. I think the residential portion needs a tweak in thr design, the height is fine.

First of all the design is an ugly, top heavy monstrosity that we don't need.

Secondly....the warehouse district has already lost half of it's historical resources when they tour them down in the 70's.

If the facade is worth saving, that should tell you something, or are you just not seeing it? It's worth saving because of it's beauty, and historical value.

The Mona Lisa is a pretty picture, but wouldn't it be nice to add a few lasers, some strobe lights, a boffo new frame, and a Pez® dispenser! For no reason at all, other than a greedy attempt to try to create more income from the 77 cm x 53 cm piece real estate it takes up on the wall.

Did I forget to mention that it's an ugly, top heavy monstrosity?

This looks really interesting. Fully support this development. My suggestions would be to include interesting lighting features to the tower itself and also to the pedestrian areas on the street.

I fully support this proposal on the premise it be built to its maximum allowable height of 160m (45 storeys), and design integrity not be scaled back. Edmonton needs quality architecture and design to further improve its skyline, and another reason to be proud of our continued growth downtown. This development will be an asset to our downtown and city as a whole.

I am in favor of more development downtown, but am very concerned by this proposal as it will demolish one of the few remaining heritage buildings in our city, and will detract from the character feel of 104 Street. The city should work on incentivizing the development of the many gravel surface parking lots downtown (higher property taxes for empty lots!!). This building would look fantastic in such a lot, but it is not worth destroying a historical structure.

We do not need another tower in downtown. There has already been rezoning for the previous Bank of Montreal space, (102nd Avenue and 101st Street) and Falcon Tower (104 St NW and 100 Ave NW). I am also unclear if Mackenzie Tower on 104th is going ahead. There is not enough residential demand for this considering Sky Residences had to convert their condos to rentals. We also don't need more commercial space at the street level considering there are empty bays in Fox One, Fox Two and Encore Tower. Fox One has had empty bays since inception in 2015 with some bays never being leased. There is also an abundance of retail space in Edmonton City Centre.

It is a shame to see another character building of Edmonton's past, especially in the heritage zone, being demolished only to use the facade. Edmonton's history of retaining and reusing buildings like this has been unfortunate, only to be magnified by all the vacant lots and gravel parking lots that do not contribute to a vibrant urban fabric. If this building falls victim to another lack of preservation effort only to sit as a vacant lot with over grown weeds, chain link fences for an unspecified amount of time, council needs to consider the lack of character that will be retained as well as the lack of contribution to the community a vacant lot will create unless there is a strong plan to advance development in the near term. I strongly encourage council to consider the developer's track record, or lack of track record redeveloping Edmonton character type buildings that result in a positive impact to the community and Edmonton's urban fabric.

As much as I would love to see this type of new development in our core, I think it's reasonable for the city to be incredibly cautious when approaching this one. We should not be rezoning Heritage sites without the most significant due-diligence possible, especially given the recent history of this developer not being able to get a project of this scale off the ground.

If the city were to implement strict time-bound zoning approvals for this application. And if the city were to restrict the ability for demolition of the current structure until the applicant could demonstrate they were actually able to move ahead with construction on the project. Then, and only then, could I support this application.

We don't have nearly enough real warehouses remaining in our warehouse district - we should only accept the removal of one of the last remaining ones for the absolute certainty of a high-quality new development. This proposal appears to pass the high-quality hurdle, but it is not even close on the certainty one.