What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    32
observedevyeg said:
New to the forum after being a long time (4 year) lurker. Is there a post to follow the adjacent lot? It doesn't come up on the map!
Click to expand...

Windsor Park 118 Street DC2 - 6 storeys

LDA22-0373 - Windsor Park 118 Street DC2 The proposed DC2 Provision would allow for the development of a short mid-rise residential building with the following key characteristics: Maximum heights ranging from 14.5 metres at the north end of the site to 20 metres at the south end...
edmonton.skyrisecities.com edmonton.skyrisecities.com
 
Barnaby said:
Yeah, not enough of these mid-rise buildings are being put up.
Click to expand...
Where's the streetscape? Another free loading developer? Or maybe the developers pockets aren't deep enough to have included any. This is the type of developer that upsets people in the neighborhood. Take a look at that picture and consider what that street and neighborhood would look like if everybody did the same as that developer.
 
Out of Towner said:
Where's the streetscape? Another free loading developer? Or maybe the developers pockets aren't deep enough to have included any. This is the type of developer that upsets people in the neighborhood. Take a look at that picture and consider what that street and neighborhood would look like if everybody did the same as that developer.
Click to expand...
Can you cool it just a little bit? Ever since you started posting here, the tone of the forums has taken a much more aggressive tone. I've yet to mute anyone over the years but I'm getting there.

This isn't Reddit.
 
Out of Towner said:
Where's the streetscape? Another free loading developer? Or maybe the developers pockets aren't deep enough to have included any. This is the type of developer that upsets people in the neighborhood. Take a look at that picture and consider what that street and neighborhood would look like if everybody did the same as that developer.
Click to expand...
Allegedly there were supposed to be trees planted out front, but due to u/g utilities routed underneath it wasn't feasible.
 
northlands said:
Allegedly there were supposed to be trees planted out front, but due to u/g utilities routed underneath it wasn't feasible.
Click to expand...
It's really unfortunate that a utility service corridor had to be run around what looks like around the entire building. Wonder if the developer could plant some trees in the boulevard across the street as a compromise? Also wonder if the development in the block to the east will rip out the trees and not replant any.
 
Tropical said:
Can you cool it just a little bit? Ever since you started posting here, the tone of the forums has taken a much more aggressive tone. I've yet to mute anyone over the years but I'm getting there.

This isn't Reddit.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I thought that taxpayers were allowed to voice an opinion even when they may not be popular with everybody. Your post suggests that you have a dog in the fight because I don't recall you calling anybody out for complaining about any of Regency's vacant properties.
 
Out of Towner said:
Where's the streetscape? Another free loading developer? Or maybe the developers pockets aren't deep enough to have included any. This is the type of developer that upsets people in the neighborhood. Take a look at that picture and consider what that street and neighborhood would look like if everybody did the same as that developer.
Click to expand...
I'm completely open to planting trees in both outside lanes of that massive roadway. Is that what you'd actually like though, or are you concern trolling?

I'm not really sure what you mean by saying "another free loading developer?" Is this a major problem in the city that I'm not privy to? Developers are the only supply side solution this city has to housing. The governments we've been blessed with can't seem to figure out how to build housing for less than $1million/unit. I welcome developers to provide value to people. The more the merrier.

Often when there is a complaint about losing trees, it's when there's a considerable amount of housing being built. I don't want to lose the urban canopy either, and I certainly don't like seas of asphalt/concrete. It frankly seems bad faith to make this argument when the very picture you're pointing shows 80% of the public space being asphalt dedicated to cars.
 
I understand that some of you have jobs in the field and are doing God's work and are sensitive to criticism. If advocating for an urban canopy is "concern trolling" than it's what I'm doing and I'm glad that you're completely open to planting some trees along that road. Good projects include attention to the surrounding streetscape and I'm 100% on board with that project if something was done to remedy its deficiency.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top