haltcatchfire
Senior Member
The question I'd have if they sit on it, does the hotel jump ship and sign up in another development?
I wasn't necessarily thinking of high-end rentals but rather any kind of rentals. I know there's a heavy amount of rental development going on right now but it apparently they are filling up the units.
The question I'd have if they sit on it, does the hotel jump ship and sign up in another development?
Thanks for digging that up MichaelS. I'm not great at reading those types of docs, but it appears Only 5 people were against the land use change (Farrell, Pincott, Carra, Nenshi, and Woolley)The change to allow office instead of residential took place in 2015/2016 as part of a land use redesignation for the parcel. If I recall, the CA for Eau Claire was opposed to this, as the Eau Claire ARP was calling for more residential, and they were worried that allowing office would make the area more of a "dead zone" in the evenings and weekends.
The council vote took place on March 7, 2016. It was item 7.14 for the meeting, and the minutes (with Video I believe) can be found here:
http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2051&doctype=MINUTES
I'd like to think I am okay at reading those documents, but that was extremely confusing when I look at the minutes for that section. Looks very complicated, and it was clear that Councillor Farrel was not in favour of the change. Anyway, it certainly did appear to be contentious, and didn't have unanimous support from Council, but it got passed, and that is that.Would be nice to see all those residential projects for Eau Claire come to fruition, and also see a moratorium, on office space.
Thanks for digging that up MichaelS. I'm not great at reading those types of docs, but it appears Only 5 people were against the land use change (Farrell, Pincott, Carra, Nenshi, and Woolley)
I hope we don't get more of this in the future. Eau claire really needs more residential.
So it's not just me lol. I read through a few times and still couldn't figure out what it all meant. I'm glad you were able to make sense of it. It's a shame it turned out that way, but if it stops there I can be okay with that. My fear is that it comes to this every time a developer wants to build an office tower in Eau Claire.I'd like to think I am okay at reading those documents, but that was extremely confusing when I look at the minutes for that section. Looks very complicated, and it was clear that Councillor Farrel was not in favour of the change. Anyway, it certainly did appear to be contentious, and didn't have unanimous support from Council, but it got passed, and that is that.
If it was all office, I'd be very disappointed. The hotel isn't bad for the area, it'll provide more vibrancy than the office tower next door. The intersection at 2nd street and 3rd ave should be officially named 'the dead zone'.
@UrbanWarrior Good find on all these recent renderings.
It was always part of the DP, but sounds like it is contingent on the office space getting built. I was told at the time the DP was submitted that the hotel was in play, and they were considering building the office portion without a tenant just to get the hotel going, while the office market picked up. If they haven't done it by now, it's not likely they'll do it anytime soon.So is the hotel back in play ?