News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.6K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.7K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

A FAR of 12 is intriguing but kind of scary. It could likely mean some 40 or 50 storey res towers, which would look good in the skyline, but my preference would be low to mid rise buildings. As shown in a CMLC rendering from this thread.
Image9.jpg
 
I prefer mid-rises too but for the main street levels however, I don't mind tall buildings along the CP rail line. I doubt any activity is being planned along those tracks.
If they are looking for a FAR of 12 I wouldn't be surprised if it is for parcels along the tracks. I usually like lower rise buildings, but alongside the tracks I say, fill your boots. Go for 50 or 60 floors!
 
A permit application was recently made by Norr Architect for 104 unit MF development at 200 Pinta Gardens NE. This is near the CNIB facility in Bridgeland. Anyone know what this is?

I'm a little disappointed.

I wish they could redevelop that entire area of Bridgeland with a mast planned street layout similar to East Village or West Village.
 
There is a master-plan vision for Riverside East that has been underway for a while, but there are no timelines for the plan itself, as it looks like the plan will fold into the whole Bridgeland ARP which is nearly complete. Final plan is supposed to be unveiled in spring or summer of 2019.
 
Looking at the zoning map, it appears the parcel(s) are CC-X, which the bylaw says has a max of 5 FAR east of Macleod Tr, increased to a possible 7 FAR with bonusing, and can be increased another 10% with heritage density transfer bonusing. I would love to see council give them the increased density they're asking for *after* maxing out both of those bonusing options. How about using the density transfer to finally protect Enoch Sales house (or a bunch of unprotected heritage sites)
 
A FAR of 12 is intriguing but kind of scary. It could likely mean some 40 or 50 storey res towers, which would look good in the skyline, but my preference would be low to mid rise buildings. As shown in a CMLC rendering from this thread.
View attachment 169259

Mixed use, medium rise podiums use up a lot of FAR. I will be disappointed if the plan followed the standard of one or two storey commercial podium with a residential point tower set back on top. 60+ storeys is possible under this arrangement too.
 
This new development for Pinta Garden would partly be affected by the changes to the area. It'll be interesting to see if what the proposal looks like and if it would be affected by these new changes?
 

Back
Top