Disraeli
Active Member
Don't existing surface lots need a renewal of the land use every 5 years or so? If so the DP could be for the surface lot behind the building.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Parking is over supplied these days, unless it's an existing parking lot there's no chance it happens.
Morshed
Active Member
We hope not but developers got most city councilors, especially the mayor, by the throat.
YourBoy007
Active Member
As Mayor, I will get a bylaw passed declaring any and all new public parking shall be underground. Vote YourBoy007.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
How do you figure that? The City has been pretty consistent in saying no to new parking lots downtown for quite a while now.
Morshed
Active Member
they say yes to more trees then developers cut trees down to make room for bigger mansions!
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Well clearly the Mayor is on the take then!
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
The DP is approved so expect some gravel to adorn that corner for years to come.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Lol that’s f*cked up.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Blame Park Central. They caused an imbalance by removing the Calgary standard of minimum one adjacent parking lot per intersection.
1875
Senior Member
is this process just a rubber stamp? really flies in the face of all the rhetoric that comes out of city hall. they seem to be pro parking as much as they are pro anything.
kora
Active Member
My impression when I worked there was that it was. Surface parking was seen as a good temporary use when a building had passed its useful economic life. There was even less scrutiny when a public agency like Transit or Police wanted a new surface parking lot.
Calgcouver
Active Member
That is good to know. The City imo needs to grow a set of balls and ask for better temp uses. The problem is the landlord has done sweet f*** all to maintain or increase the attractiveness of the building to tenants. They have tried absolutely nothing with the buildings onsite and then claim they could be at "the end of there useful life". Crazy that older buildings in so many other city's landlords seem to half-ass maintain and keep useful for much longer, i suspect it is more of the conservative/corporate mentality of the landlord in this instance. Half of the subject site is literally already surface parking lot, why give them more? But i mean there must be so much demand for more surface parking there is just none nearby (red being surface parking or multi-storey parkade):
And here is Genco at the Pre-App for the surface parking temp use with the City, arguing it is "the end of the buildings useful life":
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
Re the DP for a parking lot on the Genco site (4 St & 11 Ave). This is what was planned for that site.
If parking is all they want to do with the site, then Myriad is either dead or Genco are in no hurry to bring it to market. It would explain why they have left the existing building without upkeep as they are still collecting rent in some of the space. For example, Ellis Don's site office for Park Central is on the upper floor. I would imagine after the 2nd tower is complete, the buildings will come down and then we will see if it stays parking indefinitely, or some other more motivated developer buys it from Genco. Like most people in this forum, I detest surface parking lots that take up more space in the inner city than they should.
Last edited:
1875
Senior Member
frustrating