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

the irony of trying to protect a parking lot in inglewood (from a great project) while at the same time casually knocking over a building as nice as any on 9th ave (which appears to be alot nicer than inglewoods most recent addition, irvine). it must be 2020.

No one is trying to protect a parking lot in Inglewood. That is a lie, please retract it.
 
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?
 
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...
 
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.
 
Now the city can look at cost benefits of doing the station, who it serves, and lay out a price for what would be fair to charge the developer for it. $100 million seems rather high - though that might include extra LRVs, land acquisition, etc
Just to come back to this. It is. Based on a infill station report back in 2017, it would be a cost estimate of $32M.

1595530467324.png


Full report: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=32872
 
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.
 
[/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:
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.
 

Back
Top