ICE District Block IJ | ?m | ?s | ICE District Prop. | Next Architecture

Edmonton said:
nmAxvLY.png
Click to expand...

What's everyone's thoughts on converting the entire lot into one large greenspace? I'd suggest it would be a nice place for outdoor markets, festival spaces, etc. And it would be a lot nicer than paved parking on a lot that won't be a tower for a very long time.
 
Lol what even is this, Alex Decoteau dog park part 2? Why can't we just give the dogs some more space to run around ☹️ I mean I'm happy they're putting something there but cmon
 
^

perhaps, but i doubt it. if you need parking to go the dog park there are others that are easier to get to including just down the hill in riverdale and on 108th street.

this one is probably being looked at as more of an amenity for sky, legends and the jw marriott, none of which have any "green space" of their own to take a dog to and which are all kitty-corner this location.
 
Greenspace said:
Get rejected at SDAB for surface parking, put in a tiny dog park, get parking behind (ala Alberta Blue Cross 'park')?
Click to expand...

What do you mean ala Alberta Blue Cross park?There was no new parking put on this land as a result of that park that was added to 107 street. Some existing parking was resurfaced though.
 
Last edited:
kcantor said:
^

perhaps, but i doubt it. if you need parking to go the dog park there are others that are easier to get to including just down the hill in riverdale and on 108th street.

this one is probably being looked at as more of an amenity for sky, legends and the jw marriott, none of which have any "green space" of their own to take a dog to and which are all kitty-corner this location.
Click to expand...
Chris is bang on with this one.
 
^

as i said, perhaps.

but there is no application for parking that i'm aware of and there is no parking associated with or required for alex decoteau park. i'm not sure what the rationalization would be either for the owner to make or for the city to accept non-accessory parking on the balance of this parcel..
 
if so, then that would be the time do deal with them wouldn't it?

unless you're suggesting that a potential future application or a previously denied one - neither of which is concurrent or overlapping in any way - should be used to deny a current application?

because i'm pretty sure that's not how it works or how it's supposed to work.
 
TAS said:
What do you mean ala Alberta Blue Cross park?There was no new parking put on this land as a result of that park that was added to 107 street. Some existing parking was resurfaced though.
Click to expand...
Looking at Google Maps, you might be right, my bad. I assumed it was new parking.

That said, I agree with Ken that this is likely an amenity for residents, which is super great. We are trying to get some further information on what their intent is for the rest of the lot, which what we've always been told their desire is for more surface parking. Perhaps that has changed.
 
I was referring to the dog park being step 1 in a re-application for non-accessory on the rest of it...
 
I'm ok with the corner aspect, but lets be a bit more pragmatic with that concept of usage...
It would be nice for a grass dog track the width of the adjacent city sidewalk encircling that whole block while fenced off. Dogs need more than just a pitty potty; dont they need some form of off-leash for CBD? It is bonus to attract people...

Turn the centre of the block into a food truck court with casually seatings and charge them reasonably rent. Let us get creative with parking while turning it people active. A parcel of land can be rented out for more than parking which I hope one can realize...
 
^^
other than that being just a guess on your part, do you have any actual information from the owner or any of the project consultants that the dog park is actually step 1 in a re-application for non-accessory on the rest of it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top