1875
Senior Member
need that sheldon chumir parking lot filled
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Just build it
Active Member
I wish this was on the church parking lot instead of having to take out those two apartment buildings. Even though they are small, somewhat rundown buildings, they provide cheap housing. That said, this is a decent project and will overall be good for the Beltline.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
That church parking lot is about 1 acre, so technically it could fit 2.5 of these towers on it if the proposed site is the baseline
What a huge land-bank!I wonder when/if/under what circumstances we would see some of these massive Church parking lots turnover? Beltline has a few obvious ones that are pretty wildly out of place given the ever-increasing density, declining patronage and increasingly walkable neighbourhood.
1875
Senior Member
across 9th st from the royal is primo property
Social Justice
Active Member
Me too! It sucks that one of the buildings that are being demolished looks to be pre-WWII.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0397...4!1sKPJIkLIY_SMyX25GoiQFlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's a shame. There are so many empty lots in the inner city yet we have to bulldoze existing buildings.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
It’s a downer every time I see a building demolished next to an empty lot. The positives are that it’s a decent proposal and the 200 units will be much more than the 16 or so there now, and good density to support the 4th street corridor.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
Definitely a great density boost! But just generally speaking, would it kill for any these developers to choose a design thats not just a rectangle/boxy look? Literally all of the projects proposed or under construction are basic rectangular highrises. The beltline is in serious need of some shape variation. The buildings are starting to look like 2 sets of clones from two different eras(70's/80's and 2010's).
CBBarnett
Senior Member
It really is attack of the clones eh? I don't see it as a bad thing though: Montreal and Toronto both have tens of thousands of apartments in non-descript apartment blocks in those middling heights (10 - 20 storeys) that get little fanfare when tourists take photos. But they serve a critical function to provide the density and affordability to keep their city's vibrant and active.
Calgary - as a result of our timing of achieving a respectable urban size too late in the 20th century when auto-suburban thinking was at peak vogue - effectively missed the first great apartment boom in Canadian cities from the late 1800s to 1970s, thus missed the critical engine require for vibrant urban places - dense places for people to live, and lots of them. I am happy we aren't missing this round, but a reminder that we will forever playing catch up to the Canadian average.
In my plea for vibrancy I will conclude: bring on the apartment blocks, as fast and as many of them as we can. Give them some variation in height, ensure a good ground treatment for pedestrians, relax parking requirements. I can live with a forest of clones if it gets us closer to achieving true urban vibrancy.
Atticus
Active Member
I don't mind the basic design of this tower or the Redstone tower. Neither tower is situated on a main drag, and mostly needs to be good for the residents living in it. The extra people in the area will help support the busy corridors like 4th street, 17th ave, etc.. Designs of building on those type of streets needs more scrutiny, but for a back streets this tower does the job.
maestro
Senior Member
The most ideal situation for investors will be to maintain the high standards until it doesn't make sense to continue and than completely renovate and sell off as condos. Allowing these towers to age to the point where they can't charge premium rents would adversely effect real estate value and these tower are being built to eventually cash out.
Zoom
Active Member
But that does happen. Not normally with owner, but often an owner will run the building for a number of years and then sell it when it starts getting long in the tooth. The next owner runs it for a while and sells, and so on. In as little as 30 years, there could very well be a number of buildings that are lower rent, but still decent buildings, due to newer buildings that have come on line over those 30 years. I agree, many will probably sold as condos, but even then, those will sell relatively cheap compared to buying a new one.
Social Justice
Active Member
IMHO this attitude has always been pervasive in Calgary. I think we're at the point in time where we can be a little pickier with design standards throughout the city.
Population density is only half the battle in creating true urban vibrancy. If we really want to be serious about increasing vibrancy, I think a lot more effort has to be spent rethinking road configurations and developing better pedestrian spaces throughout the city center.
darwink
Senior Member
On major roads I agree about clones. But side roads? I don't really care.
I'm kind of the same way. If this was on 4th street or on 17th ave, etc.. I would be pushing for better design. Really though, you could build this on 4th street with a well done podium, and the tower portion would still be okay.
maestro
Senior Member
That is how it has been. I'm predicting this generation of towers will be different. The strategies of today's real estate investment vehicles is to eventually exit while past generations of individual owner was to rent out and live off the income. The prospects of newer rental buildings continuing to be built for the next 30 years without a federal housing policy is unlikely. At some point, property values will plateau or decline and that will end rental construction. That won't change from past generations. These may still be the newest rental housing stock 30 years from now. (should they remain rental)