|
|
|
Rodriguez - 6 storeys - 10219-112st NW
- Thread starter IanO
- Start date
constance_chlore
Active Member
Out of curiosity, does anyone know anything about the building that's there right now?
supaflyryguy
Active Member
Nice building, but how about no to these trash units:
archited
Senior Member
Yikes -- so-called "railroad" apartments where a lot of functional space is lost to corridors. They should have at least opted for all pocket doors and showers instead of tubs.
Out of Towner
Active Member
Bathroom right beside the door is common for a hotel room but not as popular for a suite. Better to have a study or computer nook off of the front door more similar to the Unit A plan assuming that students would make up part of the target audience.
Last edited:
supaflyryguy
Active Member
This is a perfect example of a building that should have 2 units per floor instead of 6, with windows on 3 sides.
ntt1
Active Member
Wasn't there a similarly named development planned for the Allendale area, too?
archited
Senior Member
A little more exterior corridor could have led to a better floor plan for all three units. Developer/Architect should put their thinking cap back on.
crisp
Active Member
Why even waste space for a washer/dryer if these tenants are expected to be nudists since there's nowhere to store clothes?
Barnaby
Senior Member
Don't we want more affordable options? Not everyone is a hoarder that needs an abundance of space. These are still bigger than many options in NYC.
supaflyryguy
Active Member
The market is massively devoid of units fit for families. These are not designed for living, they're designed for AirBNB. When they struggle to sell/rent (as they are in Toronto and Vancouver), we'll end up with buildings full of empty, unsold units instead of homes for people.
Barnaby
Senior Member
Legalizing SES across the board would help with the unit size issue.
Still, this is directly south of MacEwan, near major bus routes and a future train route to West Ed. This apartment isn't taking away viable housing for families in any way?
I really think we're being silly if we complain about increases to the affordable housing supply in the CBD. We need more students living centrally.
Still, this is directly south of MacEwan, near major bus routes and a future train route to West Ed. This apartment isn't taking away viable housing for families in any way?
I really think we're being silly if we complain about increases to the affordable housing supply in the CBD. We need more students living centrally.
archited
Senior Member
Nothing wrong with the spatial size -- I feel it could be even less if the layout was better.
constance_chlore
Active Member
While I don't love AirBnB as a platform, I don't think it's wrong for a building to be designed for short-term rentals. If there's a market for it, clearly that tells us something; and if there's not a market for it, I don't think it's our duty to shield the developer from a loss. (This is all contingent on regulations for things like noise being enforced, since that's often a problem with very short-term rentals, but I don't think it's the place of the permitting process to address those concerns.)
That's not to say that this building is necessarily for short-term rentals, since as others have pointed out it's in a good location to capture a student market. But these units could be better designed even for that market.
Last edited:
