36-42 Erb St E, and 39 Dupont St E | 24 fl | Proposed

[mpd618]

I guess the economics of those smaller buildings aren’t as good maybe because of the minimum parking requirements?

My guess: planners have protected so much of the city from any redevelopment that the little central land that's available - mostly along major streets - is expensive and needs more development to make it pencil out. Now if the city were fine with mid-rise buildings for several blocks to either side of Erb Street (in this case) then it would be another story.

[timc]

I don't see it being that out of place. Waterpark Place is 23 stories and not far from there.

[Spokes]

Whoa whoa whoa timc, easy there, you're almost speaking with logic.

[Watdot]

Good point! Looks like tower to tower would be 150-160 meters.

[Spokes]

I don't even understand how this is a debate. Is this an urban core?
It's not like they have a Paris style height limit. There's already towers near by.

[robdrimmie]

I don't even understand how this is a debate.  Is this an urban core?
It's not like they have a Paris style height limit. There's already towers near by.

It's a zone change request though, isn't it? If a developer wants to do something that conflicts with the current plans as expressed through zoning rules I think a debate is exactly what should occur. The zoning rules may very well be wrong (I think this building would be great, so am of the opinion that if they would prevent such a thing they are) but to some extent those rules represent a commitment from the city to its residents about what is going to happen.

If someone made an informed decision (I think most of the time this doesn't happen) about buying a place based on the commitments offered by the region and municipality it's completely fair for them to object to changes to that commitment.

[Spokes]

I don't even understand how this is a debate.  Is this an urban core?
It's not like they have a Paris style height limit. There's already towers near by.

It's a zone change request though, isn't it? If a developer wants to do something that conflicts with the current plans as expressed through zoning rules I think a debate is exactly what should occur. The zoning rules may very well be wrong (I think this building would be great, so am of the opinion that if they would prevent such a thing they are) but to some extent those rules represent a commitment from the city to its residents about what is going to happen.

If someone made an informed decision (I think most of the time this doesn't happen) about buying a place based on the commitments offered by the region and municipality it's completely fair for them to object to changes to that commitment.

You know what, you're absolutely right.  I think my bigger issue is with the city's vision and zoning for uptown and it's surrounding areas .

Unless the goal is to avoid growth and development of a strong urban core.

[mpd618]

If someone made an informed decision (I think most of the time this doesn't happen) about buying a place based on the commitments offered by the region and municipality it's completely fair for them to object to changes to that commitment.

I feel like people assume the commitment is that everything stays exactly as is, or that they personally like what replaces it. Zoning maps? What's that?

[rangersfan]

I feel like in past decades all that was ever built for multi-residential here were generic mid rise apartments. Then there was the initial explosion of student housing towers that for the most part were hideous or just generic stucco slabs. An exception in this era was the Bauer Lofts, which I think was fantastic.

The projects that have started to emerge over the past five years especially many of the high rises have brought a lot more variety and creativity to the skyline and we are starting to look like a big city.

[kwlifer]

I feel like in past decades all that was ever built for multi-residential here were generic mid rise apartments. Then there was the initial explosion of student housing towers that for the most part were hideous or just generic stucco slabs. An exception in this era was the Bauer Lofts, which I think was fantastic.

The projects that have started to emerge over the past five years especially many of the high rises have brought a lot more variety and creativity to the skyline and we are starting to look like a big city.

I agree, and it's about time.

[Spokes]

It's more than the fact that that the cities are starting to "look like a big city", they have BECOME big cities, but at times still act otherwise. Embrace what you've become.

[nms]

Realizing that we have only seen preliminary renders, my concern would be that once again, green space is going to be privatized (and yes, I realize that that there is not much green space on this stretch. The Waterpark towers offer a green buffer between their buildings and the street. This render (as yet) does not. If the developer suggested street architecture elements (for instance benches, bike racks and trees to provide shade) then it would go some of the way towards making the space more friendly to the neighbourhood. Yet another stretch of hard surfaces does nothing to improve walkability.

[mpd618]

Yet another stretch of hard surfaces does nothing to improve walkability.

Making more housing available in central areas with good walking access improves the overall community's walkability. I get the point that a development can itself make the walking environment more or less pleasant, but far and away the biggest problem with walkability in KW is that walking is not a feasible way of getting around for most of the housing that's available.

[Spokes]

Wasn't there a tool that you could put your address in and it would measure walkability? Does that still exist? Is it accurate?

[KevinL]

Wasn't there a tool that you could put your address in and it would measure walkability?  Does that still exist? Is it accurate?

https://www.walkscore.com/