Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[RoadGame]

Originally Posted by gasman

I can't believe people are taking the city's side on this, this is completely crazy to me. Do you think because someone has commercial property they have an endless amount of cash or credit to just "realize the opportunity".

It is their property, the zoning hasn't changed, why should they have to accept anything.

They owned a property, the zoning allows the building, the owners have insurance. The insurance will replace the building - same as before not something different, not something bigger. And you guys are ok with the city just coming in and saying, "actually we changed our mind, you can't rebuild the same building, you need to come up with a few extra million and see this as an opportunity to invest." People should be outraged - this is private property, not public property.

If the city wants to change their mind, they need to make the owners completely whole, buying the lot at full fair market value as if the building were still there in the same shape.

If this is how redevelopment works now I'm going to blowtorch the entire north side of 16th Avenue from 4th Street NE to 10th Street NW with a special detour to charbroil Peters for making eastbound 16th a pain in the a** on weekends.

All kidding aside, when I lived in Toronto there were more than a few mysterious fires that led to opportunistic condo developments. Not saying anything about the origins of the fire in this case but maybe curb the central planning impulse a little or look to buy these properties out and resell to developers if you're that committed to some grand vision.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Wormius

There is no way a drive thru would work effectively there now, and it would only be worse when the LRT goes up there.

Why not? The drive-thru there was well-separated from the street and while it handled a steady flow of vehicles, it never backed up onto the street.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by gasman

I can't believe people are taking the city's side on this, this is completely crazy to me. Do you think because someone has commercial property they have an endless amount of cash or credit to just "realize the opportunity".

It is their property, the zoning hasn't changed, why should they have to accept anything.

They owned a property, the zoning allows the building, the owners have insurance. The insurance will replace the building - same as before not something different, not something bigger. And you guys are ok with the city just coming in and saying, "actually we changed our mind, you can't rebuild the same building, you need to come up with a few extra million and see this as an opportunity to invest." People should be outraged - this is private property, not public property.

If the city wants to change their mind, they need to make the owners completely whole, buying the lot at full fair market value as if the building were still there in the same shape.

But even private property has limitations - you simply can't build whatever you want on private property. A lot has changed in the decades since this building was built, and it is foolish to think that the exact same type of development fits in the present day. And especially in the future with the Green Line.

I absolutely sympathize with the owners. They are also "...being treated terribly by their insurance company" according to Corbella, without giving us any further information. But based on the way that the article is structured, Corbella had just one villain in mind. I won't go as far as to defend Druh Farrell for everything, but I do think that the city needs to be forward-thinking with new developments.

All I am saying is that what worked decades ago doesn't necessarily work in the future. Remember that a columnist that has made a career of painting this as black and white as possible has done just that, leaving a giant area of grey being complete ignored. What has the insurance been willing or unwilling to do? What has the city been willing or unwilling to do? Has there been any attempt at a compromise between the three parties? Could the insurance company compensate for the lost building? Could the city compromise with drive through access from the side street (it is on a corner)?

But what we got was: "1960s-style development rejected in 2021. Druh bad."

And, for what its worth, I'd be fine with the city buying them out. I would hope that the insurance company would come through and compensate for their loss as well, while allowing a modern development there.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RoadGame

If this is how redevelopment works now I'm going to blowtorch the entire north side of 16th Avenue from 4th Street NE to 10th Street NW with a special detour to charbroil Peters for making eastbound 16th a pain in the a** on weekends.

As inflammatory as this comment is it's a good question to ask: If Peter's Drive Inn went up in flames would the city allow it to rebuild?

[Cowboy89]

^ Maybe a more wide-reaching and important question many interested parties in the city should ask after the Guidebook for great communities is passed:

If any building that's 'low density' inside the range applicable for the "Guidebook for great communities" went up in flames would the city allow them to be rebuilt as they were?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

As inflammatory as this comment is it's a good question to ask: If Peter's Drive Inn went up in flames would the city allow it to rebuild?

The answer is highly dependent of the timing. It depends if it happens under current council or the post-Farrell era.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

But even private property has limitations - you simply can't build whatever you want on private property. A lot has changed in the decades since this building was built, and it is foolish to think that the exact same type of development fits in the present day. And especially in the future with the Green Line.

I absolutely sympathize with the owners. They are also "...being treated terribly by their insurance company" according to Corbella, without giving us any further information. But based on the way that the article is structured, Corbella had just one villain in mind. I won't go as far as to defend Druh Farrell for everything, but I do think that the city needs to be forward-thinking with new developments.

All I am saying is that what worked decades ago doesn't necessarily work in the future. Remember that a columnist that has made a career of painting this as black and white as possible has done just that, leaving a giant area of grey being complete ignored. What has the insurance been willing or unwilling to do? What has the city been willing or unwilling to do? Has there been any attempt at a compromise between the three parties? Could the insurance company compensate for the lost building? Could the city compromise with drive through access from the side street (it is on a corner)?

But what we got was: "1960s-style development rejected in 2021. Druh bad."

And, for what its worth, I'd be fine with the city buying them out. I would hope that the insurance company would come through and compensate for their loss as well, while allowing a modern development there.

Good point about insurance and what they will or will not do. How strict would they interpret 'replacement' if that was the coverage.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The answer is highly dependent of the timing. It depends if it happens under current council or the post-Farrell era.

Ah yes, the era of Calgary where a lone inner-city representative ruled over the entire city with an iron fist despite being but one vote among 15 on council and frequently finding herself on the minority side of council decisions due to being out-voted by suburban representatives who want to socially-engineer every Calgarian into living in a low-density, car-dependent community per God's intended urban design philosophy.

Frankly, I wish the ficticious all-powerful Druh Farrell boogeyman that exists in the minds of Rick Bell and Licia Corbella readers actually existed. Calgary would be a much better city for it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Frankly, I wish the ficticious all-powerful Druh Farrell boogeyman that exists in the minds of Rick Bell and Licia Corbella readers actually existed. Calgary would be a much better city for it.

Yes we all wish that the politicians that serve our interests and views were autocratic dictators that could trample over the rights and lives of all the other people that have the 'wrong' opinions or views of what should be.

[Torture]

That Dairy Queen was so run down, calling it a pillar of the community is laughable.

If you need your DQ fix and you're in a car (which you are if you're concerned about the drive thru) there's a new one just 30 blocks (5 min drive) north.

[lambeburger]

Who cares whether it's a "pillar of the community" or not? It's private land and the replacement DQ would be fully adherent to the zoning laws in place. It could be an adult video store and the cities actions would be equally abhorrent.

If the city decides to arbitrarily screw businesses over like this then don't be surprised when no one wants to do business in this town anymore.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ah yes, the era of Calgary where a lone inner-city representative ruled over the entire city with an iron fist despite being but one vote among 15 on council and frequently finding herself on the minority side of council decisions due to being out-voted by suburban representatives who want to socially-engineer every Calgarian into living in a low-density, car-dependent community per God's intended urban design philosophy.



Frankly, I wish the ficticious all-powerful Druh Farrell boogeyman that exists in the minds of Rick Bell and Licia Corbella readers actually existed. Calgary would be a much better city for it.

Council does not vote on Development Permits but they are circulated to the Councillor of the ward. So a councillor can provided comments on an individual Development Permit application if they want to. No idea how much sway they could have on an application, but Druh very well could opposed this application.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

Who cares whether it's a "pillar of the community" or not? It's private land and the replacement DQ would be fully adherent to the zoning laws in place. It could be an adult video store and the cities actions would be equally abhorrent.

If the city decides to arbitrarily screw businesses over like this then don't be surprised when no one wants to do business in this town anymore.

They're not arbitrarily saying don't build a DQ, they're saying don't build a drive-thru right opposite where the Green Line is going to be built.

[Oling_Roachinen]

A drive-thru that would have existed had there not been a fire though.

If it's near enough "brick-by-brick" replacement, then I don't agree with the decision. I don't think it's wrong to get these guys back to where they were prior to the fire.

[BMStrikesAgain]

Originally Posted by Torture

That Dairy Queen was so run down, calling it a pillar of the community is laughable.

If you need your DQ fix and you're in a car (which you are if you're concerned about the drive thru) there's a new one just 30 blocks (5 min drive) north.

no drive through there

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Torture

That Dairy Queen was so run down, calling it a pillar of the community is laughable.

If you need your DQ fix and you're in a car (which you are if you're concerned about the drive thru) there's a new one just 30 blocks (5 min drive) north.

Run down? I wouldn't say that.
Old sure, but it was in pretty good shape.

[Fuzz]

I dunno, for once the city is using some foresight on planning. Imagine the outrage in 10 years when they start building the green line, and the drive through is blocking some pedestrian infrastructure near the station. DQ then ends up losing access, it turns into a big legal fight, and everyone is left asking "why were they allowed to build a drive through 10 years ago when they rebuilt? You approved this, you can't take it away!"


I think the benefits to everyone outweigh the needs of them to rebuild in a manner that isn't compatible with the future planning of the area.

[Oling_Roachinen]

It's normally the opposite scenario I thought where people would "accidentally" burn, bulldoze, cut things like historical buildings, trees, etc. and go "oopsies, our bad, nothing we can do now but go ahead with our planned development" (which is why some people thought the Enoch Sale House fire was a bit convenient even though it probably was just an accident by a squatter).

To not allow someone to build back up to where they were before the fire just seems stupid. I know there was some "modernization" but if it didn't significantly change the layout, I'm entirely against the decision.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Run down? I wouldn't say that.
Old sure, but it was in pretty good shape.

It was renovated in 2015, perhaps the other poster hadn't been there since.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I dunno, for once the city is using some foresight on planning. Imagine the outrage in 10 years when they start building the green line, and the drive through is blocking some pedestrian infrastructure near the station. DQ then ends up losing access, it turns into a big legal fight, and everyone is left asking "why were they allowed to build a drive through 10 years ago when they rebuilt? You approved this, you can't take it away!"


I think the benefits to everyone outweigh the needs of them to rebuild in a manner that isn't compatible with the future planning of the area.

And who's that exactly?