|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Very nice! Just for reference, this project is called Royal Park.
Also, grabbed some stills of The Sentinel from their video. Looks pretty good actually, save for the enormous pillar.
Attachments
Last edited:
For the most part looks great. The scale is perfect, and I like the look of the cubed texture. Also it would be fantastic to have a hotel in that area.
darwink
Senior Member
They don’t own Lang’s I believe.
Mull
Active Member
FYI the City responded to what this is, seems interesting!
I wish the website would just include a short description like the below.
"This is for a small restaurant which can sell alcohol and minors are always allowed in. They are also proposing an indoor mini-golf area to be included with the restaurant."
Mini golf and beer ?
Mull
Active Member
Ha hardly the scope of the projects on this forum, so apologizes to all if it shouldn't be posted.
I think it’s good to get all projects big or small ?
JoeUrban
Active Member
This looks better than the previous two renderings they put out. Way better.
JoeUrban
Active Member
I mean the business improvement association calls it "Uptown 17th", I'm pretty sure Young and Bloor is what they are hoping it will become.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Can someone remind me of the site of the Brentwood redevelopment? Nevemind, the co-op development.
I'm kind of torn, on one hand a lot of community and administration effort is put into the ARPs and they are statutory documents, so I don't think it's NIMBY to expect they might be followed, yet they are regularly ignored. But of course things change, the city changes, and communities which were suburban start to come more inner-city. I believe the current ARP is 10 years old, which is probably approaching a reasonable time to be re-evaluated which also makes it tricky.
Last edited:
O-tac
Active Member
I much prefer the new version of that project across the street from Tomkins Park. I'm all for this kind of intensification over mega blocks. Nice to see some of the character kept with Lang's grocery and some of the other smaller buildings.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
The problem is the ARPs are never fully implemented, many of them have been made to seem like the city gives 2 cents. Live wire Calgary had a few councillors come on a podcast discussing some of these points. They were humble about admitting the guilt of not doing enough to implement their policies and plans. Part of the blame was shifted towards administration for not being consistent and aggressive enough in implementing the councillors visions/policies. I mean that would make a lot of sense. They also discussed about merging the development plans with transit plans to make 1 big final city plan. Hopefully a solid indefinite plan will fix this problem. As far as Brentwood goes, it honestly looks like a case of NIMBYism to me, a few loud folks complaining about less daylight on the park. From what I got in the ARP was that 90m was the tallest height recommended but seeing thats roughly 27 storeys, I don't see how 30 storeys would be the end of the world. Maybe Co-op can slash some of the height on the bigger tower and add it to the smaller ones. Still pretty pathetic IMO, most TODs around North America are opening up to taller skyscrapers on underused parking lots. Then you have that useless councillor Sean Chu telling reporters that the area may already have too much densification. I swear, he's just on council to vote NO.
Attachments
UrbanRED
Active Member
I would say Sean Chu is the biggest moron to grace city council with his presence, but Jeromy Farkas exists...
FCC1982
Active Member
Yeah - Farkas is an absolute clown.