10-20-2018, 05:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-20-2018, 05:32 PM by danbrotherston.)
Given that this is the view out my window:
I think I can consider this as "IMBY".
I am surprised that such a large building is proposed for relatively small site, but hey, if they can figure it out, with the step backs and such, great. I personally don't like the aesthetic all that much--of the top building anyway--it just looks mismatched from the bottom...but I fully support the density. I would also fully support a 0 parking requirement. This is across the street from a) an LRT station and b) a mostly empty city parking garage. There is zero reason to waste any money building more parking here.
YIMBY please.
I had the same opinion of the Vive development in the other direction. Of course, this looks like it would be expensive condos contributing to more gentrification, instead of midrange rental apartments, so I'm sure this development will be approved, where the other was declined. \< /cynical_sarcasm >
I think I can consider this as "IMBY".
I am surprised that such a large building is proposed for relatively small site, but hey, if they can figure it out, with the step backs and such, great. I personally don't like the aesthetic all that much--of the top building anyway--it just looks mismatched from the bottom...but I fully support the density. I would also fully support a 0 parking requirement. This is across the street from a) an LRT station and b) a mostly empty city parking garage. There is zero reason to waste any money building more parking here.
YIMBY please.
I had the same opinion of the Vive development in the other direction. Of course, this looks like it would be expensive condos contributing to more gentrification, instead of midrange rental apartments, so I'm sure this development will be approved, where the other was declined. \< /cynical_sarcasm >