General Rating for this project

  • Great

    Votes: 2 3.2%

  • Very Good

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • Good

    Votes: 28 44.4%

  • So So

    Votes: 7 11.1%

  • Not Very Good

    Votes: 10 15.9%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 12 19.0%
  • Total voters
    63
In this case it’s NIMBYism at its worst. One of the people opposed to it lives on the south side of 16th Ave. The person isn’t affected in anyway by sunlight or traffic, and has no real reason to oppose it.
 
Parking spillover into the neighbourhood was the concern iirc. Really, it is being even somewhat adjacent to non $600k+ single family.
 
I can’t see parking being much of a concern for the person on the southside of 16th, there’s a big sound barrier wall there.
I could see it for Banff Trail, but in my opinion parking is easy problem to control. Regardless of the height of this tower, as Motel village develops into more density, Banff Trail will have to deal with parking spell over one way or another. The easiest thing to do is create some permit parking zones...which I thought were already active in Banff Trail, but I could be wrong.
 
Stephen Ave said:
I am guessing the appeal is only a time stalling formality, I can’t see any reason why the city would side with the appeal.
Click to expand...
It is not The City (as in City Administration) that will decide, but the Subdivision Development Appeal Board (SDAB). They are a necessary part in the process, ensuring that citizens have a fair stake in making sure development does not have a negative impact on their well being. When the developer asked for this large of a parking relaxation, he likely knew it would get appealed and this was probably all accounted for in the project schedule.
 
SDAB is a necessary part of the process, but can used as a stalling tactic. IIRC, it’s only $25 to launch an appeal, and it can delay a project for up to 6 months. I’m sure you’re right though, the developer probably anticipated this and build it into the timeline.


MichaelS said:
It is not The City (as in City Administration) that will decide, but the Subdivision Development Appeal Board (SDAB). They are a necessary part in the process, ensuring that citizens have a fair stake in making sure development does not have a negative impact on their well being. When the developer asked for this large of a parking relaxation, he likely knew it would get appealed and this was probably all accounted for in the project schedule.
Click to expand...
 
Beltline_B said:
In this case it’s NIMBYism at its worst. One of the people opposed to it lives on the south side of 16th Ave. The person isn’t affected in anyway by sunlight or traffic, and has no real reason to oppose it.
Click to expand...
Beltline_B said:
I can’t see parking being much of a concern for the person on the southside of 16th, there’s a big sound barrier wall there.
I could see it for Banff Trail, but in my opinion parking is easy problem to control. Regardless of the height of this tower, as Motel village develops into more density, Banff Trail will have to deal with parking spell over one way or another. The easiest thing to do is create some permit parking zones...which I thought were already active in Banff Trail, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
The parking thing is always crazy, but this one is a peculiar case. How exactly can the residents of this development take "their" parking (putting aside that street parking is no ones in particular).

The closest part of Briar Hill (to the south) is still 300m of sidewalk-minimal dirty walking along two expressways. Apparently there is a sidewalk under 16th Ave adjacent to Crowchild.

Banff Trail is even farther due to the LRT alignment. about 600m to the nearest residential street walking distance. This includes a rickety pedestrian bridge and a similarly terrible experience walking sidewalk-less along 16th Ave. These students - many who won't own vehicles - are going to walk 5 or 10 minutes in one of Calgary's least pedestrian-encouraging area just to get their cars? To go where?

All adjacent neighbourhoods are effectively sealed off in publicly-financed gated communities with sound walls. I'm not surprised homeowners are appealing, but how they can be considered an affected party is beyond me.

As an inner city dweller can I claim to the SDAB that I am negatively impacted by every suburban home and appeal them all on grounds that each additional commuter heading past my hood to downtown makes my location less appealing?
 
All good points, and probably why the parking relaxation was granted by The City in the first place. Yes, you can claim to the SDAB that you are negatively impacted by a suburban community (not sure if you can appeal a suburban home, as they are a permitted use that doesn't even require a DP if I recall), however the board may not agree that you are an effected person and end the appeal there.

I have heard stories of someone appealing a new highrise downtown, because it would impact their commute time home (so sort of the opposite of your scenario). Not sure if it was true or not. I don't think they were successful if it is a true story.

SDAB can be a frustrating part of development. But, if you ever needed it because the development authority made a decision you strongly disagree with (known to happen, and sometimes based on incomplete data or incorrect interpretations) you will be happy it exists. That said, it does get abused and that is kind of known. They raised the cost of the appeal to somewhere around $100 I think in the past couple of years, it used to be around $25. They did this as a way to discourage anyone and everyone just automatically appealing everything (definitely some CAs out there that were taking this strategy) and essentially holding developers hostage as part of a negotiation process to extract more things than necessary.
 
Raising g the amount from $25 to $100 is s good thing. Anyone who feels seriously impacted by how potential development will shell out $100 easily. Those who simply want to stall a development for six months will pay $25 but maybe not the $100.

It’s going back a ways, but I recall there was one guy appealing the approval for Union Square, and it delayed the development by six months.
 
Yeah, there was somebody opposing it, and to make things more interesting, there was a rumor that Apex was behind the appeal in order to delay the project past a deadline, so that they could give the deposits back to the purchasers and start the sales over again at a higher number.
 
Habanero said:
Yeah, there was somebody opposing it, and to make things more interesting, there was a rumor that Apex was behind the appeal in order to delay the project past a deadline, so that they could give the deposits back to the purchasers and start the sales over again at a higher number.
Click to expand...

I was one of the purchasers who was caught up in this. This happened just at the start of the early 2000's boom, so they delayed and bullshitted their way long enough to be able to give everyone's deposits back...and then turned around offered the same units back with a nice 30-40% markup.

I'm still pretty bitter about that.
 
The building will probably be plain, but should be better than the renders. The renders are oddly amateurish.
 
Renderings are what you expect from a private student residence. I don't have high hopes for this one either. I really can't hold it against residents for appealing the decision. Even I'm concerned over it's presence and I don't live there. It looms very tall and, at most, it will be plain. Why so much parking?
 
The parking to the right is for a different owner, this development has asked for a relaxation on parking.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top