UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
5,021
Reaction score
26,326
City:
Calgary
maybe thats why “lofts”
haha well no shit. But that’s usually a gimmick added to the title of a building. This would make this project one of the few that are actually what they say they are.
 

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
5,021
Reaction score
26,326
City:
Calgary
No actual full renders of the project on either the developer or architects websites. Wompwomp.
 

ThujaPlicata

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
116
Reaction score
1,166
CD88957B-C87D-4008-87FC-0C7719B120D8.jpeg
 

Disraeli

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
521
Reaction score
1,829
Same with the Winston Manor on 4th. But as long as the design is solid and it doesn't sit as an empty lot it will be a good trade off for 4th
 

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
5,021
Reaction score
26,326
City:
Calgary
It's too bad about the little brick apartment building tho.
Very little character transforming into a high density, high quality high rise with street activation on a major downtown corridor is more than a fine tradeoff for me 🥳
 

CBBarnett

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
7,034
Do we know how many units are being lost in this project? 270 units in the new tower is obviously a large net increase, but important to acknowledge the lost units in the older brick buildings are some of the more affordable options. My guess would be 10 - 15 units for each brick building, so 30 or so units overall? Net gain of about 240 units?

It's probably worth it in the long run as it's a large boost of supply in a prime location, which will ultimately help affordability and access - but it's still a trade-off, and cold comfort to anyone kicked out of the more affordable existing structures.
 

Top