JoeUrban
Active Member
Found itThat actually sounds familiar. There's a city open data map for SDAB back to 2014 with zero decisions for the downtown area so maybe it was 2012 or 2013?
Found itThat actually sounds familiar. There's a city open data map for SDAB back to 2014 with zero decisions for the downtown area so maybe it was 2012 or 2013?
I am just going based on what was posted online in the plans. And, admittedly, there is a greater than 0% chance I misread things, so if someone sees a different elevation, let us all know and we will get Surrealplaces to update the thread title.Something is weird with those floor datum elevations on the phasing diagrams.
The Ground Floor lists ‘100000’ with a “?” above it. On the levels above that an extra digit is added.
Is there anything else that confirms the 287m height ? (Michael S - can you help ?).
Correct. Council actually supported the robo parkade (can't remember if Councillor Farrel did or not, but the majority did) with an approved DC land use tied to the plans. Because the conditions were kind of open ended (sort out how the garbage will work to the satisfaction of administration, or something like that) it allowed an ability for an appellant (in this case, Triovest I believe) to appeal the project and gave SDAB enough leaway to state that the conditions weren't satisfied, so the project was refused.Wasn’t the parkade project killed at SDAB?
It makes one wonder if complaints about alley access was really that appellants wanted the 7th ave block for themselves so they could demolish it and build this. Hypothetically of course..Correct. Council actually supported the robo parkade (can't remember if Councillor Farrel did or not, but the majority did) with an approved DC land use tied to the plans. Because the conditions were kind of open ended (sort out how the garbage will work to the satisfaction of administration, or something like that) it allowed an ability for an appellant (in this case, Triovest I believe) to appeal the project and gave SDAB enough leaway to state that the conditions weren't satisfied, so the project was refused.
This will end up in the news this week.I feel like this is a disaster waiting to happen. I really hope this starts to generate public opposition and attention to what is at stake
I think that angle did come up, that normally it would not have been supported and this was a special case due to the public good of the restoration of 8 historic buildings.Thanks for looking that up. I had it in my mind that Councillor Farrell had made a big public push against this project because she didn't support more parking in downtown and that's what led to the initial developer abandoning the project but perhaps I mis-remembered how things went down. I must be getting old, memory isn't what it once was!