Nest | 40.23m | 15s | Cairo Development | Casola Koppe

I think it is its minimal foot print, like you say how skinny it is, that helps how it feels. The developer is probably happy not to have a large podium they need to lease out or maintain. This could be replicated, even with underground parking. The underground parking could take up twice the space and the tower could still have a minimal footprint if the street level above half the underground parking was a green amenity space.
 
IMG_6286.jpeg

Crane is down!!!!!
 
Last edited:
It is a rental building so in the end it is up to them to lease the building out. I do assume this will be a glorified hotel with Airbnb/Vrbo units. It is also close to the train and walking distance to downtown.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Oh this is actually a thing, I thought it was a joke... oops sorry @kora]
Click to expand...
I'm in Victoria now and they're insisting on these things, but they are still pretty weak and usually last for a short period of time. This one building offers free bus passes for all units, but only for 1 person per unit, and only for 3 years. So if you have 2 or 3 people needing the bus pass in your apartment, only one of them gets it. They also offer free car-share memberships and a small amount of credits. Some buildings offer a free e-bike credit. The incentives tend to be for the start of a building's life and only benefits the first residents, which is imperfect because what about those residents that move in there in 10 or 20 years. There's still limited (or zero in this case) parking.

Just wondering how this went through approvals and what was insisted upon besides a great location for transit/walking/cycling.
 
Looks like the big Indigo lot across the street is $127/month. Not too bad all things considered. Of course that may increase, and who knows what the future holds for that lot, and like street parking, spots aren't guaranteed.
 
kora said:
I'm in Victoria now and they're insisting on these things, but they are still pretty weak and usually last for a short period of time. This one building offers free bus passes for all units, but only for 1 person per unit, and only for 3 years. So if you have 2 or 3 people needing the bus pass in your apartment, only one of them gets it. They also offer free car-share memberships and a small amount of credits. Some buildings offer a free e-bike credit. The incentives tend to be for the start of a building's life and only benefits the first residents, which is imperfect because what about those residents that move in there in 10 or 20 years. There's still limited (or zero in this case) parking.

Just wondering how this went through approvals and what was insisted upon besides a great location for transit/walking/cycling.
Click to expand...
Albertasaurus said:
I believe so, but not sure which of those are being offered in this case. Pretty sure they need to do one or more of those in order to be allowed the zero parking.
Click to expand...

CalgaryTiger said:
Oh this is actually a thing, I thought it was a joke... oops sorry @kora
Click to expand...

The City does have parking policies that support significant parking reductions, specifically if you look at Section 4.2 of the policy document, you will see these policies:
1756351861732.png


The challenge is, what happens if 1b. is true at the time of DP, but over time, redevelopment occurs, and no longer becomes true? And, how do you enforce 1d? I was involved in a project (Battistella's Nude) where in order to reduce the amount of required parking, Battistella agreed to provide Car2Go memberships to all purchasers. But, the problem is, after the DP was approved (with the reduced parking), Car2Go left the Calgary market. Should that void the DP? Say you do get a developer that does provide bus passes, but then they sell the building (or turn it over to a condo board), can the City legally require them to pay for bus passes? If not, does the City revoke occupancy?

It is a complicated issue in many ways, but it could be greatly simplified if Council just was willing to accept that on-street parking needs to be managed, and that no group is entitled to it. Basically, get rid of all RPP zones. If your on-street parking gets busier and busier, start charging money for it. If it continues to stay busy, charge more for it. If you don't like paying for on-street parking, park on your property. If your property doesn't have a parking stall, move to one that does.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top