General rating of the project

  • Great

    Votes: 8 7.3%

  • Very Good

    Votes: 15 13.6%

  • Good

    Votes: 39 35.5%

  • So So

    Votes: 13 11.8%

  • Not Very Good

    Votes: 15 13.6%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 20 18.2%
  • Total voters
    110
TBH, I'd be okay with the another tower of the same design. The podium is the worst part of the building, and thus the damage has already been done. A taller tower thrown in would add a lot of people to the area. A different design for the 3rd tower would be great, but I'm good either way.
 
Surrealplaces said:
TBH, I'd be okay with the another tower of the same design. The podium is the worst part of the building, and thus the damage has already been done. A taller tower thrown in would add a lot of people to the area. A different design for the 3rd tower would be great, but I'm good either way.
Click to expand...
I wonder if, now that the planning department has seen the gutter trench that the 9 avenue podium is, if they could force a redesign for the 8 Ave side since it’s not even UC yet. At least we could save the Stephen Ave face of this thing.
 
We need a stronger UDP then 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
My understanding was that the city does have some power - they've sent designs back to the developer due to things like bad urban design (bad interface to the street). But that's only when the developer is asking for a rezoning or increase in density. If the developer is not changing zoning then the building just has to comply with zoning and bylaws and it can be built.

I may be totally wrong here though.
 
The City does have some power to reject permits. I do mostly construction drawings, not design drawings, so someone else could probably speak better to this. But what you are talking about would be a permitted vs a discretionary use, the city has more power on the latter.

UDRP gets involved as well, you get city and industry people to review a project and make suggestions / critiques, and they have some limited power as well. Ultimately a lot of developers will VE a project to save costs and then have to go for a revised DP, but once it's on the building, it's hard to imagine that the city will save no. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission...
 
The UDRP is a voluntary board of industry professionals, who critique/provide advice on certain projects. However, they are not an approving authority, so their comments do not NEED to be addressed. However, in the last few years, we have seen members of the Planning Commission, who IS the development authority that needs to be listened to, asking more and more to see UDRP comments addressed. Baby steps.

But, it is still frustrating when UDRP sees the early stages of a project, gives advice, etc... Then, as the project goes along, changes are made, even at times after the DP has been approved (and even CPC had their say). A good example is the BMO Expansion, when UDRP saw it, it had a small retail booth at the end of the sweeping roof. Was told it would be a possible active use to help activate the park that was being built. Now, that booth has been removed, it is just the end of a column there. Not sure if that revision was brought back to UDRP, or the builder just did it, and it got the rubber stamp through a revised plan at The City.
 
Surrealplaces said:
TBH, I'd be okay with the another tower of the same design. The podium is the worst part of the building, and thus the damage has already been done. A taller tower thrown in would add a lot of people to the area. A different design for the 3rd tower would be great, but I'm good either way.
Click to expand...
What I mean is that I don't wanna see three identical towers. Material, crown, or colour should be changed.
 
I do feel that even if they do the same podium on 8th ave side, I think it will have more potential by default on being on a road that's intended to be more of a pedestrian oriented main street.

The 9th ave side doesn't have much of a chance since it's the main vehicle entry point of downtown from the west, and feels solitary until development on the south side of 9th comes into fruition. I think a gym should take up the podium, since the west side of downtown area (which is the densest) is missing a large commercial gym.
 
Joborule said:
I do feel that even if they do the same podium on 8th ave side, I think it will have more potential by default on being on a road that's intended to be more of a pedestrian oriented main street.

The 9th ave side doesn't have much of a chance since it's the main vehicle entry point of downtown from the west, and feels solitary until development on the south side of 9th comes into fruition. I think a gym should take up the podium, since the west side of downtown area (which is the densest) is missing a large commercial gym.
Click to expand...
Yeah the only one is Goodlife in Mount Royal Village, and it's friggin paaaacked 100% of the time. A Gym would be a great use there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top