YourBoy007 said:
This development is perfect for students and especially international students who almost always don't have vehicles or can't drive. Like mentioned above it's close to a supermarket and right next to the C-train station. It would be nice if this development could start a trend in Calgary.
However, having absolute 0 resident parking accommodation does pose a significant problem and is a tough reality to accept in Calgary. Hopefully Jemm can come up with a solution -- a cheap solution. They have to come up with a cheap solution or it could throw off their entire strategic plan to achieve profitability. Adding underground parking means the cost just went up a lot and there goes their target demographic.

Oh the car-centric city dilemma 🙄
Click to expand...

The solution is no parking - that’s JEMM’s entire strategic plan. Buy land next to transit and get approval for more density and no parking. Rent apartments to people who don’t drive. Only speedbump they’ve hit is the city shaking them down for $1 million to go higher than the 26m height limit the other new developments in Kensington have accepted.

It’s an interesting approach to go to CPC with a refusal recommendation - they must think there’s a reasonable chance that Council will settle for less cash than administration.
 
YourBoy007 said:
This development is perfect for students and especially international students who almost always don't have vehicles or can't drive. Like mentioned above it's close to a supermarket and right next to the C-train station. It would be nice if this development could start a trend in Calgary.
However, having absolute 0 resident parking accommodation does pose a significant problem and is a tough reality to accept in Calgary. Hopefully Jemm can come up with a solution -- a cheap solution. They have to come up with a cheap solution or it could throw off their entire strategic plan to achieve profitability. Adding underground parking means the cost just went up a lot and there goes their target demographic.

Oh the car-centric city dilemma 🙄
Click to expand...
If there ever was a place where zero parking is a good fit, this is one of them. Calgary does like its parking though.
 
YourBoy007 said:
Someone wanna fill me in on the Pros and Cons to the bonus density rate policy?
Click to expand...

Pro - May create some community support for development by requiring developers to pay into a fund for off-site improvements. Brings in cash to the city for “giving” something of value to the developer.

Con - Acts as an additional tax on dense, inner-city developments that we say we want to encourage. If the city needs another $1M to build cool stuff in Kensington why not raise development levies on greenfield single family houses on South 492nd Avenue instead?
 
zagox said:
Pro - May create some community support for development by requiring developers to pay into a fund for off-site improvements. Brings in cash to the city for “giving” something of value to the developer.

Con - Acts as an additional tax on dense, inner-city developments that we say we want to encourage. If the city needs another $1M to build cool stuff in Kensington why not raise development levies on greenfield single family houses on South 492nd Avenue instead?
Click to expand...
The MGA is pretty clear (as is court precedent) that offsite levies need to demonstrate how the infrastructure charged for will benefit the development paying them. Would be difficult to justify how something in Kensington would benefit the Greenfield communities.

If infrastructure or projects are needed to accommodate this density in Kensington, a redevelopment levy should be implemented, or in this instance, a density bonus payment.

We don't want to subsidize greenfield development. Why would we want to subsidize inner city development? And before everyone starts responding about long term operations etc, take a look at the taxation thread that was started based on the infographic released by the city, plus the recent business case analysis performed by the city as part of the growth management process. New Greenfield communities are not the financial drain they used to be.
 
UrbanRED said:
Don't need cars here but you definitely need lots of bike racks. You don't need to go underground for that though, just put it on the first floor
Click to expand...
I am a bit surprised they didn't bother with bicycle parking to at least 1:1 with the units. Sure, bicycle parking takes space like anything else, but it's 10 - 15x more space efficient than vehicles and rarely needs any of the major underground investment. Still they can't/don't bother to meet the minimum here?

It's counter to the whole pitch of the building in the first place - super walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented as you get location. Indeed the perfect place for density, it's super easy to be entirely car free in this location. Bicycle parking is hardly a onerous ask and I would be amazed if project economics ever hinged on something as minor as some bicycle storage.

I sometimes wonder when relaxation on the bicycle parking comes up where the thinking is coming from. Or is it just as simple as no one involved every lived in such an accessible area so doesn't even think about it how much bicycle parking they need and just arbitrary asks for a relaxation.
 
Last edited:
MichaelS said:
The CPC agenda is up and so it all of the materials for the land use for this application. Quite interestingly, it is a refusal recommendation.
Report, Background, Proposed DC Bylaw, Applicant Submission, Public Comments, CA Response, Heritage Calgary Response, UDRP Comments

The main point of contention leading to the refusal recommendation seems to be over the amount of money paid for the bonus density, and better transportation demand management measures to support the zero parking rate. This paragraph from the report seems to sum it up best:
View attachment 451502
Click to expand...

CPC voted 6-2 in favour of approving the land use. I listened to the debate and they were super skeptical of administration’s position.

Now the battle goes to council but I would bet on this passing based on the CPC debate.

Also bodes well for the Terrigno project on the Osteria site.
 
I will have to rewatch the video, but my take was CPC wanted to see the project go forward, but put the question (and decision) to Council over what the density bonus rate shoudl be. So that amount is still TBD, and I imagine there will be a lot of discussion with all of Council over it.

One big plus side was CPC recommended making the class 1 bicycle parking stall ration 1 stall per unit, as opposed to the 0.5/unit that was asked for.
 
Alex_YYC said:
Good news. I would really like to see this get built.
Click to expand...
About as good of a site for density as exists. Significant density not just kind of near transit, grocery and walkable retail, but practically built on top of it in a purely pedestrian friendly neighbourhood.

Seemingly very little public drama for a no-parking design - as it should be. Thinking back to the endless N3 condo debates in East Village a decade ago about no parking designs, we've come a long way as a city the past 10 years!

This is the next wave of intensification that will keep Sunnyside/Hillhurst in the game for best walkable urban neighbourhood for another generation. Copy-and-paste.
 
Exactly. This is a text book case for a building with no parking. The streets around that area all have permit or city controlled pay parking so it shouldn’t be any different than it is today from a parking standpoint, but from a traffic standpoint, it actually generates less traffic.
 
Alex_YYC said:
Exactly. This is a text book case for a building with no parking. The streets around that area all have permit or city controlled pay parking so it shouldn’t be any different than it is today from a parking standpoint, but from a traffic standpoint, it actually generates less traffic.
Click to expand...
As this project is right in the Kensington business district, I also hope this type of development starts to shift the business district/main street discussion away from parking too. Parking supply is important but is so often discussed by BIAs to the extent they over-emphasize it.

100+ units with 100 - 200 people living in metres away from the shops in your business district buying things 24/7 is about as great of an outcome as you can want. I would guess that residents who would choose to live here will be doing so to deliberately have that lifestyle - that's serious per person spending that will be almost entirely captured locally. You likely will have a higher spend rate because people are car-free specifically - it's just so convenient to walk to Safeway, you out-compete cheaper alternatives like travelling occasionally to a big box in the suburbs to save a few bucks.
 
CBBarnett said:
As this project is right in the Kensington business district, I also hope this type of development starts to shift the business district/main street discussion away from parking too. Parking supply is important but is so often discussed by BIAs to the extent they over-emphasize it.

100+ units with 100 - 200 people living in metres away from the shops in your business district buying things 24/7 is about as great of an outcome as you can want. I would guess that residents who would choose to live here will be doing so to deliberately have that lifestyle - that's serious per person spending that will be almost entirely captured locally. You likely will have a higher spend rate because people are car-free specifically - it's just so convenient to walk to Safeway, you out-compete cheaper alternatives like travelling occasionally to a big box in the suburbs to save a few bucks.
Click to expand...
This is one area where Safeway has it pretty good, having stores in places like Marda Loop, Kensington, Beltline and Mission, and new developments slowly bumping up the population in those neighborhoods. The new developments also help the rest of neighborhood, by helping keep those stores viable.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top