|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
JoeUrban
Active Member
No one is trying to protect a parking lot in Inglewood. That is a lie, please retract it.
1875
Senior Member
car dealership, sorry
JoeUrban
Active Member
Yeah yeah, what I'm getting at is no one is against development of any kind on that lot, so spreading lies like that is a huge disservice to the actual concerns of the community.
1875
Senior Member
i think you missed the point of this discussion, which is questioning why/if a historic 2nd st sw building should be sacrificed for new development. youre giving off a bit of a nimby vibe imho.
inglewood isnt the property of anyone, nor are opinions about inglewood. sadly im not going to live long enough for 80% of the (non historical) buildings bt 8st and 14st to be rebuilt as heritage park knock offs. i am interested in a robust neighbourhood with quatlity design and function. where were you when torode rolled into town and started projects that make parking lots look nostalgic?
inglewood isnt the property of anyone, nor are opinions about inglewood. sadly im not going to live long enough for 80% of the (non historical) buildings bt 8st and 14st to be rebuilt as heritage park knock offs. i am interested in a robust neighbourhood with quatlity design and function. where were you when torode rolled into town and started projects that make parking lots look nostalgic?
Mountain Man
Senior Member
The proposal isn't terrible, but the loss of that heritage building definitely is!
People can only develop the sites they own...
MichaelS
Senior Member
As Disraeli mentioned, you can't appeal a Council decision on zoning. Appeals are for development permits, but when it comes to zoning, Council is the final say.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Maybe I am and I'm not trying to be a dick about the parking lot issue, but Inglewood has time and time again said they support the 6 story development limit as laid out in the ARP, so they are not anti-development, they're anti-disregarding-the-ARP. I am sure they would fully support a 6 or 8 story version of the RNDSQR development. Maybe begrudgingly support in the case of 8 stories, but support. And you're right, there is a separate thread for the RNDSQR proposal so I will stick to the 2nd st one here.
Joborule
Active Member
Just to come back to this. It is. Based on a infill station report back in 2017, it would be a cost estimate of $32M.
Full report: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=32872
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
I believe the $100 million cost is what one councilor threw out at the meeting to discuss the Northland proposal. Maybe there are other components to it.
Travisty
Active Member
[/QUOTE]
Obviously. The 'Why' was more rhetorical. Its not terrible, but not sure if this project will be much of a net gain, if any.
Last edited:
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Well, people keep complaining about development taking down an existing building when there are empty lots nearby. If you make that comment I have to assume you need to hear the response I gave.
This project will be a net gain in everything that isn't heritage preservation. It's an attractive building that adds density in exactly the location we need to infill. I'm choked at the heritage loss, but thrilled to fill an under developed lot.
This project will be a net gain in everything that isn't heritage preservation. It's an attractive building that adds density in exactly the location we need to infill. I'm choked at the heritage loss, but thrilled to fill an under developed lot.
jdixon
Active Member
I wish they incorporated the existing external structure of those buildings, or built around them.
Sambo
New Member
That mall is a disaster.
If $32 Million is the cost for a new station it should be easy enough to get one built, contingent on the mall getting redeveloped.