Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc B.
The design fits the street well, much better than the existing abandoned residences it will replace. The development will need to be set back. Like Palmerstone, parking needs to be in front. There isn't room for a back alley along the river. The development also faces an elementary school without a proper parking lot. The prospective residents wouldn't be able to count on available space on the road during the day, and so the units wouldn't sell as quickly, and the project wouldn't be viable.
If you can afford a half million plus for roughly 1,500 square feet or new living space, you're going to enjoy the luxury of an automobile and will need a place to put it.
Good project and a good extension of the core neighborhood into the periphery where things could otherwise go either way. Looking forward to seeing this and the other infill on Westminister and Chestnut/Canora go up.
Which proposal was that?
|
I am ok with the proposal overall, it just frustrates me that the developments that have potential have to constantly adhere to backwards policies and bylaws. What really frustrates me is that so much parking is necessary for a city of 700 000, when a city like Manhattan can go without it. I know it is apples and oranges, but it really does shed light on the fact that people are far too dependent on cars.
Also, the development shows garages. So could not there be an extended garage with the development to allow for extra parking space.
What bugs me is the fact that a person may or may not choose a home based on whether there is appropriate parking. That shouldn't be that high of a concern for someone.
I was reading a free press article and someone claimed they wouldn't live anywhere near corydon because their relatives would have no where to park when visiting. What kind of city mentality is that?
Anyways regarding the high density development, I am not sure. The first half of the post was from Susan Joshi in response to this from me;
"Are these actually going to be Brownstones? If so, I am looking forward to hearing more about the development, as I have personally been waiting for Winnipeg to get Brownstones since I first saw them in Brooklyn.
I do have one concern however, with how far back the town homes are from the sidewalk. Traditional Brownstones are usually butted as close to the sidewalk as possible. Is there a reason for the set-back being as large as it is in the rendering? Personally I would find it far more aesthetically pleasing if the buildings were designed in the traditional form, butted against the sidewalk, thus creating a higher-density feel to the development."
Prev
Linear Mode
