What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    65
Developers should always pay the costs of the new infrastructure required for their projects. If you're tearing up a laneway during construction and adding potentially an extra 100 vehicles a day driving on it that require it to be upgraded, that should be a cost borne by developers. Just as suburban developers should need to pay for their new roadways and infrastructure, so should infill developers.
 
Elasticity sure, but the less you require of developers for key infrastructure directly relating to and impacting their building serves nobody.

Look at the sidewalks around Encore for instance... my Icon example above or the many, many other examples of this across our city.

*Municipalities should also be looking at better classifications of 'renewal' vs 'growth' for OSLs and find more conducive ways forward.
 
IanO said:
Very pleased to see that the laneway is going to get upgraded/repaved as well with this project.

How this is not required by the developer as an offsite levy is beyond me.

Remember how new residents moving into the ICON I and II (and Century) had to pay to improve their 2/10 quality laneway?

Same thing with Symphony Tower.

Augustana repaved a portion of their laneway.

This should be part of the DP and a requirement by the COE to then complete the remainder should it require upgrading as well.

I recall speaking with a planner about this and their comment was that laneways are not heavily used and this was not required...

Ha
Click to expand...
It makes sense to me that the developer should upgrade or repave a laneway, if needed. If it is in good condition and can handle additional traffic (it seems to me the planner is only looking at the present not the future) that does not necessarily need to happen immediately. So good sense should prevail, however it is less disruptive to do during construction and before people move into the area.

One of the benefits/advantages of developing infill sites is much of the infrastructure already exists. You also do want to be careful not to discourage development of them by putting in too many additional charges.
 
52159346140_fc819c23ae_k.jpg
 
westcoastjos said:
That seems like a really deep hole for the reduced building height. Makes you wonder what it would have been if they went with the original plan.
Click to expand...
Langham is building 1:1 parking to units, plus parking for all the commercial tenants. doesn't see the LRT proximity as sufficient, I guess. That hole is just for the reduced 30-floors-max tower.

parking takes up a s***load of space.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top