12-04-2021, 11:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-04-2021, 11:40 PM by cherrypark.)
(12-03-2021, 10:15 AM)Spokes Wrote:(12-02-2021, 07:21 AM)cherrypark Wrote: The perspective of some - which is not really wrong on a park space per person basis - is that central park is not large enough to support these U/C and planned above-zoned density projects. I don't have a really strong opinion beyond thinking that city surface lots that are only really used by work commuters (Bramm St.) should be put to better use for downtown residents.
Probably in some combination of park space, which you can't really expect a developer to prioritize, and development that meets the affordable and rental deficiency in town, which could be controlled more if they are the ones deciding what to do with the parcel of land?
But this lot is essentially just a placeholder for future development, is it not?
It is - my point was that folks are concerned about the density at Park & Victoria while this enormous space is going to stay empty for some uncertain amount of time and Councillor Chapman made a comment that more parkland near downtown is up to developing city lands (mostly parking) or buying new parcels (not super likely at the going rate per acre).
Just a thought experiment given lesser density is going to mean putting those dwellings on other parcels that could be e.g. - park space those same people are worried about.
Re: Victoria Park I think Dan is right; there is a lot of space in the park but certain amenities and routes that are pretty busy during normal park-using hours (weekends, etc.). The kids area especially and at times the bridge routes, and more notable if you are not on foot.