LDA19-0253 Village at ICE District

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Engagement has concluded

A rendering of Village at Ice District (subject to change)

***This engagement has concluded and a What We Heard Report is available.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application. Please review the information on this page and tell us what you think or ask any questions below before the end of the day on April 24, 2022. 

The City will use any feedback that you share to make sure the review of the application is as complete as possible, and to inform conversations with the applicant about potential revisions to address concerns or opportunities raised. Feedback will also be summarized for City Council so that they are aware of the public’s perspective prior to making a decision.

APPLICATION DETAILS

The City has received an application to redevelop lands north of Rogers Place, generally between 105 Avenue and 106 Avenue, and from the lane between 101 Street and 102 Street to 104 Street. The applicant’s proposed name for the redevelopment area is Village at ICE District.

The application has two main components, a proposed rezoning and proposed changes to the Central McDougall/Queen Mary Park Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP).

Proposed Rezoning

The proposed rezoning (map) is from two existing (DC1) Direct Development Control Provisions (Areas 1 & 5 - Precinct C of the Central McDougall/Queen Mary Park Area Redevelopment Plan) to a new Special Area Zone called the (CMUV) Central McDougall Urban Village Zone and the (AP) Public Parks Zone. A portion of the existing DC1 Provision (Area 5 - Precinct C) would remain on the north edge of the rezoning area.

The proposed rezoning would allow for the development of a high-density, mixed-use urban village containing a maximum of 2500 new residential units, retail and commercial space, as well as a new public park of at least 2000 m2. Development of the area would happen over many years and include a variety of buildings, with maximum allowable heights of between 26 and 90 metres (approximately 6 to 25 storeys) and a maximum overall floor area ratio of 10.0.

The applicant’s submission to the Edmonton Design Committee contains detailed text and visual explanations of the proposed zone. The Edmonton Design Committee reviewed this submission on March 15, 2022, and provided a letter of support for this application while also providing recommendations for improvement.

There is opportunity for public feedback to help inform the regulations (building height, setbacks from property lines, etc.) and allowable uses (types of businesses and homes) in the new proposed new (CMUV) Central McDougall Urban Village Special Area Zone. However, the applicant is not required to provide detailed building designs at the rezoning stage. These detailed designs will be determined at the development and building permit stage, should the rezoning be approved by Council.

Proposed Changes to the Central McDougall/Queen Mary Park Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP)

The proposed amendment to the ARP would add a new section (Precinct H: Urban Village) to the plan that provides the vision, objectives and principles for the proposed (CMUV) Central McDougall Urban Village Zone area. This includes direction for transportation infrastructure, public realm improvements, urban design and open space. The associated proposed rezoning noted above is designed to implement this direction. Several other changes to text, maps and figures are also proposed to reflect the Urban Village direction and new (CMUV) Central McDougall Urban Village Special Area Zone, if approved.



SPECIAL PUBLIC AMENITY CONTRIBUTION FEEDBACK OPPORTUNITY

Separate to this application, the City is also seeking feedback on how to spend $150,000 allocated towards the creation of a public amenity within the Central McDougall neighbourhood. The City received this money from the landowner of the proposed rezoning site as the result of negotiations on a previous application, which allowed for some land north of Rogers Place to be used as a temporary surface parking lot. A “public amenity” could include, but is not limited to, a park or public park improvements, community garden, public art piece, community building or community league facility improvements. Please consider providing feedback on your preferred use of this money in the neighbourhood through the “Special Amenity Contribution Feedback” tool below.




MORE INFORMATION

For more information on the proposed rezoning and associated plan amendment application, including the site and application history, please see the Village at ICE rezoning webpage. Additional links and technical documentation associated with the application are also available in the right hand sidebar of this page for review.

***This engagement has concluded and a What We Heard Report is available.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application. Please review the information on this page and tell us what you think or ask any questions below before the end of the day on April 24, 2022. 

The City will use any feedback that you share to make sure the review of the application is as complete as possible, and to inform conversations with the applicant about potential revisions to address concerns or opportunities raised. Feedback will also be summarized for City Council so that they are aware of the public’s perspective prior to making a decision.

APPLICATION DETAILS

The City has received an application to redevelop lands north of Rogers Place, generally between 105 Avenue and 106 Avenue, and from the lane between 101 Street and 102 Street to 104 Street. The applicant’s proposed name for the redevelopment area is Village at ICE District.

The application has two main components, a proposed rezoning and proposed changes to the Central McDougall/Queen Mary Park Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP).

Proposed Rezoning

The proposed rezoning (map) is from two existing (DC1) Direct Development Control Provisions (Areas 1 & 5 - Precinct C of the Central McDougall/Queen Mary Park Area Redevelopment Plan) to a new Special Area Zone called the (CMUV) Central McDougall Urban Village Zone and the (AP) Public Parks Zone. A portion of the existing DC1 Provision (Area 5 - Precinct C) would remain on the north edge of the rezoning area.

The proposed rezoning would allow for the development of a high-density, mixed-use urban village containing a maximum of 2500 new residential units, retail and commercial space, as well as a new public park of at least 2000 m2. Development of the area would happen over many years and include a variety of buildings, with maximum allowable heights of between 26 and 90 metres (approximately 6 to 25 storeys) and a maximum overall floor area ratio of 10.0.

The applicant’s submission to the Edmonton Design Committee contains detailed text and visual explanations of the proposed zone. The Edmonton Design Committee reviewed this submission on March 15, 2022, and provided a letter of support for this application while also providing recommendations for improvement.

There is opportunity for public feedback to help inform the regulations (building height, setbacks from property lines, etc.) and allowable uses (types of businesses and homes) in the new proposed new (CMUV) Central McDougall Urban Village Special Area Zone. However, the applicant is not required to provide detailed building designs at the rezoning stage. These detailed designs will be determined at the development and building permit stage, should the rezoning be approved by Council.

Proposed Changes to the Central McDougall/Queen Mary Park Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP)

The proposed amendment to the ARP would add a new section (Precinct H: Urban Village) to the plan that provides the vision, objectives and principles for the proposed (CMUV) Central McDougall Urban Village Zone area. This includes direction for transportation infrastructure, public realm improvements, urban design and open space. The associated proposed rezoning noted above is designed to implement this direction. Several other changes to text, maps and figures are also proposed to reflect the Urban Village direction and new (CMUV) Central McDougall Urban Village Special Area Zone, if approved.



SPECIAL PUBLIC AMENITY CONTRIBUTION FEEDBACK OPPORTUNITY

Separate to this application, the City is also seeking feedback on how to spend $150,000 allocated towards the creation of a public amenity within the Central McDougall neighbourhood. The City received this money from the landowner of the proposed rezoning site as the result of negotiations on a previous application, which allowed for some land north of Rogers Place to be used as a temporary surface parking lot. A “public amenity” could include, but is not limited to, a park or public park improvements, community garden, public art piece, community building or community league facility improvements. Please consider providing feedback on your preferred use of this money in the neighbourhood through the “Special Amenity Contribution Feedback” tool below.




MORE INFORMATION

For more information on the proposed rezoning and associated plan amendment application, including the site and application history, please see the Village at ICE rezoning webpage. Additional links and technical documentation associated with the application are also available in the right hand sidebar of this page for review.

Tell Us What You Think About The Application

Please let us know what you like and what could be better about this application. What should Council know as they decide whether or not to approve the rezoning? Others that visit this part of the site will be able to see your comments.

Please note you must be registered on Engaged Edmonton in order to provide feedback. Only your username will be displayed publicly, all other information is kept confidential. We use this information to distinguish between feedback received from the neighbouring/local area residents and other interested stakeholders. All comments go through a moderation process, and may take up to 1-2 hours to publicly appear on the website.

If you are unable to provide feedback on this site, you can also provide feedback to the Project Planner directly via the contact information under the "who's listening" section of the page. Please refrain from commenting on the site, and providing a duplicate comment to the planner. It is not necessary to do both in order for feedback to be captured.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

I'm 100% in favour of this development. I think this is exactly what we need in the city and I'd love to see this happening in more areas.
You can see how organically this is happening in the area close to 124 ST and 102 AVE. The creation of the elevated park should be a priority allocated in the first or firsts stages of this development since it will beneficiate the entire community. I'm convinced that the creation of mix used areas will help to create a more vibrant and healthy downtown.
There are a lot of residential already closer to 107 AVE, which will favorate from the additional services and hype that will come with this development.

davcocom 2 months ago

Be respectful of the surrounding area.

Ttedm 2 months ago

The ICE district from a pedestrian standpoint is a cold hostile space. I don't believe that a residential development will improve this problem.

Dorie 2 months ago

I cannot say whether or not every disadvantaged population will be accommodated with each new beautiful proposal to revitalize the area,bit something must be done. I would love to be a part of the process by which particular buildings are realized, in the aim of helping to create a locally identifiable architectural style, not only one which borrows from more pleasant climates to the province West.

ChristopherC 2 months ago

great idea

Navjotsbhamra 2 months ago

Champion said his only critique of the proposal is the focus on commercial and retail uses.

"Edmonton has a lot of businesses, literally all downtown," he said. "Do not orient too much to business, orient to people actually living there."

He said the area needs more residents to support the businesses and the urban village should aim to fulfil that.

"An urban village is anything and everything you can mention: culture, education, schools, jobs, you name it," Champion said. "The only thing that's missing are people down there. Everything else is there, so that's what we really need."

__________________________

100%!!! Love that there is an initiative to densify downtown, but agreed completely that there is very little need for additional commercial/retail space. There are already too many restaurants, cafes, liquor stores, etc. that are struggling. Don't need to further cannibalize the existing businesses by adding more expensive, half vacant store fronts.

However, more people *living* in downtown is much, much needed. Hopefully the village has public use spaces as well - things like a basketball court or a garden/green space with publicly accessible washrooms would be such a massive boost to not just the residents of these new properties, but all visitors and stakeholders of downtown. Hope there is some consideration of that in the buildout.

Otherwise, I'm very excited to see this proposal and hope that it is successful.

vchowdhu 2 months ago

I have a business and residence in downtown Edmonton and was fully supportive of the Arena project in the face of many who were opposed. The Arena has revitalized downtown and I believe that this Urban Village will do more of the same. I have also read concerns about the homeless being displaced by this proposal but these are 2 different conversations and debating them in this context does Justice to neither.
Currently the proposed properties are derelict vacant parking lots not homeless shelters. How is developing vacant parking lots going to affect the homeless population? If one wants to link the 2 unrelated issues, maybe put aside a % of the new taxes generated from the urban village towards a new shelter or programs that will help this population. This would create a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Regardless, this project has my complete approval and like the Arena project, will further propel our downtown into somewhere better to live, play and work.

AKS 2 months ago

Integrating subsidized housing is a key element. Would be nice to include some historical elements so that the village does not look too suburban.

Otago 3 months ago

Overall, I like the direction this development is taking. I question why the old Casino site on the corner of 101 St and 104 Avenue is not included. Major route that currently has 3 corners without development. As a city, why do we continue to allow mass parking lots of nothing to exist for so many years without development. I see this as just landowners holding on to gain value without providing anything for the taxpayers of this city. We should make a deal, approve the development with the guarantee that the rest of the land follows suit very quickly. In terms of the homeless population.............they will always exist, they will always flourish despite our best efforts. They will move further north perhaps where there are already plenty. This may sound cold, but we cannot stop development and progress and think that this is somehow helping them. I live in Queen Mary Park, my condo is fairly new and that certainly didn't stop the homeless from living in my alley, destroying the garbage bins, loitering, etc. Lets get this development to the construction stage as soon as possible.

daryllorentz 3 months ago

“It’s probably a whole lot closer to Vancouver architecture than Edmonton architecture,” Warren Champion, vice-president of the Central McDougall Community League, told CBC News.
I could hardly believe what I was reading. Being compared to Vancouver, really?
So Edmonton will be no better off than it is now. When will any city start acknowledging their homelessness crisis and be accountable for it? It exists and won’t go away by continuously sweeping it under the rug. Homelessness can happen to anyone.

Dee K 3 months ago

I am extremely concerned that the houseless community in this area, as well as those that visit this area to access services, will be further displaced by this development. Any proposal for this area must increase shelter budgets and services, and come with at least 50% affordable housing, including supportive housing. The city should work closely with Boyle Street and Indigenous community leaders and follow their input. The housing built should include mixed units for different household sizes -- there is a particular shortage of larger units for roommates and families in this neighbourhood. It is also important that an all-year round non-commercial 'third space' is prioritized like a library, community centre, or warming pavilion. Strong transit connections and safe bike lanes are needed as well. Lastly, traffic calming on 101 st, energy efficient building, and climate resilient native plant species are needed too.

BFPT 3 months ago

This is a great opportunity to increase density in the city. A focus on environmental impacts should be included in every step of the design process. This might not be part of the zoning process but as it’s an entirely new build, a geothermal energy sharing systems inline with what was created at Blatchford and building off that technology should be included. It seems evident this must be incorporated into all new neighbourhoods, if we are taking our climate commitment seriously. Also, definitely no single house zoning.
As for the $150,000 amenity, planting a food forest for public use would be a perpetual gift to residents. There are dozens of trees, shrubs and perennials that could provide ongoing free food. Planted with permaculture principles it would be self-sustaining once established.

Chidi 3 months ago

I think this looks great and will revitalize this area! It’s an eyesore right now just being empty gravel lots with no landscaping/greenery. There is so much opportunity to provide a great entertainment area for MacEwan students and downtown residents and love the way they’re incorporating brick/design of the old building behind Roger’s. Echo the other concerns about pushing displaced residents out, especially with Boyle Street right there. Hope there are plans to work with Boyle Street and plans to help them with their services if this goes ahead.

emcfarlane 3 months ago

As someone who worked for a number of years in the proposed area, I am extremely concerned about the people experiencing houselessness in this area. There is nothing in the proposal dealing with these people - are they to be pushed out to make way for this proposal or will they be accommodated? I am particularly concerned for the current Boyle Street Community Centre, which is a significant place for people in this area to congregate, access food and daytime shelter, as well as assistance from staff for certain situations. Where does the proposal address this Centre and the people to whom it provides services?

marg59 3 months ago

As a longtime resident in the downtown area, I fully support this Urban village. For so many years the City has done nothing about the gravel parking lots downtown and should now support Mr.Katz by changing the zoning and letting this village be built

Armaan.singh 3 months ago

Amazing concept, amazing location, props to the designers/engineers/planners that came up with this concept in this great location. I love the mixed-use, pedestrian/bike friendly, and especially NON car dependent design. This location, being right off of the LRT stop and north of Rogers place is an instant must-go destination. It would be one of a kind in Edmonton, and hope to inspire others to do the same. And as always, for every potential resident that moves in, is one less person adding to the deadly sprawl this city is experiencing. This project needs to start ground work, immediately!

wilson 3 months ago

I am so glad that Edmonton is embracing walkable/bikeable mid and high-density neighbourhoods. This is exactly the type of development we need to get away from car dependency. I would like to see the allotment for cars made very low.

Large developers tend to make things for higher-income people, so I hope that some condo options are catered to students and lower-income folks.

The surrounding bike infrastructure needs to be upgraded in order to support the estimated 3000 people that will move in (105 ave and 101 street have horrible bike options). MacEwan station should have ample bike storage options.

I am not too worried about gentrification because we cannot just magically make 20-year-old apartments appear. We must start somewhere. The best way to combat the housing crisis is not by building suburbs, but by creating places like this.

Adam 3 months ago

While this project sounds very exciting, the main concern I am thinking of is affordability. I would prefer to see at least half of the units as rental units since they will be so close to MacEwan, other schools, and the Royal Alexandra. Additionally, not just cramped studio and one bedroom units. Having multiple bedrooms allows for students to rent together to reduce costs for renting. As others have mentioned, the area doesn't need yet another luxury condo group. If condos are put in, moderate sized units made with high quality materials that aren't upsold for their glitz and shine would be preferred. Especially since so many people buy condos just to rent out to students in the first place...

kellis 3 months ago

Why bother with "feedback"? Went through this farce over the span of two long days a couple of months ago in my neighborhood. All that happened is a bunch of us who had MUCH better things to do just totally wasted our time. Build what you want. You are going to anyways (so I'm not going to even bother to read this proposal). One happy thought though: there's less than 3 years until the next election.

Murray Meads 3 months ago

I would be really happy to see this project move forward. My biggest concern is that the project will continue to be delayed for many years. It is crucial that we fill in these vacant lots surrounding downtown as quickly as possible, and correct these enormous gaps in our urban fabric. I support this rezoning wholeheartedly.

Julia 3 months ago