Solo on 4th | 16.76m | 5s | Indevelopments | Indevelopments

[UrbanWarrior]

That's about worst case scenario, pretty much as bad as a proposal there could possibly be. What on Earth were they thinking?

 

[haltcatchfire]

Ground level is actually not bad if you can ignore the rest of it before the nausea sets in, and I guess the upper levels aren’t that bad either if you have a tendency to prefer basement suite living on a 4th floor.

With the money they saved on design they could afford some more glass.

 

[LloydBraun]

Woof, Indeed.

 

[Alex_YYC]

Not liking this one

 

[Oddball]

If we get a poll on this one, I'd like to request that the "Terrible" option be replaced with "Woof!"

 

[IanBray]

Awful cheap looking proposal for one of the cities primary retail and dining streets. Hopefully this design gets torn apart when it goes before council. It is interesting to look at Indevelopments so called past projects. All industrial warehouses and First Nations developments. This appears to be their first residential development and shows big time.

https://www.indevelopments.com/past-projects/

 

[MichaelS]

This won't go to council, as it is a DP. How much discretion, in a discretionary use application like this, is there based entirely on looks? I would be this meets most of the bylaw rules, so refusing it on a technical basis will be difficult.

 

[Alex_YYC]

If I’m not mistaken the planning administration has recommended refusal on past projects due to materials. I remember a couple of cases where the City made the developer choose different materials, one was the Riverpoint project by POV, and the other was a hotel in the beltline proposed by some group from Korea.

This won't go to council, as it is a DP. How much discretion, in a discretionary use application like this, is there based entirely on looks? I would be this meets most of the bylaw rules, so refusing it on a technical basis will be difficult.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I don't recall any projects recommended for refusal solely based on materials, but I could be wrong. What was the situation with Riverfront Pointe?

 

[The Familia]

Now that is one giant pile of shit. Good God. Hope that company goes bankrupt for designing junk like that.

 

[LloydBraun]

This won't go to council, as it is a DP. How much discretion, in a discretionary use application like this, is there based entirely on looks? I would be this meets most of the bylaw rules, so refusing it on a technical basis will be difficult.

Could the DP go to Calgary Planning Commission because it's on a key main street corridor? It would likely get torn up there....

 

[Urb]

Yes - this could go to CPC, which would force it to go through the Urban Design Review Panel. Unfortunately this is unlikely for a project of this size. UDRP would rip this thing to shreds...

 

[LloydBraun]

Yes - this could go to CPC, which would force it to go through the Urban Design Review Panel. Unfortunately this is unlikely for a project of this size. UDRP would rip this thing to shreds...

All those concerned with the 'woof factor' should take the 2 minutes to share their comments with the file manager: https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2018-2366

 

[UrbanWarrior]

All those concerned with the 'woof factor' should take the 2 minutes to share their comments with the file manager: https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2018-2366

Done! Thank you!

 

[Beltline_B]

All those concerned with the 'woof factor' should take the 2 minutes to share their comments with the file manager: https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2018-2366

I sent in my thoughts. I stated that the scale is fine, and that the retail at base is great but the materials and the design needs to be up at notch for a retail street like 4th.