archited
Senior Member
Could have been a power generator motor (maybe the power is off in the house) that would allow the running of electrical equipment and power tools.I heard something like a running motor from one of the upper floors
Could have been a power generator motor (maybe the power is off in the house) that would allow the running of electrical equipment and power tools.I heard something like a running motor from one of the upper floors
Some interesting infill happening in Woodcroft.
Looks like it will be three 4-unit rowhouses, all with secondary suites. 24 homes on a lot that used to be 2 SFH's
Site has been vacant for 10+ years as well. With the Brentwood project getting started, there will soon be a lot more people in this area to make use of the new Coronation rec centre!
View attachment 631957
View attachment 631958
Edit: Their previous work looks to be high quality, this could turn out quite nice!
https://platinumlivinghomes.com/sold/
So where are the occupants of these 24 units of housing going to park? Are they all going to be riding bikes everywhere? Some of these residents (probably at least 1/3) are going to have vehicles
I’m not sure going back to parking requirements is the solution. But I do think on street parking needs to move to a permitted/paid system if so many new developments are going to essentially guarantee permanent street parking for multiple new residents. Ideally residents store their vehicles on their property if they have them, not mooching off free street parking.So where are the occupants of these 24 units of housing going to park? Are they all going to be riding bikes everywhere? Some of these residents (probably at least 1/3) are going to have vehicles
This shouldn't have been allowed. This should be a single building with underground parking. I know I sound like one of them NIMBYs, but this isn't smart infill at all. Is this really what some of you want to see more of?
I think this is right, although it may be politically unpalatable. My outlook is that grown-ups should be able to figure out for themselves whether they need parking or not, and if they do, they should be able to pay for it rather than counting on always having free street parking.I’m not sure going back to parking requirements is the solution. But I do think on street parking needs to move to a permitted/paid system if so many new developments are going to essentially guarantee permanent street parking for multiple new residents. Ideally residents store their vehicles on their property if they have them, not mooching off free street parking.
I want to agree, but since when have Edmontonians ever shown the ability to be grown ups when it comes to parking expectations? This kind of development is only going to further entrench the existing expectation that the City subsidize street side car storage.I think this is right, although it may be politically unpalatable. My outlook is that grown-ups should be able to figure out for themselves whether they need parking or not, and if they do, they should be able to pay for it rather than counting on always having free street parking.
So where are the occupants of these 24 units of housing going to park? Are they all going to be riding bikes everywhere? Some of these residents (probably at least 1/3) are going to have vehicles
This shouldn't have been allowed. This should be a single building with underground parking. I know I sound like one of them NIMBYs, but this isn't smart infill at all. Is this really what some of you want to see more of?




