rake
New Member
No update on the status of the DP, but this is on the Westrich site now: https://westrichpacific.com/project/ice-tower/
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Greenspace
Senior Member
^They got their DP from SDAB for 'reuse' of the existing building to 3-year permit for surface parking.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Why only 18? That seems so small for the area. Wish it’d be 25-45.
IanO
Senior Member
Market capacity, velocity of the project, a 'sweet spot' if you will for construction costs and revenue.
This site, unlike the 106st mega-tower, is a realistic project that is likely to go forward.
This site, unlike the 106st mega-tower, is a realistic project that is likely to go forward.
barhonda
New Member
EtoV
Active Member
I generally like this, I just wish it wasn't completely surrounded by parking.
Aaron_Lloyd
Active Member
Literally a moat of parking. Think Beljan can do a bit better than this.... especially with it being this close to an eventual LRT station.
BP issued for two 6-storey apartment buildings way out in the suburbs (Edgemont). One is 196 units and the other is 138 units. The total construction value is $61M.
Avenuer
Senior Member
Same developer as this: https://lestonheritage.com/
thommyjo
Senior Member
Thankful our suburbs aren’t all SFHs. But also so annoying to see tens of thousands of 600-1100 sqft apartment buildings all around the henday. Imagine the people living in those being in more walkable, transit served areas. Blatchford, Oliver, Strathcona, around any LRT stop, etc.
The absorption of rental/apartment residents into these low quality, suburban, car dependent projects is frustrating. I think I’d almost rather just see all the land used up for big homes so density can be concentrated more centrally. Our vibrancy, transit, and local business would likely outweigh the property tax revenue of denser sprawled suburbs.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
A great deal would need to change for that to happen.
Last I heard city councilors were considering preventing new suburbs from developing until all the planned higher density development in under development suburbs was complete. They really seem to want to direct the higher density growth to the suburbs.
IanO
Senior Member
'Last I heard city councilors were considering preventing new suburbs from developing until all the planned higher density development in under development suburbs was complete. They really seem to want to direct the higher density growth to the suburbs.'
Where did you hear this? Obviously you don't want leapfrogging or frivolous approvals of ASPs/NSPs, but I question that possibility or intent.
Where did you hear this? Obviously you don't want leapfrogging or frivolous approvals of ASPs/NSPs, but I question that possibility or intent.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
Councilor Stevenson discussed it in council meetings. Idea seemed to be to restrict new land supply until development was complete. Background was that developers were building more single family homes than planned. They would leave the multi family sites vacant and start on sfh in the next neighbourhood. Argument that it was a waste of infrastructure.
IanO
Senior Member
RA7 (predominantly) sites that were 'forced' upon developers by ways of ASPs/NSPs are often lamented by those in the industry and difficult to move vis a vis other products.
Anne should focus on her ward's issues and not be distracted given her overall performance thus far.
Anne should focus on her ward's issues and not be distracted given her overall performance thus far.
David A
Senior Member
As someone who lives in her area, I find it odd that she has so little to say on various downtown issues that so serious now and need council's attention.