From this month’s community association meeting minutes ... apparently the same developer and architect are resubmitting a new plan, now called “Eversyn”.

Eversyn (Formerly Glo)
 Hans provided an update on version two of the project at 916-922 2 Ave NW as he is also the architect for that project.
 Russell RED is currently in the land acquisition stage again, as the property owners did not sell the last time after the DP was overturned at the Appeal Board.
 6 month requirement for any new DP after SDAB ruling. Revised project likely will be 4 storeys with fewer units.
 Architect has taken learnings from the appeal process to include:  Morescreeninganduseofangledparking(boulevard?)
 Planting real trees to ground the project
 The original project was rushed and the City had missed information
before the Calgary Planning Commission hearing approval
 
zagox said:
From this month’s community association meeting minutes ... apparently the same developer and architect are resubmitting a new plan, now called “Eversyn”.

Eversyn (Formerly Glo)
 Hans provided an update on version two of the project at 916-922 2 Ave NW as he is also the architect for that project.
 Russell RED is currently in the land acquisition stage again, as the property owners did not sell the last time after the DP was overturned at the Appeal Board.
 6 month requirement for any new DP after SDAB ruling. Revised project likely will be 4 storeys with fewer units.
 Architect has taken learnings from the appeal process to include:  Morescreeninganduseofangledparking(boulevard?)
 Planting real trees to ground the project
 The original project was rushed and the City had missed information
before the Calgary Planning Commission hearing approval
Click to expand...


You see!?

Sometime you just need to hold the developer's feet to the fire and be a little patient. I'm putting money down that this iteration will be much better than what was originally proposed.?
 
Social Justice said:
You see!?

Sometime you just need to hold the developer's feet to the fire and be a little patient. I'm putting money down that this iteration will be much better than what was originally proposed.?
Click to expand...

Truly not a bad outcome. The other design did feel half-assed and rushed, that isn't overly surprising. I also think in this specific example, it is easy for the CA to point to a successful development that fit within the ARP's guidelines (Palfreyville apartments) across the street, as setting a benchmark for what they would like to see. This design already looked heavily VE'ed and was still pushing for additiional units/density outside of the ARP's goals without the kind of exceptional design/public good that would merit giving away additional height/density over the ARP target.
 
Social Justice said:
You see!?

Sometime you just need to hold the developer's feet to the fire and be a little patient. I'm putting money down that this iteration will be much better than what was originally proposed.?
Click to expand...

There are still for sale signs on the land assembly, and no new DP application.

Interesting to see that the Russell RED team has another land assembly for sale 2 blocks away:

1017-1025 1 Ave NW
 
Wow, pathetic and sad is all I gotta say. The original design for the 5 storey mid rise wasn't great but it was decent enough and a good density boost for the area. Now we'll most likely be getting nothing for a while. A classic example of NIMBYism gone wrong. I still don't get why the SDAP rejected this in the first place. These sorts of development can help set a precedent for more 4-8 storey midrises off of the mainstreets in Sunnyside to help increase density. Ideally Id like to see the whole area developed into midrises to help fuel Kensington into becoming a vibrant area all day/year long.
 
gsunnyg said:
Wow, pathetic and sad is all I gotta say. The original design for the 5 storey mid rise wasn't great but it was decent enough and a good density boost for the area. Now we'll most likely be getting nothing for a while. A classic example of NIMBYism gone wrong. I still don't get why the SDAP rejected this in the first place. These sorts of development can help set a precedent for more 4-8 storey midrises off of the mainstreets in Sunnyside to help increase density. Ideally Id like to see the whole area developed into midrises to help fuel Kensington into becoming a vibrant area all day/year long.
Click to expand...
IIRC the proposal was over the zoned height for that parcel, so if there's any opposition the SDAB could rule against it. I remember hearing some of the people speak against it, the opposition against it was pretty lame for the most part. They said it was too big for the neighborhood.
 
gsunnyg said:
Wow, pathetic and sad is all I gotta say. The original design for the 5 storey mid rise wasn't great but it was decent enough and a good density boost for the area. Now we'll most likely be getting nothing for a while. A classic example of NIMBYism gone wrong. I still don't get why the SDAP rejected this in the first place. These sorts of development can help set a precedent for more 4-8 storey midrises off of the mainstreets in Sunnyside to help increase density. Ideally Id like to see the whole area developed into midrises to help fuel Kensington into becoming a vibrant area all day/year long.
Click to expand...

Definitely a frustrating precedent. I will say that there doesn't seem to be any shortage of 75-150'x120' MCG or MC2 land assemblies in Kensington - there are more than enough developable sites. The market for condo and rental units seems to be setting the pace for development, not the availability of $500k dilapidated old bungalows to knock down.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top