Romanov
Active Member
At what point does the city sell the ball diamond land?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
IanO
Superstar
Why? It a great neighbourhood amenity for sport, dogs, picnics and stargazing.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Looks like the ball diamond will stay intact according to the rendering. On the other hand, the historic Rossdale Brewery building also needs to stay intact but is not depicted as such in the rendering. So who knows?
IanO
Superstar
It's there and incorporated from what I recall seeing.
husky
Active Member
If the development goes ahead I wonder if (and this might be heresy given its history) Diamond Park turns into a more formal park instead or the sport use changes to another (soccer, some basketball courts, etc). I suppose you could also just change the orientation of the diamond since there's less of a chance of a ball being sent through a window that way.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Edgemont apartments. New suburbs love these gas station views from apartments 
Also, 0 transit in this area, but 4 large apartments! Literally working against all the goals of our city plan
Also, 0 transit in this area, but 4 large apartments! Literally working against all the goals of our city plan
Barnaby
Senior Member
Blame the people that choose to live in apartments with none of the benefits of living in an apartment.
Substantial completion would also help with this, so would a form of a LVT.
Substantial completion would also help with this, so would a form of a LVT.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Does the city not realize that every time they approve hundreds of apartment units in a suburb with literally no transit beyond “on demand” that it’s going to drop our proportion of non car travel (a key goal in the city plan)?
Do they think that one day people will suddenly start bussing from these areas?
I think all new high density projects should have to be within 800m of a train stop or a major bus centre.
Barnaby
Senior Member
I think the city may believe housing comes before transit. I think this is a double standard, though, as they don't apply the same thinking to roadways.
Once people lock into their mode of transportation it's hard to get them to change because of sunk cost and familiarity.
archited
Senior Member
It looks like this will be another Five Oaks Development Project -- owned by Gene Dub, Architect. Expect it to be a slow build as it gets built with primarily cash flow from other 5-oaks projects. On the positive side it is an architectural gem and since it is Dub's development it will not get value-engineered into something other -- so expect to get what you see. In my opinion it will set a new very high standard for apartment buildings in the City.
jason403
Active Member
Or maybe the convenience and freedom of driving is desired and people do not want to use public transit unless it is a last resort.
Barnaby
Senior Member
There is effectively no transit out there. That's the point we're making. The apartment is probably closer to horses than an LRT station.
husky
Active Member
I'll be a bit contrarian here. I know that ideally these higher density developments should be connected to transit but at the same time we always bemoan how these new communities are typically low density sprawl. I too would love more towers in central areas but I think they serve different markets entirely.
The new communities being developed are actually quite high density lately (lots of duplexes and townhome style units) and I think that should be celebrated. Many of these higher density suburban developments are adjacent to rec centers/parks (Lewis Farms) or commercial nodes (Edgemont) which inherently will lessen car dependency too. Transit service can always be brought to these areas once the population and ridership is there to support it.
The new communities being developed are actually quite high density lately (lots of duplexes and townhome style units) and I think that should be celebrated. Many of these higher density suburban developments are adjacent to rec centers/parks (Lewis Farms) or commercial nodes (Edgemont) which inherently will lessen car dependency too. Transit service can always be brought to these areas once the population and ridership is there to support it.
thommyjo
Senior Member
The challenge is that there’s only so much demand for price points and types of housing. So when we continue to build high density in suburbs with no walkability or transit, far from job centres and main streets, it works against all our goals.
While some people are very particular about where they live in the city, I think a lot of people outside the henday would actually live near whyte, in blatchford, etc if we prioritized apartments there instead of off henday ramps. If all the housing in new suburbs is 400k+ and non apartments, those wanting apartments will look centrally. Maybe not right downtown, but Century park, meadowlark, Bonnie doon, etc.
We NEED tens of thousands of medium to high density units around train lines to get anywhere close to the 50% non car goal the city has. Meanwhile 75% of new apartments are outside the henday with poor transit.