News   Apr 03, 2020
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.4K     0 

Infill Development Discussion

I don't know if this has been mentioned on this thread before or not. RNDSQR has a proposal for 21 units on Bowness Rd, just west of the main retail strip. This style of development seems to be the new go to for developers doing infills, which is fine by me. Not as sexy as a high-rise tower, but 10 of these types of developments = a high-rise tower.
DMAP
View attachment 596547
View attachment 596544
Is this the one going on a piece of park land that the community is freaking out about?
 
Is this the one going on a piece of park land that the community is freaking out about?
No, this is just residential land.

Here are some more pics

RENDER 13.jpg




RENDER 11.jpg
 
For reference, this is the site that the City sold to a developer that Bowness is freaking out about. Can't say I've ever seen people using this space, but I get their concern.
Yep, that's the one...and people are up in arms. I get that people don't want to see a park disappear, but there are two other parks nearby. One a block to the west, and one a couple of blocks to the north that's very nice. In all my times cycling past this park, I've never seen anyone using it.
 
Yep, that's the one...and people are up in arms. I get that people don't want to see a park disappear, but there are two other parks nearby. One a block to the west, and one a couple of blocks to the north that's very nice. In all my times cycling past this park, I've never seen anyone using it.
I'm pretty sure the residents are opposed to the 100 units than the loss of green space, but it's better to be for green space than against affordable housing. 100 units does seem a bit much for that site, especially if they are family sized units
 
I feel this is another example of inefficient use of TOD land. These 52 units could have been stuck in a midrise and designed with a more urbanized format, perhaps with a main street, sort of like West District or University Ave, something that the NE east of Deerfoot lacks. I'm happy with the transitional housing but again, the design of this poorly maximizes the land availability. 4 storey midrises should be the bare minimum next to a transit site in 2024.
 
I feel this is another example of inefficient use of TOD land. These 52 units could have been stuck in a midrise and designed with a more urbanized format, perhaps with a main street, sort of like West District or University Ave, something that the NE east of Deerfoot lacks. I'm happy with the transitional housing but again, the design of this poorly maximizes the land availability. 4 storey midrises should be the bare minimum next to a transit site in 2024.
I agree but they're probably doing what they can with the money they have. Another one of these expected in Shawnee Slopes.
 
Also keep in mind these transitional spaces with wrap around services require much more staff to run them. So staffing costs must also be taken into account with determining how large to build.
 

Back
Top