News   Apr 03, 2020
 1K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 867     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,488
Reaction score
8,356
Location
Mission
Oh hell yeah. That’s dope.
 

outoftheice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
218
Reaction score
818
Keep the Apartments at least, would love to see the house kept as well but would sacrifice that to keep the apartments.
If this proposal were to go through I would love to see the house moved to the park across from the Stampede where the Enoch Sales House was located. It would be a great way to preserve some history and follow through with the original concept to turn the Enoch Sales House into a cafe for the park.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
1,121
Reaction score
3,757
Riddel Kurczaba just applied for a development permit at
...mixed use including 168 residential units.
Anyone know anything about this?

Update: I did some research. It appears this application is a repeat of Sola by OCgrow
Thread for that project is here:
 

FCC1982

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
237
Reaction score
254
That’s terrible. The potential loss of a quarter block of beautiful history when only a block or two away is nothing but an ocean of parking lots. Come on...

The ocean of parking surrounds a future subway station even! Just build there for shits sake.
But developers can only build on properties they own.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
2,452
They don't need to buy them. The city needs to get their legal tool box out if they are serious about heritage preservation
If the city does something to reduce the value of a property, the property owner can sue for compensation. Now, the city can slow play, and trade rezoning for preservation of some sort. But if the city wants to preserve over the objections of the owners, the city has to pay.
 

Disraeli

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
202
Reaction score
529
If the city does something to reduce the value of a property, the property owner can sue for compensation. Now, the city can slow play, and trade rezoning for preservation of some sort. But if the city wants to preserve over the objections of the owners, the city has to pay.
There is no civil suit that a property owner can pursue against the city/government for decreased property values. The only time a property owner might have a hope is if government action removed almost all economic utility from the property and that is a very high bar to reach in Canada.

Under Alberta statute, the city would have to pay compensation if the designation lowered economic value. That would be negotiated between the city and the landowner and if they weren’t able to come to an agreement, it would be dealt with through an administrative board.

They don't need to 'slow play'. Municipalities have a lot of power to manage and direct the use of private property through bylaws, negotiation, and Canadian property law more generally. The city chooses, based on policy reasons, not to leverage developers to better protect heritage buildings.
 

Top