10425 84th Avenue rezong in application
to have land rezoned to allow 8-story high rise with residence and commecial space as close as 15 metres from the 11-story Heritage House.
which would allow:
A range of uses that support housing, recreation, commerce and employment opportunities.
A maximum height of 30.0 metres (approx. 8 storeys).
A maximum floor area ratio of 5.5 - 6.5.
"Recreation, commerce" likely means bar, nightclubs and general noise-producers.
(I'd like to see one of the councillors having to live next to a bar!)
Despite appeals from condo owners in Heritage House, whose investment and quality of life will be depressed by allowing a high rise to be built next door,
the city council voted to allow the rezoning.
=====
Here are some reason why I personally objected to the change:
From: Tom Monto <montotom@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 at 11:28:46 a.m. MST
Subject: Bylaw 20999 Public Hearing
RE: rezoning application Address: 10425A - 84 AVENUE NW 10425 - 84 AVENUE NW
submission to Bylaw 20999 Public Hearing
As resident of Heritage House, adjacent to the site of the proposed rezoning, I object to it on grounds that it would permanently lower quality of life in this city block, for those already living here and those who would live in the proposed development. It would also negatively affect the lives of those who visit and work on Whyte Avenue; drive, live or bicycle in Old Strathcona north of Whyte Avenue; use the Justik Clinic and other medical services at the inersection of 83 Avenue and 105th, and those who attend Old Scona High School.
Rezoning as proposed will allow a high rise to be built only about 14 metres from Heritage House where I and about 100 others live in 70 separate units. We already have done our bit for high densty-urban living with 70 units being placed on five city lots. Doubling the number of people living in the block is going to set people against people even more than already happens. As well, the theatre district nearby, a high school just across the street, people who work in Whyte Avenue businesses, and sick and ailing people finding help at the Jusik Clinic and other medicl services just a block away, plus commuter traffic into and off of 104th Street (Calgary Trail), already ensure that our adjacent streets are heavily used.
Parking is already in short supply. Assurances that Beljan may make in providing public parking in my opinion should not be relied on. The heritage Keg bulding two blocks away was one of its projects and now sits empty and unused, likely deteriorating to where it will have to be torn down. Where Beljan paved over and commercialized a city park on SE corner of 103rd and Whyte Avenue, cars jump the curb, drive across a well-used pedestrian sidewalk and park on an unpaved patch of mud, where come spring, mud from car tires is sure to mess up the city sidewalk.
I fear for the future of our own high rise if permission is granted for such a large scale development right up to our property line. The building as proposed will require the digging of foundations and underground parkade, both of which may impact the actual integrity of our highrise and its adjacent underground parkade, so instead of having two buildings, the city may end up with none.
The proposed building will mar the views from about half the units in our building, lowering property values and lowering city tax base. The proposed building is two thirds of our height - our own bulidng was permitted back in 1960s, before Whyte Avenue acquired their present high profile and before the Old Strathcona theatre district was born. And that is not to be taken as guide to how development should proceed just a block from the tourist magnet that is the Old Strathcona district.
As well, the west side of a high rise built just to our east will always have only a view of our building and thus will also permanently have reduced property value.
Should the rezoning go ahead, prospective condo-buyers, prospective investors and builders will be asking themselves will city council simply build a monster building in front of their projects? If it goes ahead on 84th Avenue, will city council also allow a 27-storey building to be built just 15 metres from the Stantec Tower?
This is an equivalent issue to when the city was planning to put a freeway through 104th Street toward the downtown. The city listened to the public outcry against such over-development, and cancelled it. I hope for the same wisdom today.
The increased use of water and production of sewage will either cause problems in long term or in short term require something like doubling of the piping in the area, which will impact parking and traffic and cause noise problems for existing residents in the area. Or both. At considerable expense to city, expense that will not be easily paid back if buildings built are inconvenient and unwelcoming to those who have to live there.
Two highrises side by side on south side of 84th Avenue. will put the houses on north side of avenue in much more shade and the slim aisle between the two highrises will create a wind tunnel.
The noise inherent in the two to three year cycle of construction of a high rise just 14 metres away will seriously impact the lives of all present occupants of the Heritage House. Also, trucks unloading building supplies on the avenue will stop traffic on 84th Avenue, the only legal access to my buidling's above ground parking, and likely also affect the bicycle lane on 83rd Avenue.
As well, likely the building's construction will addect traffic andparking on 84th AVenue. It will likely close up the parking on south side of 84th Avenue in front of the building site. Parking is already in short supply in the whole area, and parking needs of workers during construction and of occupants once the bulding is occupied will makea a tense situation worse. As well traffic will be affected. Ambulances use 84th Avenue to get to the University hospital, it is the northern-most avenue that connects 104th Street to 109th Street and to the hospital west of there. Fire trucks also use it frequently. As changes are planned for 83rd Avenue, and potentially for Whyte Avenue, such a blockage would likely have far-reaching effects.
The building where I live, Heritage House, already suffers from urban angst due to impoverished homeless trying to gain access to our building. And traffic noises almost prevent me from opening my balcony doors both during the day and late at night due to noise-enhanced vehicles roaring down 84th Avenue and squealing brakes to stop or go at the stop sign at 105th Street. Construction of a major building next door could tip my building into disorder and shatter the slender veneer of civility that us living here now cherish and work to preserve.
This is an equivalent issue to when the city was planning to put a freeway through 104th Street toward the downtown. Such a multi-lane freeway would have seriously hurt the standard of living and personal safety of those who frequent Whyte Avenue and the Old Strathcona, and divided and devalued the Whyte Avenue heritage area, now so valued by Edmontonians. The city listened and cancelled it. I am only asking for the same wisdom that the city (eventually) showed back then.
=======
From: Tom Monto <montotom@yahoo.ca>
To: abhimmanyu.jamwal@edmonton.ca <abhimmanyu.jamwal@edmonton.ca> [City planner]
Cc: Michael Janz <michael.janz@edmonton.ca> [ward councillor]
Subject: rezoning applicaiton 10425 84 Avenue
RE: rezoning application
Address: 10425 - 84 AVENUE NW
As resident of Heritage House, adjacent to the site of the proposed rezoning, I object to it on grounds that it would permanaently lower quality of life in this city block, for those already living here and those who would live in the proposed development.
Rezoning as proposed will allow a high rise to be built only about 14 metres from Heritage House where I and about 100 others live.
Such size of a added building will mar the views from about half the balconies in our building, lowering property values and lowering city tax base.
As well, the west side of a high rise built just to our east will always have only a view of our building and thus will also permanently have reduced property value.
As well such an intense population on this street will dramatically increase the demand for parking, which already is in short supply.
The increased use of water and production of sewage will either cause problems in long term or in short term require somthinthing like doubling of the piping in the area, which will impact parking and traffic and cause noise problems for existing residents in the area. Or both. At considerable expense to city, expense that will not be easily paid back if buildings built are inconvenient and unwelcoming to those who have to live there.
Likely the proposed building will require the digging of foundations and underground parkade, both of which may impact the actual integrity of our highrise. and its adjacent underground parkade. so instead of having two buildings, the city may end up with none.
Two highrises side by side on south side of 84th Avenue. will put the houses on north side of avenue in much more shade and the slim aisle between the two highrises will create a wind tunnel.
The noice inherent in the two to three year cycle of construction of a high rise just 14 metres away will seriously impact the lives of all present occupants of the Heritage House. Also, trucks unloading building supplies on the avenue will stop traffic on 84th Avenue. the only legal access to my buidling's above ground parking.
As well, likely the building's construction will close up the parking on south side of 84th Avenue in front of the building site. Parking is already in short supply in the whole area, and parking needs of workers during construction and of occupants once the bulding is occupied will makea a tense situation worse.
The building where I live, Heritage House, already suffers from urban angst due to impoverished homeless trying to gain access to our building. And traffic noises almost prevent me from opening my balcony doors both during the day and late at night due to noise-enhanced vehicles roaring down 84th Avenue and squealing brakes to stop or go at the stop sign at 105th Street. Construction of a major building next door could tip my building into disorder and shatter the slender veneer of civility that us living here now cherish and work to preserve.
=============
From what I have hear, our ward councillor Michael Janz voted in favour of rezoning.
It is very similar situation that Tooker Gomberg experienced in 1990s.
Tooker Gomber's electoral experience:
1992 Ward 4: Tooker 8681 votes Tooker came in second
(Michael Phair also elected in this ward)
each voter had two votes
216,000 voters voted overall
1/13 of that number is 16,615, so that is the amount that most members would have been elected with if city-wide districting and STV had been in effect.
1995 Ward 4: 7000 votes
7000 votes is not much less than previous vote tally, but this time Tooke came in fifth in the ward, far from being re-elected.
Phair was re-elected. Jim Taylor came in first and won a seat.
52,000 votes cast in the ward, each voter had two votes (perhaps 30,000 voters voted in the ward)
221,000 voters voted overall
1/13 of that number is 17,000, so that is the amount that most members would have been elected with if city-wide districting and STV had been in effect.
Gomberg did not have ability to solicit support from outside his little ward (which coverd just 1/12th of the city) and had to try to appeal to the largest group in the ward, in order to be elected.
And once elected, on any particular vote, he could represent only one group in the ward.
Unfortunately he chose to ignore his supporters when he voted to develop the Little brickyard, and 1000 left him, which was enough to deny him re-election.
If he had got as many votes as he had got in 1992, he would have been re-elected in 1995.
Or if he had been able to seek support from bicycle commuters and leftists across the city, he would have been likely been re-elected. They easily made up at least 17,000 voters in Edmonton.
=======
his city hall career was sunk by a proposal to develop the old Little brickyard in Riverdale and, out of principled desire for increased density, Tooker voted in favour of the proposal.
Many Riverdalians, protective of their formerly down-homey cul-de sac neighbourhood, then voted against him, or simply stayed home.
With only one councillor in each ward, there is no good and bad rep., but only one, who then feels he or she has to try to appeal to all.
This means generally going for expensive programs, massive change and disregard for the little issues such as the city's unshovelled sidewalks and still little regard for pedestrian safety.
Such is the way the present city council has voted:
- to close Strathcona swimming pool and (eventually to replace it on the never-never plan with a rec. centre),
-to build high rises that will kill heritage trees, loom over heritage buildings and cause traffic issues wind tunnel issues
-choosing expensive LRT trains that don't work
-allowing the paving over of a city park in the centre of historic Old Strathcona and allowing a company to build a block-shaped building that obstructs view of the historic train station, and fill the space with sea-cans (heat-creating, black ones) that do not have a human element and make worse and unappealing a high-traffice corner.
-do nothing or very little to stop northbound cars from turning right on scramble crossing at 103Sr X Whyte Avenue, endangering lives of of pedestrians crossing in what should their turn to cross.
-work to try to get people downtown while allowing the spreading of the same "concrete canyon" urban format to other parts of the city.
It could well be the little things the city council decides (and big things too) that will kill the city.
Janz says he is concerned about hollowing out of the city, as development and city services move to shiny new areas on outskirts.
But he should also see that poor decisions - where quality of life in the old neighbourhoods is degraded - are just as likely to drive people, investment and businesses out of old sections.
===========
But anyways as most of the councillors (including Michael Janz) are not the choice of a majority of voters in their districts, it will not take much to kick them out of city hall.
Certainly their behaviour is not endearing them to local neighborhood residents.
Even the residents of the new tower (if it is built) will not be too happy, being just 15 metres from another high rise...
where's the privacy and easy-going village life of Old Strathcona?
where's the gentle breezes and quiet nights of easy living?
No, the wind should whip between the buildings with extreme velocity, heightening danger from wind-chill and hot temperatures, and from flying debris.
Let's just hope the present blighted city council is not replaced by even more development-prone councillors.
But then what has the present council done
that would make them deserving of re-election?
=========================================================
meanwhile if we had proper election system,
such as STV in city-wide district.
elected councillors would know they had backing of substantial number of voters,
the most-popular in the city would be elected,
councillors would have courage to make brave decisions such as to preserve the distinctive character of Old Strathcona.
With fair election method and at-large districting, any candidate who could aggregate about 1/13th of the city votes would be elected. And they would know that if they get that same vote count, they will be re-elected.
(to make election better, we should elect the mayor and he 12 councilors altogether city-wide and then the mayor is the person who achieves the quota first, or is chosen by the councillors. Then any candidate who could aggregate about 1/14th of the city votes would be elected. And they would know that if they get that same vote count, they will be re-elected.)
With the present single-member wards and FPTP, a city councillor does not know how popular he or she needs to be to be re-elected and has no confidence to stand their ground.
Meanwhile it is very likely that seats will lurch back and forth from left to right, with no consistency.
It may happen that a right-wing council will be elected in Oct. 2025, and it will take out all the scramble crossings that the city is just now getting used to.
What expensive waste.
And oddly, such a change to a right-wing council would take change in very few votes.
The councillors were elected with less than half the votes cast last time.
Just get the other voters to concentrate a bit on just on right-wing candidate, or move votes from left to right around a bit, or cut the vote for the sitting councillors by a bit, and the purality would change. Seats would topple and be re-cast.
Very few voters have to change their behaviour for much of the present city coucnil to lose their seats due to the inefficient and vote-wasting FPTP system that we use.
But if we had fair voting and city-wide districting, to be elected would take about 1/14th vote votes cast,
instead of on average about 4 percent (1/12th of less than 50 percent, which is how many votes each councillor received in last election).
It would take more votes but also each councillor would know that he or she has that support,
and about 80 or 90 percent of votes cast would be used to actually elect someone.
=================================
Comments