|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
1875
Senior Member
guess that rules out a drive through
MichaelS
Senior Member
A little more insight as to why JEMM withdrew from their Shaganappi project:
"This email is to inform you that JEMM is withdrawing their application LOC2021-0002. Lack of support from the area Councillor and residents is the main reason for the withdrawal."
darwink
Senior Member
Think this is likely the firehall/northwest travellers restaurant innovation hub something something?
darwink
Senior Member
It is 1.4 km to sunalta station, 1.6 km to sunny side/grocery, 1.6 km to midtowne Co-Op, 1.4 km to Kerby station.
It is a site that feels much closer to amenities than it actually is.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
It's a pretty reasonable form for the site and quite dense at 83 units /~1 ha site - for reference, the census tract cover the majority of Westmount area is about 18 - 20 units / ha, so this is 4x as dense as the existing neighbourhood. I think it makes a pretty good example of how to intensify a 0.5 to 1 ha site in a SFH neighbourhoods on underused sites like abandoned schools or any of our thousands of pointless green spaces that aren't parks but also aren't anything else (angry neighbour issues aside). If you redevelop a bunch of sites at 80 units/ha (~120-160 people / ha) you can bring the net density of the neighbourhood up a whole lot. All the better in a walkable grid pattern location that is reasonably close to everything and active transportation networks.
I think it's main miss is car orientation as most of the townhomes have two-car garages and the interior alley way will be just a dead space. However, given the treatment of the site's edges and the courtyard/alley connection to the park this is pretty good effort to minimize the impact. In the long run, Memorial Drive' quasi-freeway design should eventually be tamed like it is around Sunnyside.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I really wanted the old firehall to become the second Hose & Hound!
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
It's an interesting case of path dependency to me. The Westmount/CBC site is 400m from Kensington, the block between 16th and 18th streets. But this block has been colonized by a built form that we need a good name for, maybe Yuppie Bunker or McFarmax -- the McMansion's inner city cousin; a rectangular duplex block that maximizes floor area over anything else:
All of these new "high-end" "townhouses" are going to be there for the next half-century.
In another world, this stretch of Kensington would have something a little more dense -- one or two more stories -- with retail on the ground floor. I don't believe retail belongs everywhere, but Kensington is a great potential location; this is maybe the only block on Kensington in it's entire 2.5 km length that doesn't have any retail or public service on it. In that other world with a little more density, there's a few amenities within 400m of the Westmount site -- a couple of restaurants, probably a convenience store, etc. At that point the Westmount site is a stronger argument for a little more density, up to midrise at least. In this other, better world, the BRT along this street would actually be useful, frequent transit, rather than literally the worst "BRT" route in a city that has 20 years of innovation in disappointing BRT routes.
But instead, the millionaire NIMBYs complain that anything over two stories affects their neighbourhood character, and even though there's a ton of infrastructure supporting a little density here, no density can be built because no density has been built.
All of these new "high-end" "townhouses" are going to be there for the next half-century.
In another world, this stretch of Kensington would have something a little more dense -- one or two more stories -- with retail on the ground floor. I don't believe retail belongs everywhere, but Kensington is a great potential location; this is maybe the only block on Kensington in it's entire 2.5 km length that doesn't have any retail or public service on it. In that other world with a little more density, there's a few amenities within 400m of the Westmount site -- a couple of restaurants, probably a convenience store, etc. At that point the Westmount site is a stronger argument for a little more density, up to midrise at least. In this other, better world, the BRT along this street would actually be useful, frequent transit, rather than literally the worst "BRT" route in a city that has 20 years of innovation in disappointing BRT routes.
But instead, the millionaire NIMBYs complain that anything over two stories affects their neighbourhood character, and even though there's a ton of infrastructure supporting a little density here, no density can be built because no density has been built.
ActiveTruth
Active Member
Totally
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Yeah that stretch along Kensington Road is a huge miss and antithetical to city life - bizarre car-oriented mansion that turn their back on the main street is one of the worst land use choices we can make. I am all for more density at the CBC site but think what they landed on was a reasonable minimum threshold. It's good to see that 19th Street NW and (one day) 14th Street seem to be breaking the mould for an otherwise homogenous wealthy SFH area. I agree with the path dependency argument though.
One thing I'd like in a hypothetical better future is the conversion of all these transportation right-of-ways to similar or denser scale developments. You could get another 100 -200 units with or without much height right here, even more if you remove the onramp. A transportation engineer might disagree but there is no (good) future where that right-of-way will be needed for additional vehicle capacity so it's a pointless land bank in an area with continual strong market demand and demonstrated willingness of people willing to live next to quasi-freeways. With 14 Street bridge right there these two sites have top of the game connection potential into the pathway network, while offer zero park amenity benefits in their current configuration. Dispose of them and build something useful here.
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
No question, it is both a heritage building and a great structure. The problem is it is kind of on it's own. There is no residential (other than senior living) nearby and East Village is several blocks away. Yes, the Delta hotel is a couple of blocks away but that is about it. It would have to be a destination for people both during the day and the evening.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
The giant corner at the overhead doors would make a great patio, I think if done right it would work really well!
Bertie Wooster
New Member
Not everything can or should be apartment. CBC and Kensington Rd are good location for they missing middle product type.
darwink
Senior Member
I am actually fine with these buildings. As long as the city eventually steps up with proper landuse, many can become 4, 6, 8, or even 10 units if the market can support it. Key is regulatory barriers not getting in the way.
BlueMoonYYC
New Member
FWIW I believe most of those are actually fourplexes (two units facing Kensington Rd and two facing north). As has been mentioned before, the real problem is the stretch on the south side with their backs to Kensington.
Here's hoping for some quality midrise on those 60's or 70's era apartments west of the Savoy whenever those owners decide to sell or develop.