maestro
Senior Member
Let's see how occupancy works out first. These Asian retail condos have a habit of super high vacancy.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Let's see how occupancy works out first. These Asian retail condos have a habit of super high vacancy.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Oh man, you are right (I didn't get a chance to watch CPC last week):
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/LOC2017-0028
What was their reasons? The minutes aren't up yet. CPC only makes the recommendation on land use, it is ultimately up to Council. Council can still vote to approve this. July 31 is going to be a brutally long day for Council and anyone involved with an item, as it is the last meeting before the summer break.
Well that sucks. I'm curious to see what the reasons are.
Have you been to the one in Markham? Just wondering how it is, as this one is developed by the same group who did that one.
jdixon
Active Member
Occupancy is pretty high in Pacific Mall, even though there's only like 5 types of shops in it, each repeated nearly identically multiple times; bubble tea, food court, cell phone accessories, hair cutting places and random trinkets.
BKha
Active Member
I've been to the Pacific Mall. Very similar to the type of merchandise at street malls in Asia, but without the knock-offs.
maestro
Senior Member
No. There's more than one up there too.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
Looks promising.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
I don't know what went down at the CPC, but the planning report (which, as I mentioned, recommended approval), reported that there were over 80 letters in opposition to the zoning change and only 7 in support (one of those letters being mine). The Marda Loop community association also wrote a letter in opposition. The reasons were the standard NIMBY BS: too much traffic, this should be a "family friendly" neighborhood (read: no poor people), lack of parking, etc. People just can't comprehend that when you build commercial and residential together, people don't need to use their car as much. The cruel irony is that segregating commercial and residential uses cause people to get into the car for even the most mundane errands.
Keep in mind, this was just for a zoning change to allow mixed-use. From my understanding, the current plans for the building don't even include retail spaces. Nonetheless, this sets a terrible precedent for the prospects of expanding retail along 33rd, and for the "main streets" initiative more generally. The City says it wants to build main streets throughout the city, but to do so, they are going to have to ignore all of the NIMBYs who want to maintain strict 1960s-style segregation between residential and commercial zones.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
If the offerings at this mall are anywhere close to Pacific Mall in Markham, I will be incredibly happy.
AJX
Active Member
That really is disappointing, I couldn't agree more about it being a bad precedent. Seems like the main streets program might be a waste of time.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Well, it wasn't just to allow mixed use. It was also a substantial increase in allowed density and height. Not saying I agree with the refusal, but when looking at the statutory plan for the area (which granted, was written in 1986 but updated numerous times over the years, found here: http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/arp-asp/arp/south-calgary-altadore-arp.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1) it does say this area is "Residential Conservation Area", with the policy language being as follows:
"The intent of the conservation and infill policy is to improve existing neighbourhood quality and character while permitting low profile infill development that is compatible with surrounding dwellings. Existing structures in good repair should be conserved, while structures in poor repair should be rehabilitated or replaced. Narrow lot (7.5 metres/25 foot) infill dwellings should be of a design that would encourage families with children to move into them. Bylaw 14P90"
So, there were pretty strong policy grounds (dated as they are, they are still the official policy) to refuse this.
MichaelS
Senior Member
A much smaller planning commission next week. I already spoke about the 14th street medical clinic building in it's specific thread for those interested (the VW spider is being saved!).
The other item of note is a land use redesignation in Bridgeland, starting on page 119:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Docume...commission/agenda/2017/agenda-cpc-june-29.pdf
Site along Edmonton Trail, just north of the Petro-Canada at 1st Ave. Wants 4.5 FAR, height of 29m, and mixed use. Would be similar in scale to Minto's bridgeland site I think. Recommended for approval. No concurrent DP, so no building design yet.
The other item of note is a land use redesignation in Bridgeland, starting on page 119:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Docume...commission/agenda/2017/agenda-cpc-june-29.pdf
Site along Edmonton Trail, just north of the Petro-Canada at 1st Ave. Wants 4.5 FAR, height of 29m, and mixed use. Would be similar in scale to Minto's bridgeland site I think. Recommended for approval. No concurrent DP, so no building design yet.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Policies like these are what turned this city into the sprawling mess that it is, and stunted the growth of vibrant, urban neighborhoods. The city is going to have to decide what is the higher priority: enforce the preservation of 1950s-style suburban neighborhoods by preventing mixed-use and mid-rise development, or step out of the way and allow vibrant urban neighborhoods centered around mixed-use, mid-rise main streets to develop.
Motivated by this development and others, the Planning Department is in the process of re-writing that 1980s ARP. However, the NIMBYs have rejected any attempt to open the area up to increased density and commercial activity beyond what the existing ARP allows. So the 2017 version of the ARP may end up looking exactly like the 1986 ARP. Disgraceful.
As a former Torontonian, I never thought I'd actually miss the Ontario Municipal Board.
BKha
Active Member
I don't agree with it either, but at least we know why it was refused. If the city is serious about increasing density and vibrancy in the inner city, this is where they have to put their money where their mouth is.