News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Surrealplaces said:
I like H-GO in general, and actually it does provide a great density boost while blending into its surroundings. My only issue with H-GO is on roads that have good potential to be a retail corridor. I think 4th street has potential for that, but it's slowly disappearing.
Click to expand...
I agree! H-GO is great but these developments will delay higher density development on Main Street corridors for decades.
 
adamyyc said:
I agree! H-GO is great but these developments will delay higher density development on Main Street corridors for decades.
Click to expand...
That's really my only gripe. Calgary has a limited amount of straight, grid type roads suitable for corridors. I would hate to see them filled up with H-GO developments. Once an H-GO development is in, it's there for a long time. Outside of that, I love H-GO.
 
MichaelS said:
It is another example though of the density not living up to what the LAP called for. 4th Street is planned to be a Neigbourhood Corridor, lined with 6 storey multi-family apartments with retail at grade for some of it. But, due to the nature of H-GO, we aren't seeing that, instead getting 3-4 projects of this scale, rather than the bigger density that the policy document called for.
Click to expand...
Is it just a case of only needing a single property vs needing to spend a much longer time in order to buy two adjacent ones in order to build 6 story?
 
I am not sure if it is that, as we have seen some large assembly H-Go projects on Main Streets, such as this one:

Perhaps a developer on this site can confirm, but I suspect it is more a case of the H-Go product being much less capital intensive. Sure you don't get as many units to sell/rent, but you don't have the cost of a parkade or elevators, or likely a lot of other expensive building code stuff I am not aware of. Plus, you can build them a lot quicker, so much shorter financing costs, etc...

It works for the developers, and maybe it isn't a bad thing in the end, but I feel if we are not achieving our planned for density on our nodes and corridors, it will make achieving our broader goals of curbing sprawl that much more challenging. On an individual project level it may not be a big deal, but imagine of even just 50% of the 37th STreet corridor built-out as H-GO, that would be a missed opportunity on likely several thousand units that could be on that corridor.
 
MichaelS said:
I am not sure if it is that, as we have seen some large assembly H-Go projects on Main Streets, such as this one:

Perhaps a developer on this site can confirm, but I suspect it is more a case of the H-Go product being much less capital intensive. Sure you don't get as many units to sell/rent, but you don't have the cost of a parkade or elevators, or likely a lot of other expensive building code stuff I am not aware of. Plus, you can build them a lot quicker, so much shorter financing costs, etc...

It works for the developers, and maybe it isn't a bad thing in the end, but I feel if we are not achieving our planned for density on our nodes and corridors, it will make achieving our broader goals of curbing sprawl that much more challenging. On an individual project level it may not be a big deal, but imagine of even just 50% of the 37th STreet corridor built-out as H-GO, that would be a missed opportunity on likely several thousand units that could be on that corridor.
Click to expand...
We can always make all 5– and 1s by right along the corridors if the government risk and increased timelines compared to H-GO is distorting things.
 
MichaelS said:
Perhaps a developer on this site can confirm, but I suspect it is more a case of the H-Go product being much less capital intensive. Sure you don't get as many units to sell/rent, but you don't have the cost of a parkade or elevators, or likely a lot of other expensive building code stuff I am not aware of. Plus, you can build them a lot quicker, so much shorter financing costs, etc...
Click to expand...
I think that's the case for sure. In the case of Mosaic in Bowness switching to H-GO, they ended up with the same amount of units per parcel (~10 per parcel), but did not have to do any below ground parking.
darwink said:
We can always make all 5– and 1s by right along the corridors if the government risk and increased timelines compared to H-GO is distorting things.
Click to expand...
For land along corridors maybe the city can relax the requirement for parking. This should help make it more cost effective.
 
MichaelS said:
I am not sure if it is that, as we have seen some large assembly H-Go projects on Main Streets, such as this one:

Perhaps a developer on this site can confirm, but I suspect it is more a case of the H-Go product being much less capital intensive. Sure you don't get as many units to sell/rent, but you don't have the cost of a parkade or elevators, or likely a lot of other expensive building code stuff I am not aware of. Plus, you can build them a lot quicker, so much shorter financing costs, etc...

It works for the developers, and maybe it isn't a bad thing in the end, but I feel if we are not achieving our planned for density on our nodes and corridors, it will make achieving our broader goals of curbing sprawl that much more challenging. On an individual project level it may not be a big deal, but imagine of even just 50% of the 37th STreet corridor built-out as H-GO, that would be a missed opportunity on likely several thousand units that could be on that corridor.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the issue is that the corridors are being asked to do too much here - if H-GO was allowed everywhere, the way R-CG is proposed to become the base density, there wouldn't be as much focus on H-GO competing for space on the corridors for even higher density (but currently uneconomical to develop) forms.
 
I don’t like this idea of R-CG becoming the new base density won’t that attract lower income people? sure they attract immigrants but I always envisioned the city as the Canadian dream or something like that where once you come here you will become more prosperous! and it doesn’t make sense urban geography standpoint, you go from dense to Medium density (barely) to suburban single-family homes to a slight density rise at the edge that makes no sense. The cities development is Whack you shouldn’t change anything. The only thing you should change is allow for more condo towers to appear in the greater downtown area to encourage the development and you have a massive gold mine just north of the Bow river. But instead of doing that, you decide to just plop condo towers across the entire city instead of concentrating it in the greater downtown area sure may get the sense that the city is older then it really is but could you at least put more effort into building more stuff in that area and I live at the very northwest corner of the city. I’m worried about what type of people that may attract and how it may affect crime rates and the local co-op may be packed! if the development were to continue.
 
Thejbird said:
I don’t like this idea of R-CG becoming the new base density won’t that attract lower income people? sure they attract immigrants but I always envisioned the city as the Canadian dream or something like that where once you come here you will become more prosperous! and it doesn’t make sense urban geography standpoint, you go from dense to Medium density (barely) to suburban single-family homes to a slight density rise at the edge that makes no sense. The cities development is Whack you shouldn’t change anything. The only thing you should change is allow for more condo towers to appear in the greater downtown area to encourage the development and you have a massive gold mine just north of the Bow river. But instead of doing that, you decide to just plop condo towers across the entire city instead of concentrating it in the greater downtown area sure may get the sense that the city is older then it really is but could you at least put more effort into building more stuff in that area and I live at the very northwest corner of the city. I’m worried about what type of people that may attract and how it may affect crime rates and the local co-op may be packed! if the development were to continue.
Click to expand...
Do lower income people not deserve somewhere to live?
That aside, do you really think people spending 400-500k on a brand new row house are the dregs of society?
And just to play along with your sentiment; if people buying denser homes really are "low income" per your theory , why is it OK to put them all in the the greater downtown area as your suggest, but not in your area?
Do you think development in your area should pretty much have stopped once you moved in?
Do you believe you have a right to use the coop without others as well? What do you think coop would prefer?
Sounds like you are okay with development in the "greater downtown area'... I guess just so long as it's not in your backyard...
 
The "poors" are shopping at the FreshCo, Walmart, Costco and Dollarama not Co-op.

Lower income people do love R-CG land though. I can assure you they are champing at the bit to be housed on it. They despise that R-C1, R-C2 and M-C stuff. They won't touch it.
 
R-CG should absolutely be the base density! Anywhere outside of North America and perhaps Australia/NZ, I'm pretty sure the idea of the vast majority of land zoned for single family homes only in a city of some 1.5 million would seem completely insane. And it is really disheartening to see a comment about "attracting low-income people" as if they are some kind of scourge. I have lower-income renters on either side of me (SAIT students on one side, a multi-generational immigrant family on the other) and they are both fantastic neighbours - I much prefer them to the wealthier Karens who I had to put up with when I lived in the suburbs.
 
Thejbird said:
I don’t like this idea of R-CG becoming the new base density won’t that attract lower income people? sure they attract immigrants but I always envisioned the city as the Canadian dream or something like that where once you come here you will become more prosperous! and it doesn’t make sense urban geography standpoint, you go from dense to Medium density (barely) to suburban single-family homes to a slight density rise at the edge that makes no sense. The cities development is Whack you shouldn’t change anything. The only thing you should change is allow for more condo towers to appear in the greater downtown area to encourage the development and you have a massive gold mine just north of the Bow river. But instead of doing that, you decide to just plop condo towers across the entire city instead of concentrating it in the greater downtown area sure may get the sense that the city is older then it really is but could you at least put more effort into building more stuff in that area and I live at the very northwest corner of the city. I’m worried about what type of people that may attract and how it may affect crime rates and the local co-op may be packed! if the development were to continue.
Click to expand...
You're going to have a great time here...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top