gsunnyg said:
Because none of the councilors receive donations from developers like the IBI group. They do however get donations from Mattamy Homes so they have no problem with those empty condos sitting in Cityscape. Let's call it what it is, our councilors are blinded by their own hypocrisy thanks to money.

Now it's making me think TODs like Westbrook, which are proposed to be equally as dense, was never meant to be taken seriously.

I mean does it even matter if this development would take away from the Core? The City would still be getting a higher tax revenue per sq. km, more transit ridership and also providing Calgarians with cheaper highrise condo/rental options relative to downtown. And this isn't even meant to be built overnight, it's a long-term vision, 10-20 years in the making when our metro population starts inching closer to the 2 million mark. Metro Vancouver is probably over 2.5 million people now, yet it has mini downtown nodes sprouting all over the valley. I guess our fundamental plan for population growth is to just develop our downtown and add more greenfield communities for the next 20 years until we have to annex more land or run into commuting issues like LA style traffic. SAD.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There is not a legitimate reason to not greenlight this. This is EXACTLY the kind of development Calgary needs to start pushing for. Got to have a vision for 2040 in mind and not 1940.
 
Dārayavauš said:
Exactly. There is not a legitimate reason to not greenlight this. This is EXACTLY the kind of development Calgary needs to start pushing for. Got to have a vision for 2040 in mind and not 1940.
Click to expand...
This is likely an unpopular opinion, but I disagree that this should get approved in it's current form. Whoever the landowner is just wants to pump the land value up for sale to developers, they aren't going to develop this. The densities described are far too high and would never get built out as you simply can't achieve the appropriate price points to build concrete developments in this location in any meaningful numbers. This should be maybe like a 2-3FAR site, and the land should be priced to support forms of development that would be economical to build out in the short to medium term.

Also the design is like a Le Corbusier towers-in-the-park design with a heavy focus on automobility, hardly an example of visionary city building. They are only pumping the density and height to crank up the land values and then they will sit on the land for an eternity before the price they are asking makes financial sense to buy and develop. Give land use to things that are actually going to get built not to speculators with no intention to develop or improve the lands themselves. The City not immediately giving away density on this land is one of the first times I have seen them even have any sort of land strategy whatsoever.

Also, we are not Vancouver and without any sort of urban growth boundary or significant upward pressure on condo prices, the type of podium-style development of TODs in Calgary isn't going to make economic sense, just as it hasn't for decades. There is nothing wrong with 4-6 storey human-scaled TOD development here, it would build out in the short to medium term and would be more beneficial to our tax base.

Why not this scale instead:
www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. We need density but there are better ways of achieving. Re-zoning to allow these hyper dense infills while protecting adjacent single family zoning is just stupid. I for one can't stand the massive TOD developments in Burnaby. They are an example of when bad zoning policies meet a super heated housing market. IMO a better way is to design TODs as mid rise residential with high level of amenities, and have it be incorporated into surrounding single family neighbourhoods. In this case it would mean getting rid of R1 zoning in Fairview. It is the best way to avoid situations like this in Brentwood where a bunch 150 meter+ condos is surrounded by low density, single family zoning.
Screen Shot 2021-09-03 at 1.44.33 PM.png
 
Disraeli said:
I for one can't stand the massive TOD developments in Burnaby. They are an example of when bad zoning policies meet a super heated housing market.
Click to expand...
To borrow the phrase, approving Midtown is when bad zoning and public investment policies meet a comparatively weak housing market.

Approving Midtown won't create the development any faster than the market can support. Even if it was approved and did build out exactly as the developer hopes - what did we achieve exactly? A 30 year long construction project of a bunch of tall, surprisingly car-oriented towers surrounded by MacLeod and Glenmore Trail and a heavy rail line, isolated from most other places? The lands around Chinook are fragmented in ownership, but plenty are big enough for a rental tower (or two) if there was the market interest in this area that the developers are claiming.

I get the long-term sentiment of those that like the pictures of all those towers - Calgary is likely to grow for the foreseeable future and sub-centres of high density and TOD will happen eventually - probably slower than many will like. Intuitively, Glenmore + MacLeod + Chinook + LRT stations totally make sense for that kind of development given it's central location and high level of accessibility city and region wide. I am sure this site will form into that future somehow.

This proposal doesn't seem to get us that future any faster though. Attractive development at a critical mass scale and density would. I would be curious if the outcome would be more favourable if they proposed a redevelopment at 1/4 the density but 1/4 the build out times, while skipping the new LRT station and invest in sidewalks and solid public realm to Chinook Centre, across MacLeod and the existing LRT station to the north instead.
 
Last edited:
Calgcouver said:
This is likely an unpopular opinion, but I disagree that this should get approved in it's current form. Whoever the landowner is just wants to pump the land value up for sale to developers, they aren't going to develop this. The densities described are far too high and would never get built out as you simply can't achieve the appropriate price points to build concrete developments in this location in any meaningful numbers. This should be maybe like a 2-3FAR site, and the land should be priced to support forms of development that would be economical to build out in the short to medium term.

Also the design is like a Le Corbusier towers-in-the-park design with a heavy focus on automobility, hardly an example of visionary city building. They are only pumping the density and height to crank up the land values and then they will sit on the land for an eternity before the price they are asking makes financial sense to buy and develop. Give land use to things that are actually going to get built not to speculators with no intention to develop or improve the lands themselves. The City not immediately giving away density on this land is one of the first times I have seen them even have any sort of land strategy whatsoever.

Also, we are not Vancouver and without any sort of urban growth boundary or significant upward pressure on condo prices, the type of podium-style development of TODs in Calgary isn't going to make economic sense, just as it hasn't for decades. There is nothing wrong with 4-6 storey human-scaled TOD development here, it would build out in the short to medium term and would be more beneficial to our tax base.

Why not this scale instead:
www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
While I agree with you for sure, how likely is it we can actually just scrap the R1 zoning across Calgary? In order to build the missing middle, that is what is required. We saw the pushback against the Guidebook, which is too bad frankly.
 
Disraeli said:
Absolutely. We need density but there are better ways of achieving. Re-zoning to allow these hyper dense infills while protecting adjacent single family zoning is just stupid. I for one can't stand the massive TOD developments in Burnaby. They are an example of when bad zoning policies meet a super heated housing market. IMO a better way is to design TODs as mid rise residential with high level of amenities, and have it be incorporated into surrounding single family neighbourhoods. In this case it would mean getting rid of R1 zoning in Fairview. It is the best way to avoid situations like this in Brentwood where a bunch 150 meter+ condos is surrounded by low density, single family zoning. View attachment 346386
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this one. A few apartment towers thrown in near the train station is fine, but it doesn't need to be 2 dozen highrises. A well thought out plan of mid and low rise buildings would be better.
 
Urban Outdoorsman first posted this in the general Urban Development thread, but maybe it's better to keep the discussion here.
https://calgaryherald.com/life/home...-station-is-calgarys-next-mega-infill-project

My simple question is how would this be any better than the London towers 1km to the south, or the other mid-rises coming online north of Heritage (some/all are rentals)? The corridor from Heritage to Southland stations seems way more ripe for this sort of development, yet progress has been quite slow...

My only takeaway is that the city should really invest in pathway connections along the east side of the LRT/CP to enhance the existing stations instead of building another one altogether.

Also some better E-W ped/cyclist connections (I've posted before about a route along ~94 Ave that would connect Glenmore Landing and Bow River Pathway (Sue Higgins Park area). If you lived in London you're only 1.5km from the Glenmore Reservoir path and 2.25km from the Bow River path, but ti would be pretty unpleasant to get to either.
 
Burnaby is a work in progress. Eventually, height transitions should be incorporated between the skyscrapers and single family homes. There's also a better attempt than Toronto and Montreal at building pleasant walkable neighbourhoods with commercial high streets. The bad is the form of development is only possible given the high property values in Vancouver. It can't be accomplished affordability. Older multi-tenant housing is being demolished for these upscale redevelopments.

This master plan reminds me more of a Toronto master plan than Metrotown, Coquitlam, or Surrey
 
I was originally excited about this, but over time I’ve changed my opinion. I’d rather see 4,000 to 5,000 units built somewhere else in the city. In that area alone I’d rather see closer to Chinook mall and the Chinook LRT station or near another station that already exists, like Westbrook, Banff Trail or Brentwood.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top