CplKlinger
Senior Member
Oops, my bad lolUmmmm! Wrong thread (That one is for Mckernan Gates)
This one is U/C
But also I hope that one also goes ahead
Oops, my bad lolUmmmm! Wrong thread (That one is for Mckernan Gates)
This one is U/C
But also I hope that one also goes ahead
Quick update on Metro 78:#saveMetro78
That’s all I am asking.
I think this issue about betraying the residents if Council amend the ARP needs a broader discussion.
The MDP takes precedence. That is the law, period.
As a taxpayer, I will feel betrayed for not having “a” TOD project along the south leg of the Capital LRT Line.
Again, good conversation. But I am not ready to give up just yet.
One more round…
Our community league got an email from someone using the slippery slope fallacy. “You’re next if this sets precedent”.Quick update on Metro 78:
We are ready for December 6 public hearing.
We’ve made significant changes to the site plan to preserve the design of the buildings. The details are in the administration report - items 3.25-3.28.
City Council Public Hearing - December 06, 2022
pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com
I will speak about the ARP covenant issue upfront.
On the other hand, this could also have a demoralizing effect on local NIMBYs. They organized a full court press for the initial public hearing but the building is still going ahead with only minor adjustments and no reduction in density.Why would anyone want to try to do anything of scale within the infill context after this boondoggle. Good for Pinto for fighting the good fight here but what a mess as well as a waste of time and resources to get something approved that should have been approved from day one. City council needs to figure out how they are going to actually achieve their city plan and intensification goals when good projects like this have so many obstacles to getting approved.
On the other hand, this could also have a demoralizing effect on local NIMBYs. They organized a full court press for the initial public hearing but the building is still going ahead with only minor adjustments and no reduction in density.
Plus, having an apartment here helps set a precedent.
Definitely a positive spin, don't think Pinto would have preferred to be the guinea pig on this though.On the other hand, this could also have a demoralizing effect on local NIMBYs. They organized a full court press for the initial public hearing but the building is still going ahead with only minor adjustments and no reduction in density.
Plus, having an apartment here helps set a precedent.
imagine this project for example it has been vacant land for 4-5 years since original acquisition by Pinto. interest rates have more or less doubled in that time, not to mention all the other associated consulting fees associated with the project. people often wonder why the major greenfield developers don't do infill, Metro78 would be a pretty simple example.^^which is becoming more and more costly and putting more projects at risk over time. I believe there continues to be a real disconnect with the complexity and significant risks associated with even 'straightforward' proposals that are not understood well enough nor provided weight by both admin and the general public.