The Augustana | 96m | 30s | Pangman | DIALOG

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    47
Legal non-conforming be they I would guess, yes.

That said, the bylaw requires 'lit, landscaped, drained and hard surfaced' for all lots and yet dozens or my inquiries about these gravel, undrained, unlandscaped and unlit or pool lit lots fell on deaf ears for a decade or more so I gave up.

This is an ideal area for port-cocheres off of the alley with wonderful pedestrian frontages along 105st.
 
What is up with that anyway? If someone calls Bylaw on you for unshoveled walks, non-moving vehicles, etc., they're out right away and on your ass. For commercial properties, is there no teeth or they just give a paltry fine and these folks just see it as a cost of doing business?
 
Grandinite said:
I think those lots are grandfathered into the city's surface parking lot policy unfortunately.

It's really disappointing because a beautiful, modern urban village to join Omega right at the top of the hill would really help elevate 105th street and our skyline, and could possibly spur some more development and renewal down the street.
Click to expand...
I remember when the Omega was built, I was so happy to see such a nice building go up. When the old walk up building on that block was torn down I was hopeful more here would be developed, but it just turned into another surface parking lot and has been for a long time.

This is the whole problem in a nutshell with development in this city. We have no shortage of good and nice developments downtown, but next to them can be an empty lot or a gravel parking lot for decades. It is very gap toothed and there is no consistency here. Unfortunately the City government takes little initiative or leadership in trying to get rid of them, but just completely passes the buck back to the owners. Then we wonder why people visit here and make negative comments or not impressed with our downtown.
 
David A said:
I remember when the Omega was built, I was so happy to see such a nice building go up. When the old walk up building on that block was torn down I was hopeful more here would be developed, but it just turned into another surface parking lot and has been for a long time.

This is the whole problem in a nutshell with development in this city. We have no shortage of good and nice developments downtown, but next to them can be an empty lot or a gravel parking lot for decades. It is very gap toothed and there is no consistency here. Unfortunately the City government takes little initiative or leadership in trying to get rid of them, but just completely passes the buck back to the owners. Then we wonder why people visit here and make negative comments or not impressed with our downtown.
Click to expand...
What would you suggest the City do to make those owners sell or develop those lots? The City has looked at this in the past and a report was provided to Council a year ago with some options.
 
Avenuer said:
What would you suggest the City do to make those owners sell or develop those lots? The City has looked at this in the past and a report was provided to Council a year ago with some options.
Click to expand...
It would generally be along the lines of what was mentioned in the report - incentives to develop and disincentives for those that do not. Probably a combination of both would be most effective.

I am not a lawyer or an expert in this, but I sense part of the problem is getting too hung up on things like the term vacant and not being creative enough in looking at the incentives or disincentives might be.
 
Avenuer said:
What would you suggest the City do to make those owners sell or develop those lots? The City has looked at this in the past and a report was provided to Council a year ago with some options.
Click to expand...

David A said:
It would generally be along the lines of what was mentioned in the report - incentives to develop and disincentives for those that do not. Probably a combination of both would be most effective.

I am not a lawyer or an expert in this, but I sense part of the problem is getting too hung up on things like the term vacant and not being creative enough in looking at the incentives or disincentives might be.
Click to expand...

My (perfect world) solution for "South of Jasper" and by extension the "Warehouse Park Area": City has an open dialogue with various developers in the local sphere and outlines what kind of development they want to see on these parking lots, not towers but rather low to mid-rise buildings with mixed uses along key streets like 100th ave, 102nd ave and 107th street (commercial ground floor and residential above, offices above commercial, townhouses and apartments above, etc.).

Waiting and hoping on tall towers to manifest in these areas and fill these spots just isn't going to get us the results we want and not nearly quick enough imo, and hopefully an approach that encourages less expensive and complicated buildings to be built will give us the urban fabric we all want to see faster. European-style buildings would work great with these large rectangle-shaped lots and they can include inner courtyards, park space, and even commercial or annexes extending into the center (and parking too, but not so much it takes up the entire space). An approach like this could really be the key to solving downtown's urban gaps and I'd like to hear your guys' thoughts on my idea.

Also a little pet peeve of mine: little to no setbacks!! (no more 1970's style walkups with huge useless front lawns please)
 
Really curious to see who might be going in on that corner.
Screen Shot 2021-12-06 at 8.29.35 PM.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top