News   Apr 03, 2020
 946     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 775     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

1875

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
9,073
i think you missed the point of this discussion, which is questioning why/if a historic 2nd st sw building should be sacrificed for new development. youre giving off a bit of a nimby vibe imho.

inglewood isnt the property of anyone, nor are opinions about inglewood. sadly im not going to live long enough for 80% of the (non historical) buildings bt 8st and 14st to be rebuilt as heritage park knock offs. i am interested in a robust neighbourhood with quatlity design and function. where were you when torode rolled into town and started projects that make parking lots look nostalgic?
 

Mountain Man

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
2,044
Reaction score
2,303
The proposal isn't terrible, but the loss of that heritage building definitely is!

Why...Why there? The building they are taking out is better than the bigger bland one. There are so many dumps and gravel parking lots within a three block radius. I'm not the smartest person, but having a tough time figuring this genius plan out.
People can only develop the sites they own...
 

JoeUrban

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2017
Messages
167
Reaction score
290
i think you missed the point of this discussion, which is questioning why/if a historic 2nd st sw building should be sacrificed for new development. youre giving off a bit of a nimby vibe imho.

inglewood isnt the property of anyone, nor are opinions about inglewood. sadly im not going to live long enough for 80% of the (non historical) buildings bt 8st and 14st to be rebuilt as heritage park knock offs. i am interested in a robust neighbourhood with quatlity design and function. where were you when torode rolled into town and started projects that make parking lots look nostalgic?
Maybe I am and I'm not trying to be a dick about the parking lot issue, but Inglewood has time and time again said they support the 6 story development limit as laid out in the ARP, so they are not anti-development, they're anti-disregarding-the-ARP. I am sure they would fully support a 6 or 8 story version of the RNDSQR development. Maybe begrudgingly support in the case of 8 stories, but support. And you're right, there is a separate thread for the RNDSQR proposal so I will stick to the 2nd st one here.
 

Joborule

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
33
Reaction score
63
Location
Calgary

JonnyCanuck

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
828
Reaction score
1,095
I believe the $100 million cost is what one councilor threw out at the meeting to discuss the Northland proposal. Maybe there are other components to it.
 

Travisty

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
102
[/QUOTE]
The proposal isn't terrible, but the loss of that heritage building definitely is!

People can only develop the sites they own...
Obviously. The 'Why' was more rhetorical. Its not terrible, but not sure if this project will be much of a net gain, if any.
 
Last edited:

Mountain Man

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
2,044
Reaction score
2,303
Well, people keep complaining about development taking down an existing building when there are empty lots nearby. If you make that comment I have to assume you need to hear the response I gave.

This project will be a net gain in everything that isn't heritage preservation. It's an attractive building that adds density in exactly the location we need to infill. I'm choked at the heritage loss, but thrilled to fill an under developed lot.
 

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
7,807
Reaction score
20,757
Location
Calgary

Top