MichaelS

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
3,323
Reaction score
27,940
Thanks to @CBBarnett for bringing this project to attention in the transit thread. Another substantial suburban project, this one in Skyview Ranch. A collection of 9 buildings, both commercial and residential, ranging in heights from 3 - 12 stories.

1713821316264.png

1713821408117.png

1713821458026.png

1713821514791.png
 
gsunnyg said:
Typical garbage NE design. I still can't get over how badly Saddletowne Circle was designed given its location. The NE North of 16th ave and East of Deerfot doesn't have a Single Main Street. It's just a collection of random midrises thrown on empty fields and parking lots.
Click to expand...
That was my first impression too, but looking a bit closer there's some intention here:
  • that diagonal cut-through the whole site is directly lined up to access the LRT station, and connects a bunch of off-busy-street daycare with only minor interior circulation roads and retail.
  • The LRT plaza is legit - like a real plaza as if they imagine pedestrians to travel to the station through it. This is unfortunately unprecedented in Calgary's TODs thus far.
It still has far too much parking and surface parking (592 stalls when bylaw requirement is only 437, both ridiculous numbers), but overall is one of the better (on-paper) designs we have seen for TOD, in the sense it actually appears to acknowledge a high-quality train will exist nearby. That and 600 units within dozens, not hundreds, of metres of a future station is at least cause for some optimism.
 
The old unamended DP is also available; here's the before next to the after:
1713824927578.png
1713824937719.png

The overall site use has changed as well:
The two buildings on the south are still 3-storey office; the 3 (formerly 4) in the middle are still 6 storey, but the 4 (formerly 3) around the perimeter have risen from 6 storey to 10 and 12 storey.
Office space is down a little from 87K to 62K sq ft; the retail use is down a lot from 87K to 20K (I think - although one building lists CRUs that aren't in the total; not sure about this), Childcare space about the same size, but the playground is in the quieter centre court area.
Parking is down from 719 stalls to 592, although surface stalls are only down from 168 to 132, which is disappointing given the reduction in retail should substantially reduce the demand for easy parking (not to mention the on-site and nearby residential units).
The residential is up; from 500 2BR units to 598, with 103 1BR, 435 2BR and 60 3BR, which is a nice increase in density and also in diversity.
And the pedestrian flow-through is better; the diagonal movement from the circle to the LRT plaza is much better and the big raised crosswalk there I think will be good as a primary access; the east-west flow from the south entrance road is about as good, and there's now an east-west path through on the north end that didn't exist before. This could be a really big detail; if the LRT station is like most new ones, there will be entrances at both ends of the platform, and this could provide direct access to that second platform entrance, which would have been completely walled off in the initial design.

Here's the site in context: the retail thing on the left is pretty car oriented; the big tenant in the SW corner is a medical centre, and the only grocery is a small Fruiticana in the diagonal building with the dark roof; the big housing complex to the northwest of the site is Agecare, with a mix of intensive housing from supportive senior's on up. The parcel across 60th street from the LRT station east of the site has Truman with a bunch of DPs for rowhouses.

1713824877593.png



Could it be better? Absolutely. On the other hand, how many parcels this close to an (existing or future) LRT station have this much density? (Incorrect answers include Dalhousie and Brentwood, which have 0, and 1 building within 180m of the LRT; the length of the diagonal through the site. Bridgeland is arguable. Sunnyside and the downtown stations are higher.)
 
Wow that is a crazy big number of units. Am I correct that this is La Caille's lands up there?

I know it's not a great site design and the buildings are somewhat generic, but there's a few wins here: potentially thousands of much needed new housing units, at a future LRT station, at a density befitting TOD.
 
Overall I’m happy with it, especially given the location, and as been said, it’s a reasonable TOD setup. Much better than our other stations that are adorned with park and rides lots.
Also it’s 100 X better than our previous suburban developments which were endless SFH’s and cul de sacs.
 
Will age poorly in restrospect as a TOD project if fully built out in this fashion. Deals with the current mobility conditions as it had to in the DP conditions, but is a good example of maximizing car orientation for something that is supposed to be TOD. Lots of parking to traverse as a pedestrian.
 
Calgcouver said:
Will age poorly in restrospect as a TOD project if fully built out in this fashion. Deals with the current mobility conditions as it had to in the DP conditions, but is a good example of maximizing car orientation for something that is supposed to be TOD. Lots of parking to traverse as a pedestrian.
Click to expand...
Certainly a lot of parking for a development right next to a future train station. I wonder the developer was doing this design with the station location already decided as the north side of CHB, if they would have designed it with less parking? The problem with this type of location is that even if you live near a station you're so far away from anything that most people end up having to get a car anyway.
 
Surrealplaces said:
Certainly a lot of parking for a development right next to a future train station. I wonder the developer was doing this design with the station location already decided as the north side of CHB, if they would have designed it with less parking? The problem with this type of location is that even if you live near a station you're so far away from anything that most people end up having to get a car anyway.
Click to expand...
Ultimately the problem is mobility Eng at the city pushing excessive car orientation. I think the excessive surface parking could have been avoided though but a lot of developers still think it’s necessary
 
Underground parking is expensive. Anyone that can afford a car here is going to want a car. Those that can't afford one will be at a disadvantage. Transit's success is reducing car trips. More Canadians being car free is a sign of unaffordability than diminished returns from driving.

This could be easily mistaken for a Russian Mariupol coverup with those colours.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top