redline1.jpg

Calgary councilor wants new CTrain stations added to existing LRT line - Calgary | Globalnews.ca

A city councillor is hoping to grow ridership on Calgary CTrains by increasing the number of stops along the Red Line.
www.google.com www.google.com

It's been brought up before, a big development like this could certainly help make a case for a new station. I believe Brentwood, Dalhousie, and Crowfoot are already the 3 furthest spaced LRT stations.
 
Mountain Man said:
I would say TOD has been a bit of a flop in Calgary, there were so many master plans and all that 10 years ago, and it seems like Brentwood is the only area that's starting to actually see it happen.
Click to expand...
TOD isn't economically feasible in Calgary if it isn't 4-6 storey wood-frame buildings. Even townhouses would make more sense. This is largely because the cost of new condos and rentals downtown aren't commanding a high enough $/psf in comparison to new build suburban counterparts if its concrete construction. If downtown land was more filled in and more scarce, and downtown condos commanded higher $/psf compared to what a concrete new build on a TOD site cost, it would make sense to develop in larger numbers.

Basically, Calgary modelled TOD after Vancouver, which has very different market conditions. $/psf on condos downtown Vancouver became prohibitively expensive so people started building in Metrotown, Coquitlam, Surrey Central, New West, etc. because the $/psf was lower than downtown and a market was there when factoring in the cost of constructing concrete highrises.

Calgary's prices aren't high enough downtown for it to make sense to do TOD development in concrete. If we want TOD we should consider densities that support wood-frame development, as price points might be reasonable enough to be cost competitive at that point.

TLDR; Calgary isn't Vancouver and should do low-rise TOD like in American cities to make it cost competitive with downtown $/psf.
 
Redevelopment anywhere is a slow process as land assembly takes forever, and the economics aren’t great as per the above. Developers can spend too much on a parcel then the political risk kicks in and council shaves a FAR point off or a floor and the economics go from ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to can’t do it. That’s partly why the successes usually have started as big parcels. Brentwood was successful as the build quality was bargain basement and there was a market for bargain basement. The price point on the first towers was low enough that investors could see the potential for positive cash flow (whether that happened or not...)
 
Calgcouver said:
Calgary's prices aren't high enough downtown for it to make sense to do TOD development in concrete. If we want TOD we should consider densities that support wood-frame development, as price points might be reasonable enough to be cost competitive at that point.

TLDR; Calgary isn't Vancouver and should do low-rise TOD like in American cities to make it cost competitive with downtown $/psf.
Click to expand...

Or we could wait and do TOD over a longer time frame as the core becomes more expensive to build in. Building a modest wood complex next to an LRT station takes away potential for further intensification for the better part of a century. It also reduces the ability of the site to be true TOD with a real mix of uses - ideally, there would be enough people in the station area to actually support the retail and services that produce the good outcomes from mixed use; a handful of townhouses won't cut it. If the city won't have Vancouver type prices for central land in the next 75 years, then go for it. (We should also have real pressure to prevent endless suburban sprawl, but that's another story.)

Reducing LRT ridership for nebulous TOD potential we don't need is a bad policy. Every stop slows the train down, and makes it less appealing for suburban riders. Northland, with a redevelopment like this is potentially worthwhile once the redevelopment is built. The other two stops will just slow the train down in industrial areas right now. 50th and Fisher Park can wait - maybe in 2040 the market will be there. (I have drawn a crayon plan with a transit/pedestrian/cyclist corridor along 50th across the Elbow, with a streetcar connecting to MRU. In that case, a 50th stop would make sense. Until then...)
 
Last edited:
Calgcouver said:
TOD isn't economically feasible in Calgary if it isn't 4-6 storey wood-frame buildings. Even townhouses would make more sense. This is largely because the cost of new condos and rentals downtown aren't commanding a high enough $/psf in comparison to new build suburban counterparts if its concrete construction. If downtown land was more filled in and more scarce, and downtown condos commanded higher $/psf compared to what a concrete new build on a TOD site cost, it would make sense to develop in larger numbers.

Basically, Calgary modelled TOD after Vancouver, which has very different market conditions. $/psf on condos downtown Vancouver became prohibitively expensive so people started building in Metrotown, Coquitlam, Surrey Central, New West, etc. because the $/psf was lower than downtown and a market was there when factoring in the cost of constructing concrete highrises.

Calgary's prices aren't high enough downtown for it to make sense to do TOD development in concrete. If we want TOD we should consider densities that support wood-frame development, as price points might be reasonable enough to be cost competitive at that point.

TLDR; Calgary isn't Vancouver and should do low-rise TOD like in American cities to make it cost competitive with downtown $/psf.
Click to expand...
Im going to have to disagree with you on this one. Currently living in Metro Vancouver, what I've noticed is that their TODS are built around areas that were already well developed to a certain extent. The skytrain stations don't stop in the middle of free ways, they stop in the middle of amentity rich areas such as mainstreets where you have access to grocery stores, pharmacies, gyms, etc. All within walking distance form the Skytrain station. Land is still dirt cheap in Calgary relatively to Vancouver. Many of the developments being built in Vancouver don't necessarily produce larger profits as one may perceive due to expensive land acquisitions. Calgary needs to build better LRT stations, synced into the neighbourhoods and not just a quick dump and go station. Simply theres not enough demand for TOD right now regardless of the profit margin.

The Green Line looks promising in this aspect because many of the stations run through amenity rich areas and not just massive parking lot malls. Sunnyside is another station that still has a lot of promising potential to become a dense TOD but unfortunately the community is stuck on midrises which is completely fine but then they shouldn't be protesting against midrises being built in the back woods of the mainstreet. To have successful TOD you need population density and amenities which both feed off of each other. What further exacerbates the problem is the extra amount of dirt cheap greenfield condos the City allows to be dumped into the market. Sure it's great to have affordable housing but it's like making a deal with the devil, the pain just comes back in the ever increasing property taxes to maintain those new suburban developments. We need to find a better way to balance density and affordable housing. The City will need to change its attitude if it wants to develop a more transit/pedestrian friendly city.
 
Last edited:
Ooof, if this is the design (parking at grade)... I'm not impressed.


1604333072_enscape_2020-08-18-09-44-42.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top