AVLI on Atlantic condos - Inglewood - Page 2

Full Mountain · #21 Posted **Oct 31, 2014, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Well "ruh roh" if they already let the Art Block bust the height limit.

Be interesting to see what the ICA's response was to the Art Block, consistency would help their case.

Spring2008 · #22 Posted **Nov 1, 2014, 5:26 PM**

Why not bump up the height restrictions to build mid-rises similar to Bridegland/Kensington?

Deepstar · #23 Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 6:10 PM**

IMO a city as large and as fast growing as Calgary can have the height limits raised a bit. I see no issue with 6 floors along 9th ave.

Bigtime · #24 Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 7:28 PM**

Based on the renderings it looks like they "pushed" the bulk of this building to the south, so is that how Gian-Carlo says it shadows no more than a 20m building on the site?

If the developer built the bulk of this building more to the north but only to 20m it would shadow the same if not more on properties to the north?

Deepstar · #25 Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Based on the renderings it looks like they "pushed" the bulk of this building to the south, so is that how Gian-Carlo says it shadows no more than a 20m building on the site?

If the developer built the bulk of this building more to the north but only to 20m it would shadow the same if not more on properties to the north?

That's what I would expect.

Bigtime · #26 Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 9:32 PM**

This matter is up at City Council right now.

Bigtime · #27 Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 9:54 PM**

Slide from the presentation to council right now, the grey is the maximum shadow at 20m, the blue sections are with the exception to 22m.

DizzyEdge · #28 Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 10:11 PM**

Jason Markusoff is tweeting

"Carra: what residents saw at land use is not the building Sturgess showing now."

Full Mountain · #29 Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 11:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Jason Markusoff is tweeting

"Carra: what residents saw at land use is not the building Sturgess showing now."

Oh the joys of land use applications, the applicant can say one thing then apply for the DP with something completely different (positive or negative).

But on this one, isn't this land use tied to plans?

Jimby · #30 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 12:59 AM**

"Inglewood is a dumping ground for density." Says outraged resident as the sky falls around her.

DizzyEdge · #31 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 1:27 AM**

What people in Inglewood should be happy about, is there is plenty of vacant or almost vacant land to build density on rather than tearing up the residential sections like most other communities adjacent to downtown.

Spring2008 · #32 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimby

"Inglewood is a dumping ground for density." Says outraged resident as the sky falls around her.

Lol Inglewood has prob seen the least amount of residential development in all of inner city over the past couple cycles. I don't understand these inner city nimby's, why wouldn't you want new condo developments increasing your property values and bringing more amenities to your hood?

Design-mind · #33 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 3:46 AM**

Oh no the evil shadow touched my garage! Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

VIce · #34 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 3:58 AM**

Considering how close Inglewood is to downtown, I don't know what room there is to complain about the level of density. If you look at the future Green Line, the first station out of each of the 6 LRT legs out of downtown will be in the Beltline, Kensington, Crescent Heights, Bridgeland, the West End (presumably next to a new arena), and Inglewood. Assuming the arena development next to Sunalta, Inglewood will be the only one of those with a conspicuous quantity of surface car lots and auto-body shops. I think a fair bit of development is due.

outoftheice · #35 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 4:33 AM**

Tried my best to follow this issue on twitter tonight but got lost in the techno-babble. Could someone in the know please sum up Council's decision and whether or not this project will be able to proceed?

H.E.Pennypacker · #36 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 4:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Oh no the evil shadow touched my garage! Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Children can't play in the shadows

Bigtime · #37 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 1:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Tried my best to follow this issue on twitter tonight but got lost in the techno-babble. Could someone in the know please sum up Council's decision and whether or not this project will be able to proceed?

You and me both, all I know is they were still discussing it around 8pm for sure. Maybe something about changing it to a DC zone and tie it to plans?

Bigtime · #38 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 1:59 PM**

Ok so council looks to have given it the go ahead, but they still won't get full approval until March:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...640/story.html

LOVE this quote:

Quote:

“It’s too late for us, perhaps but we don’t want it to be too late for every other resident who lives behind a site that it going to be redeveloped on 9th Avenue,” she said.

Ah, the NIMBY martyr. May the community erect a statue of her years from now symbolizing this powerful moment where they sacrificed it all to save the rest of the community.

Jimby · #39 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 2:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Ah, the NIMBY martyr. May the community erect a statue of her years from now symbolizing this powerful moment where they sacrificed it all to save the rest of the community.

Her statue better not cause any shadowing!

milomilo · #40 Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 2:39 PM**

Although I have no problem with the building itself and the shadow concerns aren't something I'm going to lose sleep over - should we still not obey the laws we have set out? If we want taller buildings in the area, let's raise the height limit first and then build them. Rules are pointless if they are not followed, especially if they are not followed by those that create them.