Louis on 9th | ?m | 12s | Landstar

zagox

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
209
Reaction score
534
Location
Sunnyside
I don't think we have to worry about this one every being built. This company never moves forward with projects. Just land flippers. That's why their renders are just massing. No point in developing it further.
The other four projects on their website have renderings. Having said that, the only multi-family development they finished seems to be Portico in Bridgeland/Renfrew in 2005.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
3,757
This one goes to CPC this week, with an approval recommendation:
Similar to RNDSQR's block, the Community association and the BIA are opposed to this:

No concurrent DP or renderings, so we don't know what building design is being proposed. Will Council (or CPC for that matter) grant the height without seeing a high quality building design?
 

outoftheice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
218
Reaction score
818
I don't mind this proposal as much after the changes made to it but I don't think what is proposed in order to achieve the density bonusing is worth it and so I hope Council tells them to come back with further improvements.

If the landowners had worked with an adjacent landowner to get a heritage building along 9th Ave officially designated as a historic resource I would say go for it and approve the density bonus but instead they are earning the density by simply paying into a heritage fund which may save a grand total of zero buildings along 9th. Not worth it to me. I was in support of the RNDSQR proposal in part because it gave the CIBC building official heritage protection status.
 

LloydBraun

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
177
Reaction score
362
I don't mind this proposal as much after the changes made to it but I don't think what is proposed in order to achieve the density bonusing is worth it and so I hope Council tells them to come back with further improvements.

If the landowners had worked with an adjacent landowner to get a heritage building along 9th Ave officially designated as a historic resource I would say go for it and approve the density bonus but instead they are earning the density by simply paying into a heritage fund which may save a grand total of zero buildings along 9th. Not worth it to me. I was in support of the RNDSQR proposal in part because it gave the CIBC building official heritage protection status.
Agreed. I would like to see a real deal vision for this site with a Development Permit under review at the same time.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
2,450
1596574018990.png


They could and should play with this massing to still achieve the desired FAR while reducing shadowing impacts at minimum. The laziness of this massing is annoying. Rotate and shape the tower portion.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
3,757
The public is not allowed to speak at CPC. There were letters submitted. The public will have the opportunity to speak when it goes to Council. On the one hand, there may be a big turn out like the RNDSQR one, but on the other, I can see the community saying "what's the point" based on how RNDSQR and Hungerford has already gone.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
3,757
Hungerford got the land use approval for their Edison project (corner of 9th Avenue and 8th Street SE). No DP has been submitted. Their project at 1390 17th Ave SE has not yet been to CPC, and is still under review at the City:
 

Tarsus

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
89
Reaction score
163
Agreed, though I imagine this is more of a general placeholder. The final design will look different.
View attachment 261403

They could and should play with this massing to still achieve the desired FAR while reducing shadowing impacts at minimum. The laziness of this massing is annoying. Rotate and shape the tower portion.
 

CCF

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
146
Reaction score
319
Looks as if the existing building is up for lease - which would suggest that this project is not moving forward in the short term.
 

Top