LDA20-0216 Strathcona The Baron Rezoning

Even though this building is not currently designated as an historic site, the building and its location need to be carefully considered before 1) the owner is permitted to demolish it and especially 2) before the owner is permitted to build a building that is not at all similar to the current form of buildings in the Old Strathcona area. If this develop is permitted to proceed, Old Strathcona will eventually only retain a few token remanences of the history of the place, much like what has happened with the Edmonton downtown. This would indeed be unfortunate.

This is not in keeping with current zoning as well as the expectations of the local renters and owners. I strenuously oppose this development in my neighbourhood.

It is not a designated heritage sight, rather just seen as such because of its vintage. To refuse the environmental impacts due to nostalgia is short sighted and harms the values and needs of the community in larger ways. What is more important than an old building is that the space it sits on is as eco-friendly, visual-friendly, and functionally sound as possible. It also sits on the north side of Whyte, so those fearing the sun being blocked on Whyte need not fear (as the sun sits to our south). We cannot stop change, but we can decide what it looks like. We can cap the height of any new development, we can require it pays homage to the history of the location it sits on, we can have architectural ‘tips of the cap’ to the time and space it has emerged from. So, let us move this conversation to the space of deciding how best to transition through this time of change, rather than debating if we should hold on to something for the sake of holding onto something.

• The Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) was recently updated (through the planWhyte process), clearly affirms a height restriction within the heritage area within which this property and proposal sits. The proposal far exceeds the restriction of 15 m/4 floors.
• The ARP is crucial in the preservation of the neighbourhood’s heritage character, centring around the core of Whyte Avenue. The development as proposed would alter not just one specific building but this very core, which is especially unnecessary given that the updated plan allows for taller and higher-density buildings just outside the immediate area in question.
• The ARP is consistent with the provincial historic recognition for the area and at the same time promotes further densification in alignment with the goals of the new City Plan—so the ARP is far from being strictly about heritage preservation. It resulted from extensive consultation, including business and property owners, and arrived at a thoughtful and balanced approach about how to consider competing objectives in development in the area. Because of this, material alterations to the ARP should not be considered based on one-off applications such as this.
• This application is contrary to this important community discussion around maintaining the heritage of Old Strathcona. The specific development proposal seeks to both eliminate a heritage structure and negatively impact an urban landscape whose dominant feature is supposed to be a low-rise built form along the major commercial streets, consistent with the character of the community.
• Regarding comments noting support for the proposal given the current economic situation: Old Strathcona exists as a heritage area today because of foresight and community action during a significant economic downturn in the 1980s. Too often in the past, the prevailing sentiment in the city is that that heritage preservation is a luxury in lean times, but in more prosperous time we cannot stand in the way of progress and opportunity. We need to move beyond this and recognize the social and economic opportunity that comes with a balanced approach to preservation and development.

Hello City
I oppose this change as the area development plan was put into place to protect the vibrant and unique landscape here. A few others were already in place that DID NOT FIT with the spirit and could not be changed hence the few that were allowed doesn't mean they set a precedent for changing everything when a developer wants to make a bunch of money. The street scape of 82 Avenue at this corner is historic and with an owner not wanting the historic designation shouldn't mean he can sell his historic site for demolition just for the $. Please see fit to up hold the countless volunteer hours who came before you to determine this Plan to retain our unique atmosphere!!!!
Thank you

The city continues to make exception after exception to the zoning laws in the Whyte Avenue area and bows to developers. Stop tearing down heritage buildings and building towers in their place. They destroy the heritage feel of the area and as everyone can see at the current moment, many of them are vacant. I am not against development per se but as a long time resident in the area, it is apparent to me that most developers are not concerned about maintaining the historical feel of the neighbourhood. As stated in other peoples’ feedback, the existing towers cut out sun and create an unwelcoming atmosphere in what has been a pleasant pedestrian area. Please reconsider this proposal.

Losing a rare piece of architecture in Edmonton is a shame. To lose it and replace it with some gross monstrosity that in no way reflects the character of the neighbourhood would be a real disaster.

Hello,

I am very supportive of the application. It is a simple reality that neighborhoods and communities evolve over time and when a developer steps forward with a thoughtful and environmentally friendly building the community should support it. As I understand it, this is a first of its kind sustainably constructed building. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have inefficient legacy buildings and achieve robust environmental performance. If we want strong environmental performance we need to be willing to accommodate change.

Further, I find it difficult to believe that any casual observer of community member would think that the When Pigs Fly retail location is a historically significant building. It's been a knick knack store for a generation, time to evolve with the times and not equate and old building with being historically significant simply because of its vintage.

We need new construction in our city to fuel our businesses and employ or people now more then ever. How can the city justify letting an important corridor like this slowly rot out and become an employment deadzone at a time like this.

Do we want a new sustainable building or do we want slow and continual degradation. I am in complete support of sustainable urban renewal. Time to evolve, do good for the environment, and do good for our local workers.

There are still SOOO many vacant/parking lots and underused properties on 81st and 83rd Avenue. Build it there instead. We need density, sure, but we can achieve that without compromising the character of the neighbourhood. Right project, wrong location.

I do not think an exemption should be made. To keep the integrity of whyte ave and its historical nature, no more than four stories should be allowed.

Absolutely NOT okay with the further desecration to everything that makes this area what it is! Old Strathcona's character has been completely trashed and ruined over the last decade, and so few of the new developments have managed to survive COVID or the economic downturns prior, so they certainly shouldn't be considering destroying more long-standing history for something that can't be afforded right now.
The 2 massive buildings that were erected on Whyte Ave over the past couple years have ruined what Whyte Ave and Old Strathcona stand for and are loved for. I do NOT approve anymore of Old Strathcona selling out for any purpose. Historical landmark designation is important, but it is NOT the only thing that should stand between cultural destruction and falsified growth.

This development is like death by a million cuts, at what point will council actually commit to preserving the character of the neighborhood.

I am opposed to changing the zoning to dc2. This removes all restrictions on the site, and leaves it up to council to decide. It is basically a slap in the face to the residents regarding planwhyte, and the public consultation that was done, saying that the city will not respect the work that was done. At a minimum, the zoning should be a sub zone of dc1, consistent with other developments.

As to the actual development, I have a concern with residential units not having onsite parking. While this is the same as other developments,it shifts parking deeper into the residential neighborhood. As identified in planwhyte, this was a major concern.

I am also starting to distrust the history of developers in the neighborhood, who promise one thing, the back out and change plans after approval, or developers who don’t finish projects at all and leave giant holes in the ground (at least 3 that I am aware of). There needs to be a way to force developers to finish what they start, or they should not be able to destroy historical structures.

As a resident of the area, it feels like over the past few years, Whyte Ave has been turned into a less historical, more bustling area. Suddenly tall buildings are going up, chain stores are taking over the mom and pop shops, and the historic feel of Whyte Ave has been lost. The beauty and charm of the area is quickly being lost. Adding anything tall building across the street from another new development would be very disappointing. Please stop the reasoning and over development of our old neighbourhood before all of its history abs charm are lost.

I completely disagree with the development of a higher than 4 story building in this space. The recent development of high rises on 82nd ave has caused endless excess traffic, construction and NUMEROUS vacancies. This is not a project that should be approved, but rather be building amenities that suit the current bordering neighborhoods.

The provincial historic status of the area and the 2020 Whyte Avenue development plan should be taken seriously. The proposed nine storey building affects the character of Whyte Avenue, and sets a precedent for the development and loss of the historic status of the area. Also, why spend so much time on producing guidelines for developing the area and not follow them? I also think that the drawing that was submitted for the development is unattractive, and may even look worse when the "staging" effort put in the drawing is not followed. We already saw this happening with another new building on Whyte avenue from Wheaton. The original rendition was quite different from the final product.
I would like the Baron development to be much smaller, follow guidelines, and respect fully the historic character of the area.

I reiterate that I strongly support the submission of the STRATHCONA COMMUNITY LEAGUE regarding the request for re-zoning of the Archibald Block on the north east corner of Whyte Avenue and 105 Street. Please help us to maintain the unique quality of life that the Heritage Commercial DC1 zone guarantees to my neighbourhood. I live 2 blocks south of the Archibald Block and deeply value this part of Edmonton.

I strongly support the submission by the STRATHCONA COMMUNITY LEAGUE regarding the Archibald Block. The Historical Commercial DC1 designation is extremely important for maintaining the quality of life in the Whyte Avenue area of which it is a part. I live 2 blocks south of that building and highly value the quality of life it brings to my neighbourhood.

In a world that made sense, there would not have to be ANY discussion about this application. If it doesn't fit the zoning-plan .. it doesn't fit the zoning plan. Just another example of the city (potentially) rolling over and playing dead. If the city thought that this land shouldn't be DC1, then it should have been changed long ago. Its not like this is some back-yard corner of the city nobody had ever thought about before.

Properly zoned .. the lot would sell for the price it would actually be worth. Letting developers purchase land under one designation and and then changing the zoning to a more valuable designation via "exceptions" continues to send the wrong message across the entire city. These continual one-time "exceptions" are just plain wrong, unless there is strong justification to show why the zoning was incorrect in the first place.

I support the development (as an exception to the DC1 height restriction) because of the setback of the residential tower and the preservation of architectural character of the commercial podium. Increased density in this part of town should be encouraged.

As a resident of the Whyte Ave area I believe that the proposed building is too tall. The city should not make an exception to current height restrictions in the area as it will set a precedent for doing so, which will put the historical and cultural character of the area at further risk. Recent mixed use developments along Whyte Ave are quite generic looking and could be found in any city. The development of this style of buildings is harmful to the unique character of Whyte Ave as a cultural and tourist destination. I am quite concerned that the proposed building will be of the same generic character as what has been recently built in the area. Furthermore, these new buildings are substantially decreasing sunlight on the street, making walking on the Ave a substantially less pleasant experience, particularly in winter. I find I am less likely to shop on the Ave as a result.

That being said, I like that the building would be mixed-use. I think that the set-back for the tower is very important so that it does not unduly impact the street scape. However, I believe the tower should be capped at 4 stories to blend well with surrounding buildings and also because nearby six story condos are blocking too much light from the street (I’ll also note that there are a significant number of residential and commercial vacancies in the area so I’m unsure that there is enough demand for a building of this tall).