Springbank Hill | ?m | ?s | Multiple Projects

whatchyyc said:
The current planned station location doesn't offer much tbh, probably half of the buildings are closer to 69 Street already. Maybe they could relocate it?
Click to expand...
I would hope they do, it's too bad we align stormponds with major road intersections rather than transit stations and development. A station right at 85th and 17th Ave would be ideal, instead of where it's been proposed - about 400m further west, away from the development.

Luckily lots of time before this extension happens, plenty of things can change before then and lead to a better outcome.
 
So I think the Ronmor shopping centre, Springbank Hill District, that was #7 on the development tracking map is no more. There is no more information about it on Ronmor's website (clicking the link on the first post returns a 404 error), and the DP status on the development map is now shown as Cancelled:

For posterity, here are the images that used to be on Ronmor's website:
1701146548601.png


I will remove this from the map, and update the first page.
 
And with the Ronmor project gone, another new one (although, not on the Ronmor site) has been applied for. Another Slokker one, down south of Wildflower, called Azure in Springbank Hill:

It is a small, 3 storey apartment building, with a couple of semi-detached houses fronting 81st Street. From the DP drawings:
1701146708632.png

1701146735839.png

1701146754807.png

1701146784969.png

1701146812861.png

1701146867513.png


The updated map (without Ronmor)
1701146923740.png
 
MichaelS said:
Some updated renderings for Truman's Willows Phase 4 project (#13 on the map) have been included in their amended plans uploaded to DMap.


View attachment 544469
Click to expand...
It's projects like this that showcase just how stupid suburban boulevard/arterial design are. A couple hundred million in private investment, and 750 units and we ask it to ignore the nearest main street with a future LRT on it.
 
17th isn't a Main Street in this location. It is a designated vehicle arterial route. 77th Street will actually be a bit of a high street with this project and if this land use ever turns into a project. The Truman one has retail fronting 77th, will be installing a parking lane, nice wide sidewalks, etc....

The extra set-back from 17th Ave for this project is to accommodate the future extension of the Blue Line.
 
MichaelS said:
17th isn't a Main Street in this location. It is a designated vehicle arterial route. 77th Street will actually be a bit of a high street with this project and if this land use ever turns into a project. The Truman one has retail fronting 77th, will be installing a parking lane, nice wide sidewalks, etc....

The extra set-back from 17th Ave for this project is to accommodate the future extension of the Blue Line.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge that, but that's the problem - the street is designated wrong to incorporate this scale/style of development - we declared it isn't a main street and should never be allowed to evolve into a main street. Doomed forever to have the backs of every development nearby, it'll spend 20 - 30 years languishing as a car sewer, then get an LRT with most development either ignoring or orientating themselves away from that transit spine.

Meanwhile, every choice about that street design that comes up to make things more easy to use for transit/pedestrians will be met with a shrug. It's designated a "vehicle arterial route", so when we need to make choices we will will not prioritize anything more than the minimum. This ignores the density that's proposed and the amount of people walking to nearby transit.

We can already see that in action in the immediate area with incomplete sidewalks or funny choices like this example below, where we narrowed the sidewalk between the LRT station at 69th Street and the school because we couldn't possibly find 1 more metre in this right-of-way in this 60km/h design. When built, this is the sidewalk those 800 units of people will be using to access the nearest LRT:

1709309909074.png
1709309985206.png


Developments like this are great opportunities, but will end up being car-oriented density if we don't resolve their interactions to the streets and transit around them. It's not the development's fault here, it's the street that the development is on is incorrectly designed for this style of density.
 
I really like what Truman is doing in the west end of the city. Hopefully the extra density helps get the blue line extended, and although a pipe dream another floor of park and ride space apart from the top would be welcome at 69th Street station. It seems like the reserved stalls are overweight since covid.
 
CBBarnett said:
I acknowledge that, but that's the problem - the street is designated wrong to incorporate this scale/style of development - we declared it isn't a main street and should never be allowed to evolve into a main street. Doomed forever to have the backs of every development nearby, it'll spend 20 - 30 years languishing as a car sewer, then get an LRT with most development either ignoring or orientating themselves away from that transit spine.

Meanwhile, every choice about that street design that comes up to make things more easy to use for transit/pedestrians will be met with a shrug. It's designated a "vehicle arterial route", so when we need to make choices we will will not prioritize anything more than the minimum. This ignores the density that's proposed and the amount of people walking to nearby transit.

We can already see that in action in the immediate area with incomplete sidewalks or funny choices like this example below, where we narrowed the sidewalk between the LRT station at 69th Street and the school because we couldn't possibly find 1 more metre in this right-of-way in this 60km/h design. When built, this is the sidewalk those 800 units of people will be using to access the nearest LRT:

View attachment 544719View attachment 544720

Developments like this are great opportunities, but will end up being car-oriented density if we don't resolve their interactions to the streets and transit around them. It's not the development's fault here, it's the street that the development is on is incorrectly designed for this style of density.
Click to expand...
Did the leap day make everyone just a little too nitpicky ? Every page I click on today someone’s taking the smallest details and making them seem like the end of the world. It’s going to be ok 👍. We’re getting a large development. Lots of density and height. All will be fine 🙏
 
Slokker's land use / outline plan application for one of their future projects in Springbank HIll goes to CPC next week as well. Some big density being proposed, FAR5.0 and 35m height.
Report, Background, Applicant Submission, Outline Plan, CA Response.

Here is the outline plan:
1709315248295.png


And while there is no DP yet, the CA response includes a few development concepts that were presented to them through the engagement process:
1709315395340.png
 
Golfing guy said:
Did the leap day make everyone just a little too nitpicky ? Every page I click on today someone’s taking the smallest details and making them seem like the end of the world. It’s going to be ok 👍.
Click to expand...
It's an internet forum that deals with big and small details of urban development. There is not an arbitrary threshold for "it's too detailed" for this conversation, nor are you the arbiter of what that level of detail is.

If you are looking for a more constructive way to disagree, try something like "I don't agree this will be an issue, it's too early to tell - perhaps we need to wait until more details are available before we see if your concerns will be realized or not."
Golfing guy said:
We’re getting a large development. Lots of density and height. All will be fine 🙏
Click to expand...
Let me try to generalize my original "too nitpicky" comment - I don't agree it will all be fine if we get lots of density and height without getting the interface with 17th Avenue and the future LRT corridor. Building is fine, height is fine - it's the street interactions that I am concerned with.
 
CBBarnett said:
It's an internet forum that deals with big and small details of urban development. There is not an arbitrary threshold for "it's too detailed" for this conversation, nor are you the arbiter of what that level of detail is.

If you are looking for a more constructive way to disagree, try something like "I don't agree this will be an issue, it's too early to tell - perhaps we need to wait until more details are available before we see if your concerns will be realized or not."

Let me try to generalize my original "too nitpicky" comment - I don't agree it will all be fine if we get lots of density and height without getting the interface with 17th Avenue and the future LRT corridor. Building is fine, height is fine - it's the street interactions that I am concerned with.
Click to expand...
Your first statement above sounds so panicky. We so few details to go by that any viewpoints are just opinions. The opinions on this page are getting a bit out of control lately. That was my main point. It’s starting to get a little SSP. Which is just my opinion.
As for having to interface with 17 ave. I’m not sure that’s even necessary or intended by the city or developer. There is zero retail or even housing backing into it (except the odd house ) west of 37st.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top