Development Rumours - Page 13

Marty_Mcfly · #**241** Posted **May 2, 2013, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by A325

I'm talking about the two houses and empty lot on Springdale Street just up from the Salvation Army.

I also saw that the motorcycle shop building is for sale now too.

Townie instead of Statoil Building I think you meant Technip

I had to google streetview it but I know what you're talking about now.

It's a small space, I think if a larger development were to happen in that spot the developer would also need to acquire the three New Gower buildings. One can only hope!

Townie709 · #**242** Posted **May 2, 2013, 11:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

I had to google streetview it but I know what you're talking about now.

It's a small space, I think if a larger development were to happen in that spot the developer would also need to acquire the three New Gower buildings. One can only hope!

I doubt those three buildings would be very hard to acquire. They look like they're ready to fall down anyway. I would love to see something big go on this piece of land!

J_Murphy · #**243** Posted **May 3, 2013, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by A325

I'm talking about the two houses and empty lot on Springdale Street just up from the Salvation Army.

I also saw that the motorcycle shop building is for sale now too.

Townie instead of Statoil Building I think you meant Technip

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I heard that Steele are looking for this site for parking for the hotel. Not 100% sure, but that is what I heard...

SignalHillHiker · #**244** Posted **May 3, 2013, 1:51 AM**

Omfg...

jeddy1989 · #**245** Posted **May 3, 2013, 1:54 AM**

ok looks like we would kick up a stink! the rubber boot crowd don't have a monopoly on causing a stink for development! DAMN that is a backwards move in a prime location

Townie709 · #**246** Posted **May 3, 2013, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Murphy

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I heard that Steele are looking for this site for parking for the hotel. Not 100% sure, but that is what I heard...

That is.... URG!!! The city better not allow it. This should be just as big of a deal as the withdrawn Fortis Proposal. But it won't be. We cannot afford to waste land in the west end ESPECIALLY by creating more counterproductive surface parking lots. It's about time we woke up from 1955 and realized that.

I pray this isn't true. Just in case I haven't made this clear before.. I hate Steele.

Marty_Mcfly · #**247** Posted **May 3, 2013, 2:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Murphy

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I heard that Steele are looking for this site for parking for the hotel. Not 100% sure, but that is what I heard...

.....what.....

jeddy1989 · #**248** Posted **May 3, 2013, 2:02 AM**

and you know that their defense will be that there is a parking problem DT and people will not understand why we SHOULD NOT create parking lots in a DT that lacks parking spaces ... fml

SignalHillHiker · #**249** Posted **May 3, 2013, 2:02 AM**

Then build a 20-floor hotel with a 5-floor parkade you c**ts.

J_Murphy · #**250** Posted **May 3, 2013, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Murphy

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I heard that Steele are looking for this site for parking for the hotel. Not 100% sure, but that is what I heard...

I know, I really hope it doesn't happen too. Like I said, I'm not sure but a friend was telling me he heard something about it, so who knows. Given the small size of these lots, I don't think we would ever see anything big there, but anything is better than a parking lot...

Townie709 · #**251** Posted **May 3, 2013, 2:05 AM**

I wish bankruptcy and foreclosure upon all their properties.

Architype · #**252** Posted **May 3, 2013, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Murphy

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I heard that Steele are looking for this site for parking for the hotel. Not 100% sure, but that is what I heard...

That's just what I was thinking earlier, but the good news is that parking lots are usually developed into something else, eventually.

Copes · #**253** Posted **May 3, 2013, 11:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Townie709

I doubt those three buildings would be very hard to acquire. They look like they're ready to fall down anyway. I would love to see something big go on this piece of land!

The problem is that the asking price was WAY too high for the corner one, and the site kind of sucks without that property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Murphy

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I heard that Steele are looking for this site for parking for the hotel. Not 100% sure, but that is what I heard...

Not in my city!

Copes · #**254** Posted **May 3, 2013, 11:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copes

The problem is that the asking price was WAY too high for the corner one, and the site kind of sucks without that property.

Not in my city!

Can we email a councilor preemptively about this? Basically say "I heard this rumor, this is garbage, can you investigate and shut down if its true?"

A325 · #**255** Posted **May 3, 2013, 12:24 PM**

It was bought for a parking lot but thats why Im wondering if Steele, Salvation Army and 434 Water Street can all get together and build one big development that would include parking for all three. They all need parking but none of them have much room to do it. I think to make it worthwhile the development would have to extend across George Street West to connect with 434 Water Street

mrjanejacobs · #**256** Posted **May 3, 2013, 5:35 PM**

Protesting against a parking lot would be pretty futile.

Also, we cannot continue building all of our high-rises with integrated parkades. You can only imagine how that will deter private investment in high-rise constructions if that policy endures...

This story just reflects the on-going need for transit. Our downtown is hostage to the car. Each high-rise can't have a surface parking lot, nor can each high-rise have an integrated parkade and moreover, we will never get rid of our stubborn surface parking lots unless a sustainable alternative is found *cough* trams *cough* parkades in the east and west *cough*.

Architype · #**257** Posted **May 3, 2013, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

Protesting against a parking lot would be pretty futile.

And where do you park while you're protesting?

I think some indoor parking must be included in, or for, any such developments, but not to the extent of 351.

SignalHillHiker · #**258** Posted **May 3, 2013, 10:59 PM**

But 351 would have been even shorter if not for the city requesting public parking be added, wouldn't it? I thought those first drafts weren't much taller than the old Woolsworth or whatever the **** it was.

Architype · #**259** Posted **May 3, 2013, 11:15 PM**

This is taken from the LUAR, showing what the difference was.
They also added one floor of offices in this diagram.

However, it would still have been considerably taller than Woolworths.

The top diagram would more typical of any new development that did not have to include public parking.

SignalHillHiker · #**260** Posted **May 3, 2013, 11:17 PM**

Ahh, perfect. Thank you, Architype!