Quite frustrated by the proposal's retail component. Reducing 7 or so small units into one huge unit is a great way to destroy the granularity of the area and deaden the block -- regardless of how beautiful the ground-floor treatment is (which I find super tasteful). This seems to be a very common theme with "avenue"-facing midrises -- replacing a diverse range of retail uses by a handful of big-box units -- it strikes me as contrary to the goals of a 15-minute city.
While I agree w/your sentiment, in this case, this is about retaining an existing supermarket function on site. The existing store is very small and really does benefit from some enlargement.
Now I would still prefer to see at least one other Queen-facing unit, so we don't see a wall of window film. A restaurant fuction, with a side-flanking patio would be ideal, with the supermarket bending in behind it.
To clarify here, the developer cannot legally preclude someone from getting permit parking.
What they are doing is providing notice to prospective owners that the City will not provide them permit parking.
The City routinely excludes new developments from being eligible for permit parking, its very common.
****
The answer to this, of course is actually raising the price permit parking to fair market value.
Most permits (first car/permit and you don't have any spot to park on your property) is $22.19 per month.
That is less than 1/3 of what the typical tenant will pay for parking outside the core.
If you need to rent an off-site parking spot downtown, you need to be prepared to shell out anywhere from $100-$250 per month.
That the City gives these away is insane.
.Parking for .74c per day........pfft no wonder demand exceeds supply.
Charge $2.50 per day or $75 per month for that entry level permit, and $125 a month for those who have a spot on their property or are getting a second permit, and watch demand drop by 25% and lots of spaces become available for those who want them.
Quite frustrated by the proposal's retail component. Reducing 7 or so small units into one huge unit is a great way to destroy the granularity of the area and deaden the block -- regardless of how beautiful the ground-floor treatment is (which I find super tasteful). This seems to be a very common theme with "avenue"-facing midrises -- replacing a diverse range of retail uses by a handful of big-box units -- it strikes me as contrary to the goals of a 15-minute city.
I mean, I'm all for enlargement, but this proposal swallows 8 other extant units. That's nearly a full city block of potentially nothing but window film. Once the granularity of this block is gone, it ain't coming back.
Even your modest adjustments strike me as unlikely to arise.
I haven't ever seen them advocate for more additional retail units or push back against the proliferation of window film (I could be mistaken -- if you've got counterexamples, I'd love to hear about them!).