Kit at Kensington | 50m | 15s | Jemm Properties | LOLA

I forgot this even existed. Exciting to see the tallest building in Sunnyside/Hillhurst go ahead. Will makes a big impact.
 
haltcatchfire said:
This better not get approved without retail added to the 3rd Ave side.
Click to expand...
Agreed! There should be retail along 3rd ave and preferably 9a st, along the train station side. I don't know why we still can't make a proper TOD. Retail street activation along transit stations is one of the key pieces to unlocking vibrancy that comes with a TOD development. This is why TOD developments are so bumping in Vancouver. They got a skytrain station that basically drops you off at the theatre's ticket counter. Is a couple retail bays too much to ask for?
 
The CPC agenda is up and so it all of the materials for the land use for this application. Quite interestingly, it is a refusal recommendation.
Report, Background, Proposed DC Bylaw, Applicant Submission, Public Comments, CA Response, Heritage Calgary Response, UDRP Comments

The main point of contention leading to the refusal recommendation seems to be over the amount of money paid for the bonus density, and better transportation demand management measures to support the zero parking rate. This paragraph from the report seems to sum it up best:
1674229168790.png
 
I was going to come in all hot and point out that this is walking distance to downtown, basically on a high street, next to a bike lane, across the street from a supermarket and even closer to an LRT station so if this kind of site doesn't allow zero parking, what could? But then I read a little more, and they aren't even proposing to provide one class 1 (secure) bike parking stall per unit, and I suddenly agree with administration on this one. One bike parking space per unit is a pretty low bar, and they're trying to wriggle under it.
 
MichaelS said:
The CPC agenda is up and so it all of the materials for the land use for this application. Quite interestingly, it is a refusal recommendation.
Report, Background, Proposed DC Bylaw, Applicant Submission, Public Comments, CA Response, Heritage Calgary Response, UDRP Comments

The main point of contention leading to the refusal recommendation seems to be over the amount of money paid for the bonus density, and better transportation demand management measures to support the zero parking rate. This paragraph from the report seems to sum it up best:
View attachment 451502
Click to expand...

So basically the city wanted ~$1 million more than JEMM was willing to pay, along with a bit more bike parking. Will be fascinating to see whether council makes the same decision.
 
MichaelS said:
The CPC agenda is up and so it all of the materials for the land use for this application. Quite interestingly, it is a refusal recommendation.
Report, Background, Proposed DC Bylaw, Applicant Submission, Public Comments, CA Response, Heritage Calgary Response, UDRP Comments

The main point of contention leading to the refusal recommendation seems to be over the amount of money paid for the bonus density, and better transportation demand management measures to support the zero parking rate. This paragraph from the report seems to sum it up best:
View attachment 451502
Click to expand...
Call me naive, I had no idea you could just pay to get past something like that.
 
This development is perfect for students and especially international students who almost always don't have vehicles or can't drive. Like mentioned above it's close to a supermarket and right next to the C-train station. It would be nice if this development could start a trend in Calgary.
However, having absolute 0 resident parking accommodation does pose a significant problem and is a tough reality to accept in Calgary. Hopefully Jemm can come up with a solution -- a cheap solution. They have to come up with a cheap solution or it could throw off their entire strategic plan to achieve profitability. Adding underground parking means the cost just went up a lot and there goes their target demographic.

Oh the car-centric city dilemma 🙄
 
As much as I want to see something developed on that location, I think it should be done properly.
It’s one of the few locations that could support zero parking due to the LRT, but definitely should have some bike enclosure/racks for sure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top