MissingMiddle
Active Member
And a slide that's operational for both uses
Kensington Mixed Use | 20m | 6s | Stonebriar | McKinley Burkart
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
As long as there's a one hour overlap so the parents can have a pint before they walk their kids home.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Kids can bartend.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Urb
Active Member
Nothing extraordinary, but a nice filler
Urban Outdoorsman
Active Member
Overall pretty solid proposal, I like the overall massing in the front. Also I appreciate that they're trying to activate the laneway.
On another note I love that Kensington always seems to have a project on the go. There's been at least one or two projects going for almost 10 years. If we can get one or two of these developments every year I can only imagine what this area will be like in 10 years!
On another note I love that Kensington always seems to have a project on the go. There's been at least one or two projects going for almost 10 years. If we can get one or two of these developments every year I can only imagine what this area will be like in 10 years!
outoftheice
Active Member
Is the blue building part of this parcel and will be saved through this development or is part of an adjacent parcel and could still be redeveloped by another property owner? I only ask as I think the building adds some fun character to the neighbourhood and it would be nice to know it's sticking around.
MichaelS
Senior Member
It is part of this parcel, and will be saved as part of this development. I don't know if they have confirmed the uses for it, but likely a commercial tenant of some type will go in there.
MichaelS
Senior Member
This one is being appealed by many of the immediate neighbours, package can be seen on the SDAB website, as SDAB2021-0090.
www.calgarysdab.ca
Before we all start hurling calls of NIMBY!, when you read the reasons for appeal, it is pretty interesting, and in my opinion, quite legit. If I lived/owned of the parcels on 5th Ave, I would probably be doing the same. From the package, as can be found on page 4/563 (there HAS to be a better way to assemble SDAB packages.....) the rationale is as follows:
For reference, the power poles are currently on the south side of the lane, adjacent to this project/property:
www.google.ca
Active Appeals / Public Reports
www.calgarysdab.ca
Before we all start hurling calls of NIMBY!, when you read the reasons for appeal, it is pretty interesting, and in my opinion, quite legit. If I lived/owned of the parcels on 5th Ave, I would probably be doing the same. From the package, as can be found on page 4/563 (there HAS to be a better way to assemble SDAB packages.....) the rationale is as follows:
For reference, the power poles are currently on the south side of the lane, adjacent to this project/property:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.ca
Urban Outdoorsman
Active Member
How much more expensive/complicated would it be to bury the utilities? I imagine that would be the ideal solution, albeit more costly than relocating the power linesThis one is being appealed by many of the immediate neighbours, package can be seen on the SDAB website, as SDAB2021-0090.
Active Appeals / Public Reports
Before we all start hurling calls of NIMBY!, when you read the reasons for appeal, it is pretty interesting, and in my opinion, quite legit. If I lived/owned of the parcels on 5th Ave, I would probably be doing the same. From the package, as can be found on page 4/563 (there HAS to be a better way to assemble SDAB packages.....) the rationale is as follows:
View attachment 373428
View attachment 373429
View attachment 373430
For reference, the power poles are currently on the south side of the lane, adjacent to this project/property:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
jdixon
Active Member
They should just bury the poles...
adamyyc
Active Member
Or adequately compensate the impacted landowners.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
This is a good point. If this level of density doesn't trigger/warrant/amortize effectively the cost of burying electrical wires, what's exactly going on here? Either the cost of burying the wires is silly or the costs are not being allocated well.
Anyone have any insight into Enmax, electrical and the nuances of why we don't bury/create less development sensitive above ground wires? Lots of major cities around the world bury everything or bury far fewer wires than us - all at way higher densities - so what's the deal in our situation? What's our triggers why this development didn't want to bury them? Or even why burying them is their responsibility (or not)? I would love a 101-level class on municipal electrical systems, how they work, and who is/should/could be responsible for what
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Burying the wires would probably be close to 7 figures, developers are in this to make as much money as possible, so that's pretty much never on their radar.
Nimbus
Active Member
Apparently this one died at appeal. Back to the drawing board?