Didama
Active Member
What makes you think it'll be a parking lot for an extended period of time? Is there something about the developer, or are you just speculating?
|
|
|
10507 to 10539–124 Street NW - Casia Developments - 2 x up to 27 - Proposed
- Thread starter IanO
- Start date
Airboy
Senior Member
Based on how things go in this city I AM SPECULATING.
Didama
Active Member
Seems a bit odd. So we should only be supporting development on empty lots?
JuliallThat
Active Member
It's easy to be pessimistic about this - given the number of promised developments that now sit as vacant lots, where once there was a functional older building.
It feels especially that way when Alldritt is sitting on their empty lot directly across the street.
Let's hope for the best lol.
It feels especially that way when Alldritt is sitting on their empty lot directly across the street.
Let's hope for the best lol.
fromyeg
Active Member
Honest question from someone not in the development world.
Is there any indication that Alldritt is going to develop their lot on 124th St, 142nd St, or the 80 storey site?
Or were these bought with the intention of selling at a profit in the future to other developers?
Is there any indication that Alldritt is going to develop their lot on 124th St, 142nd St, or the 80 storey site?
Or were these bought with the intention of selling at a profit in the future to other developers?
SMayo
Active Member
I think context matters. In my opinion empty lots 100% should be the priority, but I would also consider condemned buildings as empty lots as is partially the case here.
Tropical
Active Member
In this specific case, I think it's absolutely fine.
Didama
Active Member
In terms of crime and the perception of safety, getting rid of dilapidated buildings is more important than empty lots, imo. But the argument is moot anyways.... developers will build on land they can get within a price that works with their budget, regardless of whether or not it is empty. Sometimes there is empty land in a prime spot, but the owner doesn't want to sell or develop it. So the only option for other developers may well be to buy something that already has a structure on it.
Didama
Active Member
Again though, how do you know they are not intending to build? Maybe you know something I don’t…?
IanO
Senior Member
Barnaby
Active Member
A Valley Line branch along the old rail line east of 124th St could make this possible. It would be very cheap too, with only 3 street crossings.
cmd uw
Active Member
Correct. This is an illustration reflecting what one could 'conceivably' build using the regulations in the underlying zone.
TAS
Senior Member
I also love the density/scale along with the modest width of that road in TO along with the generous pedestrian space - and yet we've got 103 Ave that's probably 50% wider for our vehicle traffic or 101 st or 109 st or 104 Ave etc etc.
How ever do they manage?
Glenco
Senior Member
I think you are referring to the 121street alignment. Would be great for a separate line down to to Jasper east to 95 street then up to 118 avenue. The last thing you need is a branch from The Valley line west it will need all the capacity it can get.
Didama
Active Member
What do we know about Casia? Not familiar with this developer