September 19, 2016

open-house-boards-page-005

Site view

18 thoughts on “open-house-boards-page-005

  • This looks like a traffic nightmare. There are currently three exits from Coop, it’s being reduced to one? The main road is already congested and plugged up leading to Brisbois.

    • Hi Mike – The number of entrances/exits to the property will remain the same. A traffic control (lights) will be added at one of the exits to improve traffic flow and safety for those traveling in and out of the property. We do appreciate your concerns about traffic and we are looking at all the options possible to minimize that impact (like the traffic light, improved access to traffic like the attached, proposed walkway to the train). We are attempting to balance everyone’s needs as best we can.

      Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns and we’d be happy to discuss them.

  • Dear Admin,
    In addition to the traffic mentioned above (which I am skeptical is being handled properly) I’m quite concerned about the changes to the CO-OP. The CO-OP is an important centre for the local community. One of the nicest things about living in the area is having access to a grocery store that we can walk to. It sounds like the CO-OP will remain open, but be made smaller and provide a less complete grocery service.
    -Jason

    • Thank you for your comments posted to the Brentwood Commons website. We appreciate the feedback and your concerns.

      We agree the Co-op is an important part of the community. The current store is over 40 years old and need more than a cosmetic facelift in order to continue serving members in the best way possible. The new Coop will be slightly smaller in overall square footage, but there will not be be a reduction in services (there will actually be new programs and products added the current store can’t accommodate). The change in square footage will be eliminating primarily “back of house” space that isn’t currently being used for stock or storage as well as obsolete rooms/areas.
      The new store will have a better community room available for use by local groups – the current one is in the basement, not wheelchair accessible and difficult to access due to a number of stairs and doors. The new space will be accessible for all mobility levels and will have a connection to the proposed +15 walkway to the LRT station. There is also a proposed community rooftop garden – another meeting place for the community.
      The development will have better interface with the park and will have safe, well lit walkways that link to park pathways, retail, a courtyard and homes that face the park, making the property much more connected and included within the existing community.

      We would be happy to further discuss your concerns or any other questions/feedback that may arise in the future. Thank you again for contacting us.

      • Dear Admin,

        Thank you for your reply. Your comments here and privately to me have addressed most of my concerns (I think traffic is just going to be traffic, and we’ll just have to live with it, but it should be liveable).

        Thank you,
        Jason D.

  • The height of the proposed large building is ridiculous considering that this is being placed into an established low density residential community. We are shocked that the Co-op would even propose such an incongruous design. I agree with other comments on this website that this development should only be allowed to mirror the University City development in height and nothing taller. If we wanted to live amongst high rises then we would already be living downtown.

    • Hi TC – thank you for your feedback. The design and placement of the buildings, including height, were for a number of reasons. Firstly, this is a TOD site, and as such requires an increase in density (we are doing less than half of the maximum site density). However if the density was more even distributed amongst all the residential buildings, the park would be quite shadowed, as would the established neighbourhood behind the park. By putting the majority adjacent to the station and over the Co-op store, we limit shadowing to the neighbourhood while still meeting density requirements. For more information on TOD sites, please check out this post here (and its related links) http://brentwoodcommons.ca/2017/01/04/what-is-a-tod-site/

  • The tallest tower is such an eye sore. There is no way I can support a project like this, even if I see a lot of positive in the other parts of the design. That building is way too tall for our neighborhood. A monstrosity, really. I am offended that Co-op would even propose something like this. It reflects poorly on your company that you would go there. It makes you look greedy and selfish.

    • Hi Lauren – thank you for your feedback. The design and placement of the buildings, including height, were for a number of reasons. Firstly, this is a TOD site, and as such requires an increase in density among other things as per the City (we are doing less than half of the maximum site density). However if the density was more evenly distributed throughout all the residential buildings, the park would be quite shadowed, as would the established neighbourhood behind the park. By putting the majority adjacent to the station and over the Co-op store, we limit shadowing to the neighbourhood while still meeting density requirements. For more information on TOD sites, please check out this post here (and its related links) http://brentwoodcommons.ca/2017/01/04/what-is-a-tod-site/

  • Hi
    Traffic is a nightmare along the road parallel to Crowchild. It backs up from 3:30 to 6:00 every weekday, all the way from the Sears etc. stores. It crawls along, one lane really by the time you are in front of coop, you can’t even get out of the parking lot. Traffic lights are not going to address the incredible density. The road has to be wider or access to Crowchild has to change.
    Jamie

    • Hi Jamie – thanks for your feedback. This is an issue that the City is aware of and will be looked at as part of the area plan (the City is in charge of roads and the traffic issues have been noted for some time in the community). We appreciate you bringing this up. if you have any other questions or comments please let us know. Thank you!

  • Hello Admin,

    As an investor in the University City condo development, I have a few questions on this proposed development, being:
    – With the City reinvest in the road access to elevate congestion,
    – Will the developer consider a significant invest in the park next door to the complex to modernize the park given the additional population being added to the area,
    – How will this impact the views from the Orange and Green building given the largest tower appears to be right next to the Orange tower
    – How will this development impact my investment value in the University Condo value? For example, will these condos also be ‘micro’ condos (~500-800 sq ft) – possibly too much of one product in the same area.

    Thank you,
    Keith

    • Hi Keith – thank you for your questions.

      In terms of the road – as you reference, that is a city asset and they would determine based on area planning any changes or upgrades that would need to occur.

      Blakiston Park is already undergoing redevelopment which will be completed at the end of this year. Our development has taken into account these park renovations and our designs have created a better, friendlier and more efficient connection to the park including better lighting, a community plaza area and a better connection to pathways and the LRT.
      The building that is adjacent to the University City towers will have a twist in the design, ensuring for better privacy for its residents as well as the University City residents (meaning windows will not directly face windows, etc). At this time, the housing mix has not been finalized 9whether it be rentals, condos or a combination of both). However the units are slated to be larger, 1-3 bedrooms. Completion of these units would be in approximately 6 years. If you have any other questions, please let us know.
      .

  • While I do understand that having a gas bar may be a good source of revenue for Coop, I fail to see how this would fit within a TRANSIT Oriented Development. Traffic (cars) concerns are consistentely mentioned as a area of concern for this development. This gas bar will attract more cars, including from drivers that are not shopping at the store. Such “visitors” will affect the living quality of the neighbourhood, and therefore negatively affect the value (including financial) of the whole develpment. I would be willing to pay more for a condo in the development if I did not have to live next door to a gas bar. I expect that I am not the only one. Second most cited concern is the height of the main tower. How about reducing the height of the main tower and build units on the gas bas site to make up for the number of units lost. This addresses (and partially solves) the two most cited concerns.Transit Oriented Development is an excellent concept and needs to be supported. I understood that TOD is about walkable liveable sustainable communities. I must be missing something and therefore I would appreciate your response on how TOD and gas bars can go together.

    • Thank you for your comment Gijs. There is an existing successful gas bar currently on the property – many area residents use it as there are few options in the immediate area. The level of traffic to the gas bar is not set to increase, and by re-positioning it away further from the LRT connection and pedestrian pathways, it will have less interaction with pedestrians. Transit-oriented development (TOD) maximizes the amount of residential, business and leisure space close to a transit station – it doesn’t eliminate auto use/requirements completely. The community has expressed a need for the gas bar, and it is a revenue source for Co-op, the land holder as you mentioned.
      If more density was put on the park edge, the park would be in shadow more often and for longer periods. This is why the larger residential building was placed by the road and LTR access – to reduce shadowing on the park.

      If you have any other questions please let us know.

  • Hello Admin,
    Thank you for your reply. Thank you for your response. I would agree that current gas bar is successful. I live in Brentwood and this is also my favorite gas bar. I do fill up at this gas bar even when I am not shopping at the Coop. Assuming that the development will go ahead, I expect I will continue to do so and I expect most area residents will do so well. If you combine this with the additional cars that will accompany the development, traffic will increase. The question I raised was whether such a gas bar fits into the TOD concept. I agree that TOD should not eliminate car use, but at least an effort should be made not to increase it and ideally reduce it. There are at least 4 other gas bars within a 3 km radius and therefore not having a gas bar at this location will be a minor inconvenience. I would happily fill up at another location if it not there anymore. I do not dispute that area residents may have indicated that they would like to have a gas bar at this location. However, the vast majority of such residents will not live next door or will be future residents of the new development. I think more consideration should be given to the future residents, who are unlikely to support such a gas bar as it will increase traffic and reduce the quality of their living space. As mentioned in my previous post, I expect that the incorporation of a gas bar was primarily to satisfy the revenue needs of Coop. Assuming that Coop will benefit from the development; I think that such financial consideration could be met through the development of the current proposed gas bar site with high quality housing.

  • Its not hard to agree with previous comments on the height of the towers. Any 40 story high rise is ridiculous in a predominantly detached housing neighborhood both because of the shadowing and the traffic congestion and its just an out and out eyesore. As for the Coops argument that they have to do it -that too is ridiculous. A TOD site designation does not mean that you have to build to the maximum allowed density or even half of the max density. I would have expected Coop, given its member driven ownership, to be a little more responsible with its development plans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *