News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.1K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.7K     0 

Miscellaneous

Westrich did not buy an expensive piece of land on 104st to invest money into a parking space to offer free parking. Their intention is to allow for parking for up to 3 years, at which point they are going to evaluate the market in hopes of building a tower. How would you suppose that they partially recoup an investment in the land and make it into a parking lot by offering free parking?
No update on the status of the DP, but this is on the Westrich site now: https://westrichpacific.com/project/ice-tower/
 

1680181691990.png


1680181706173.png

1680181738137.png
 
BP issued for two 6-storey apartment buildings way out in the suburbs (Edgemont). One is 196 units and the other is 138 units. The total construction value is $61M.
Thankful our suburbs aren’t all SFHs. But also so annoying to see tens of thousands of 600-1100 sqft apartment buildings all around the henday. Imagine the people living in those being in more walkable, transit served areas. Blatchford, Oliver, Strathcona, around any LRT stop, etc.

The absorption of rental/apartment residents into these low quality, suburban, car dependent projects is frustrating. I think I’d almost rather just see all the land used up for big homes so density can be concentrated more centrally. Our vibrancy, transit, and local business would likely outweigh the property tax revenue of denser sprawled suburbs.
 
Thankful our suburbs aren’t all SFHs. But also so annoying to see tens of thousands of 600-1100 sqft apartment buildings all around the henday. Imagine the people living in those being in more walkable, transit served areas. Blatchford, Oliver, Strathcona, around any LRT stop, etc.

The absorption of rental/apartment residents into these low quality, suburban, car dependent projects is frustrating. I think I’d almost rather just see all the land used up for big homes so density can be concentrated more centrally. Our vibrancy, transit, and local business would likely outweigh the property tax revenue of denser sprawled suburbs.
A great deal would need to change for that to happen.

Last I heard city councilors were considering preventing new suburbs from developing until all the planned higher density development in under development suburbs was complete. They really seem to want to direct the higher density growth to the suburbs.
 
'Last I heard city councilors were considering preventing new suburbs from developing until all the planned higher density development in under development suburbs was complete. They really seem to want to direct the higher density growth to the suburbs.'

Where did you hear this? Obviously you don't want leapfrogging or frivolous approvals of ASPs/NSPs, but I question that possibility or intent.
 
'Last I heard city councilors were considering preventing new suburbs from developing until all the planned higher density development in under development suburbs was complete. They really seem to want to direct the higher density growth to the suburbs.'

Where did you hear this? Obviously you don't want leapfrogging or frivolous approvals of ASPs/NSPs, but I question that possibility or intent.
Councilor Stevenson discussed it in council meetings. Idea seemed to be to restrict new land supply until development was complete. Background was that developers were building more single family homes than planned. They would leave the multi family sites vacant and start on sfh in the next neighbourhood. Argument that it was a waste of infrastructure.
 
RA7 (predominantly) sites that were 'forced' upon developers by ways of ASPs/NSPs are often lamented by those in the industry and difficult to move vis a vis other products.

Anne should focus on her ward's issues and not be distracted given her overall performance thus far.
 

Back
Top