[trtcttc]

Based on the renderings

I don't know how anyone can think the renderings look great and would want to live there. I can understand the trade off living in a high rise surrounded by other close high rises in the centre of the Beltline. Not here. I don't consider Calgary building low and mid-rises such as the University District instead of dense high rise clusters as falling behind Toronto or Vancouver. I see it as a plus. These districts won't be as convenient with the recent population explosion. The explosive population growth is the problem.

Are these real renderings of the what will be built or something concocted by the this group? I don't agree with them or the forum. Good on all parties taking an interest. Input always Increases the chances of a better outcome. Riocan has been repositioning all their holdings with grand mixed use redevelopments and they own a ton of retail properties. The comment that this may not happen within anyone's lifetime is actually possible.

The renderings are being used as a scare tactic, there’s no way it will be that dense with zero public amenities and open air spaces. There’s also not enough demand to support this level of density in Calgary. Even Toronto‘s The Well (RioCan) looks to have less residential than this “rendering” and it’s really well thought out and planned mixed use. This will will be a few apartment buildings at most, then move into mid-rise and then stall or go even smaller. The investor demand in Calgary is simply not high enough, I think these residents seems to think their community is much more desirable than it is.

 

[DougB]

The renderings are being used as a scare tactic, there’s no way it will be that dense with zero public amenities and open air spaces. There’s also not enough demand to support this level of density in Calgary. Even Toronto‘s The Well (RioCan) looks to have less residential than this “rendering” and it’s really well thought out and planned mixed use. This will will be a few apartment buildings at most, then move into mid-rise and then stall or go even smaller. The investor demand in Calgary is simply not high enough, I think these residents seems to think their community is much more desirable than it is.

I disagree. It is one of the best locations in the city, being on Glenmore Park with mountain views, proximity to Rockyview Hospital and MRU, surrounded by some of the wealthiest areas in Canada.

 

[MissingMiddle]

Based on how those cars look, I would bet that it's an AI-generated image.

 

[DougB]

Well safety first - drinking water is at stake! I guess the city needs to expropriate and tear down Bayview, Heritage Park, Eagle Ridge, and Rockyview Hospital to set an appropriate environmental setback. It's the only way.

It is a silly argument due to gravity. The Glenmore Landing site sits a few metres below the Glenmore Reservoir. Drainage would be towards the Bow, downhill and to the east. I wonder if these residents know that many of their properties have drained into the reservoir since the 70s and pose greater threat to water quality than would any redevelopment of Glenmore Landing: https://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lld....general&msgID=LTTrqKqyTyV&msgAction=Download

 

[DougB]

At least these hypothetical future car users have adopted the next generation of compact smartcar as their daily driver...
View attachment 532590

Not enough expensive European cars to be realistic for that area.

 

[trtcttc]

I disagree. It is one of the best locations in the city, being on Glenmore Park with mountain views, proximity to Rockyview Hospital and MRU, surrounded by some of the wealthiest areas in Canada.

I agree it is a desirable part of the city, I just don’t think it can support the level of development in that rendering. There’s at least 5 highrise on the visible sides and many low-rise in the centre. I’m not really sure any area outside of a couple development of greenfield areas in Toronto and Vancouver have been able to support that level of density.

 

[Dārayavauš]

I agree it is a desirable part of the city, I just don’t think it can support the level of development in that rendering. There’s at least 5 highrise on the visible sides and many low-rise in the centre. I’m not really sure any area outside of a couple development of greenfield areas in Toronto and Vancouver have been able to support that level of density.

And now Calgary. It’s finally growing up and might become cosmopolitan in a decade or two.

 

[gsunnyg]

And now Calgary. It’s finally growing up and might become cosmopolitan in a decade or two.

Yeah, I kind of agree, we're gonna hit 2 million in approx. 20 years or so, excluding the metro. We've already sprawled out quite a bit so it's either we keep sprawling out or squeezing more people into the existing city limits. Even with a balance between sprawl and inner-city growth, we'll need to stick up more midrises and highrises outside of the Core. If a site like Oakridge in Vancouver can stick up 13 towers in one go, I don't see why Calgary can't have a cluster of half that amount built over a decade or two. It's just a matter of time before we start seeing high-rise nodes start popping up in Calgary. As an example, look no further than the city of Surrey which was infamous for sprawl, undesirable and hardly had any highrises before 2010. In a mere 13 years, it has now begun shaping its downtown, even with the population only growing by roughly 200,000 people.

I believe that a change in the federal government, possibly leading to increased pressure on Calgary to relax strict land use bylaws around transit hubs, combined with a continuous rapid population influx into Calgary, changes in parking minimum requirements, rising costs of detached homes, and the potential for the next cycle of interest rate cuts, may all contribute to unlocking a wave of high-rise developments outside of the Core, perhaps starting from 2025/2026 onwards. It's just inevitable as a city gets bigger and more expensive to live in.

 

[Dārayavauš]

Yeah, I kind of agree, we're gonna hit 2 million in approx. 20 years or so, excluding the metro. We've already sprawled out quite a bit so it's either we keep sprawling out or squeezing more people into the existing city limits. Even with a balance between sprawl and inner-city growth, we'll need to stick up more midrises and highrises outside of the Core. If a site like Oakridge in Vancouver can stick up 13 towers in one go, I don't see why Calgary can't have a cluster of half that amount built over a decade or two. It's just a matter of time before we start seeing high-rise nodes start popping up in Calgary. As an example, look no further than the city of Surrey which was infamous for sprawl, undesirable and hardly had any highrises before 2010. In a mere 13 years, it has now begun shaping its downtown, even with the population only growing by roughly 200,000 people.

View attachment 533526View attachment 533525
I believe that a change in the federal government, possibly leading to increased pressure on Calgary to relax strict land use bylaws around transit hubs, combined with a continuous rapid population influx into Calgary, changes in parking minimum requirements, rising costs of detached homes, and the potential for the next cycle of interest rate cuts, may all contribute to unlocking a wave of high-rise developments outside of the Core, perhaps starting from 2025/2026 onwards. It's just inevitable as a city gets bigger and more expensive to live in.

Wow I haven’t been to Surrey in a long time, but it certainly looks to be improving (I was not remotely a fan when I went there over a decade ago).

I think the change Calgary has already made with the land use bylaw, plus new suburban developments being a lot more mixed use will go far. Add in increased density around public transit and it will be very transformative. And the last count I think Calgary is going to hit 2.5 million in 2042 and that is a low end estimate.

They just need to approve developments like Midtown instead of trying to dissuade them, which is what they’ve been doing.

 

[MichaelS]

It is too bad we have dropped the annual civic census, it is tough to get a good read on how quickly we are growing, but it is insane right now i think. Didn't Alberta add about 190,000 people in the past year? I doubt places like Ponoka are carrying an outsized share of that growth. Given that Edmonton's real estate market seems pretty stagnant, I feel like Calgary and area took the greatest share. So conservatively, did we add 60,000 people last year? High end estimate, was it 80,000? If these rates continue, we will have no issues filling up high rises in desireable locations on top of BRT stations. We will also be hitting the 2 million mark by 2030, if not sooner. It is a big if, depends on the federal immigration policy, but so far there doesn't appear to be any indication it will change dramatically.

 

[Surrealplaces]

It is too bad we have dropped the annual civic census, it is tough to get a good read on how quickly we are growing, but it is insane right now i think. Didn't Alberta add about 190,000 people in the past year? I doubt places like Ponoka are carrying an outsized share of that growth. Given that Edmonton's real estate market seems pretty stagnant, I feel like Calgary and area took the greatest share. So conservatively, did we add 60,000 people last year? High end estimate, was it 80,000? If these rates continue, we will have no issues filling up high rises in desireable locations on top of BRT stations. We will also be hitting the 2 million mark by 2030, if not sooner. It is a big if, depends on the federal immigration policy, but so far there doesn't appear to be any indication it will change dramatically.

Calgary would have for sure taken a pretty big share, especially over this past year, as Calgary was responsible for 58% of all housing starts in Alberta! Calgary had almost twice the amount of Edmonton. Housing starts of course don't translate directly to population growth, but they give a general idea.

 

[Albertasaurus]

Calgary would have for sure taken a pretty big share, especially over this past year, as Calgary was responsible for 58% of all housing starts in Alberta! Calgary had almost twice the amount of Edmonton. Housing starts of course don't translate directly to population growth, but they give a general idea.

Based on the provincial growth I would wager Calgary metro area would have added around 100,000 people. Which is a crazy growth rate, and if it's the case we're pretty much knocking on the door of 2 million, and likely to surpass it in the next few years (especially if you include Okotoks, which really should be part of our metro area).

The big question of course is whether that growth rate will be a "new normal" or just a weird 1 year blip. I heard yesterday that the GTA is adding 20,000 people a month, so for Calgary (smaller but growing much faster in percentage terms) perhaps up to 10,000 a month might not be outside the realm of possibility. And with Calgary now one of the top 3 cities for immigrants we've likely hit that "critical mass" of diversity that is sort of self sustaining. But of course, we're likely going to have a different federal government by the end of next year which may also have an impact on immigration policy.

 

[darwink]

^ part of it is a measurement revisions. After the census they do studies to estimate how many people they miss. Relatively new non-permanent residents and permanent residents likely have large undercount rates. COVID will have made undercounts even worse.

The estimates population wise were then revised from 2016 onwards.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Based on the provincial growth I would wager Calgary metro area would have added around 100,000 people. Which is a crazy growth rate, and if it's the case we're pretty much knocking on the door of 2 million, and likely to surpass it in the next few years (especially if you include Okotoks, which really should be part of our metro area).

The big question of course is whether that growth rate will be a "new normal" or just a weird 1 year blip. I heard yesterday that the GTA is adding 20,000 people a month, so for Calgary (smaller but growing much faster in percentage terms) perhaps up to 10,000 a month might not be outside the realm of possibility. And with Calgary now one of the top 3 cities for immigrants we've likely hit that "critical mass" of diversity that is sort of self sustaining. But of course, we're likely going to have a different federal government by the end of next year which may also have an impact on immigration policy.

Population numbers/estimates are in kind of a wild phase these days due to so many people coming in to the country the last two years, and it's been hard keeping track of people coming into Canada to a given province and then leaving for another province, etc.. I have no idea what to predict for Calgary, only that this year's numbers as well as next year's numbers will be high, and I would bet they'll be record numbers.

The reason I wonder about keeping track of where the immigrants arrive to and go to, is in the past week I've taken a cab twice and both times drivers were people who arrived in Toronto and moved to Calgary within the last year. I'm really curious about how many people might be arriving at a city like Toronto, but also leaving.

 

[Cowtown]

I had originally thought Calgary would grow by something like 45K but now I’m thinking it’ll be more like 75K. I think Edmonton will have record year also coming in at around 50k.