News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

I think a lot of people are giving the "towers in the park" a fresh look these days. Myself included. Check out the Chelsea-Elliott Houses. There was a time when people accused these style buildings of destroying Manhattan (e.g. Jane Jacobs). 60 years later, it is clear that that is not the case.

My larger point is that housing diversity is something to which we should aspire. Calgary's housing stock has a lot of catching up to do in this regard.
The "Tower in the Park" thing is a Corbusier idea actually called Garden City planning. Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement

There's plenty of criticisms of it, the most valid being on a large scale it doesn't encourage natural diversity of anything. As we know, diversity = resiliency. To understand why we passed on that movement we have to understand what Corb had imagined, which is vast swaths of area following rigorous "modern" planning:

perfect-city-1.jpg


So sure, on the scale of a city block or two it's fine, but that isn't what Corb was advocating for, that's just a high density structure with ground-level amenity space. Jacobs was warning of it spreading in a disease-like manor and eliminating the diversity of NYC, it's most valuable asset.
 
The "Tower in the Park" thing is a Corbusier idea actually called Garden City planning. Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement

There's plenty of criticisms of it, the most valid being on a large scale it doesn't encourage natural diversity of anything. As we know, diversity = resiliency. To understand why we passed on that movement we have to understand what Corb had imagined, which is vast swaths of area following rigorous "modern" planning:

View attachment 360049

So sure, on the scale of a city block or two it's fine, but that isn't what Corb was advocating for, that's just a high density structure with ground-level amenity space. Jacobs was warning of it spreading in a disease-like manor and eliminating the diversity of NYC, it's most valuable asset.

It doesn't really matter what Corbusier imagined. What matters is what actually got built. It was largely a good thing that Ontario allowed high-rise buildings to be developed in the suburbs. They offered affordable options that allowed many generations of immigrants and low-income people to live in the suburbs rather than being segregated in declining inner-cities. This kind of development can be ugly, and it almost always was too car-oriented (more like "towers-in-the-parking lot", amirite?), but many of these developments have aged quite gracefully and there are some great examples of how the space around them is being re-adapted for better uses (commercial, social services, public spaces, etc.). There is also increasing consensus that the social ills once attributed to towers in the park (crime, poverty, social isolation) was really just a product of poverty.
 
It doesn't really matter what Corbusier imagined. What matters is what actually got built. It was largely a good thing that Ontario allowed high-rise buildings to be developed in the suburbs. They offered affordable options that allowed many generations of immigrants and low-income people to live in the suburbs rather than being segregated in declining inner-cities. This kind of development can be ugly, and it almost always was too car-oriented (more like "towers-in-the-parking lot", amirite?), but many of these developments have aged quite gracefully and there are some great examples of how the space around them is being re-adapted for better uses (commercial, social services, public spaces, etc.). There is also increasing consensus that the social ills once attributed to towers in the park (crime, poverty, social isolation) was really just a product of poverty.
I don't disagree, but I think you missed my point. I'm just saying Garden City and high density residential are vastly different things. No one really hated high density residential, especially not Jacobs.
 
A part of the picture that's missing is the older parts of Toronto, many of which are now effectively locked away from significant growth, are wildly dense for Calgary standards, even while remaining largely exclusively detached / duplex areas.

Here's a one of the locations, about 5km straight line from the financial district.

View attachment 359945

A bit closer in - almost exclusively detached or duplex. But also few parks, small school sites, zero parking or strip malls.
View attachment 359946

On street level right by the point. Note the narrow road, small lawns and minimal separation between houses:

View attachment 359947

Finally, look at the density via census mapper, that street packs it at an impressive 100 -150 people / hectare. And it's not just that street it's nearly every street, in every direction for kilometres:

View attachment 359948

Now let's look at one of Calgary's most successful redevelopment area, Marda Loop and Altadore. Not quite as far from the core at about 4km:
View attachment 359950

A closer look. Almost every house has been redeveloped + some multi-family units, more than were visible in Toronto. The scales aren't quite the same by the proportion of roads, open space and the size of schools are much larger:
View attachment 359951

Streetview is way different. Almost all redeveloped - which is great and at a higher density than before - but look at the size of the lawns, road and setbacks between houses. Huge differences from Toronto's historic "suburbs":
View attachment 359952

Finally, let's check the density. No comparison. Even in booming hyper-redeveloped Marda Loop, the area only hits the density of the average historic Toronto single-family/duplex neighbourhoods (the ones with negligible new development) for a block or two on the main strip. Marda Loop is staged to densify significantly, but that's largely driven by the new apartment developments along the main corridor. The street we are looking at is 30 - 50 people / hectare , less than a third as dense as the Toronto example.

Also note, the first time heading towards the core we start seeing historic Toronto single-family/duplex neighbourhoods density (e.g. 100-150 people per hectare) is Bankview, Lower Mount Royal and the Beltline. Think about that for a second - many of the blocks in the Beltline have less density that this random street with only houses in Toronto!

So much of the Calgary map has zero or minimal population even in our most popular areas due to huge parks, escarpments, and road setbacks. The Toronto map is dark purple for kilometres in every direction with few gaps.
View attachment 359953

I picked these two streets randomly, with not much thought beyond distance to the core. It's not a perfect comparison - but illustrates a huge difference that much of inner Toronto experiences that Calgary doesn't - ground-oriented density at extremely high levels, while having very minimal redevelopment. The difference is of course, developing our city in the age of suburbs and cars, vs Toronto developing a half-century earlier.

Calgary's huge strides in the low/midrise areas to add density of 4- 6 storey apartments, infills, townhouses etc. has been really good - but the enormous hulk of ground-oriented density at extremely high levels in Toronto is very hard to replicate, even if we compensate with 6 storey infills all over. Unless we throw away all setback, park, school and road width standards, it's unlikely we will ever approach Toronto's density in their limited redevelopment areas.

Will be very interesting to see what happens in 30-50 years to both these neighbourhoods and development in both cities. My guess - not necessarily ideal - is that Calgary is heading to a similar route as Toronto, but at a different urban scale - sure we are allowing redevelopment in more areas, but that only will get us closer to Toronto's base density they have allowed for a century despite limited infill today. Our "base" density, such as the nearly brand-new Marda Loop infills, is so low the Toronto patterns of high/low density will repeat itself, relatively speaking. Calgary will have areas and corridors of reasonably high density and areas essentially not redevelopable, filled with relatively low density single family/duplex style development.

What I'd like to see Calgary do in the next 30 - 50 years?
  • Keep doing what we are doing - more 6 storey walkups, more infill, more urban locations everywhere. Convert as many inner city corridors to high streets as possible with good base density. Need way more urban corridors and nodes of different scales in more locations (such as recent North Hill examples).
  • Push the redevelopment density into the neighbourhoods themselves as much as possible. Doesn't have to be all towers or apartments - literally do what it takes to replicate the Toronto example from 100 years ago. Some of our new townhome developments are getting closer.
  • Aggressive reduction of all parking, setback, park and road-right-of-way requirements that lock Calgary into a suburban-style of urban typology even when we redevelop.

EDIT: I thought about it more and added to above.
Give me the Marda Loop Street over the Toronto Street any day.
 
I find Calgary and Toronto extremely hard to compare. I've spent lots of time there, and agree with CB on pretty much everything.

One thing I will add, because of the (huge) width of Calgary streets, we have a lot of potential to make enjoyably functional streets at much higher density than we currently have. It's currently car centric, but if we give some of that to extra wide sidewalks, protected bike lanes, developing a good tree canopy, it'll be awesome in 20-30 years when our population has added another 1M people (assuming we haven't continued our atrociously inefficient sprawl).

Here here! Shave down a lane/ make it into canopy trees/ bike lanes many places.
 
Interesting discussion. In comparing highrise construction projects in Calgary to other cities, I'm happy to see that we are at least catching up as far as residential high rises go. I've left Vancouver and Toronto off the list, being they are in a different galaxy, but here's the top 10 for the rest of Canada.

Ottawa 33 (33 are residential)
Calgary 33 (32 are residential)
Montreal 29 (25 are residential)
Halifax 19 (18 are residential)
Kitchener 17 (17 are residential)
Hamilton 8 (8 are residential)
Edmonton 7 (7 are residential)
London 7 (7 are residential)
Waterloo 5 (5 are residential)
Victoria 5 (5 are residential)

*about half of Montreal's projects are mixed use, with hotel and office mixed in. Ottawa has a few mixed use ones as well.
*2 of Calgary's projects are conversions to residential (Sierra Place, and the 11 floors of Palliser One).
Calgary’s kicking ass and taking names.
 
The lack of residential construction in downtown Winnipeg blows my mind every time I'm there, such a stagnant city and I really hope something happens to change it soon. That being said, True North Square does look like a possible catalyst for development there finally! The Burbs there are doing good though, that's where all my projects are haha.
 
My guess is that Winnipeg will see very slow growth when it comes to high rise construction in their core. The city is growing in population but only because of international immigration - and primarily from one country, the Philippines. Not the kind of growth that will drive high rise residential construction in their core. If I'm not mistaken the last few years, their population has grown by less people than the amount of international immigrants, which means they are losing people some other way. either via natural decrease, or established residents leaving the city.

The one I'm surprised about is Edmonton. They were on a decent roll when it came to high-rise residential builds, but it has slowed down significantly.
 
I know these DP applications were touched on earlier but perhaps a thread could be opened up for each so we can capture more information when it becomes known
1. 1405 4 St SW, IBI Group, Mixed Use, 219 residential units
2. 4th St. Lofts, 1409 4 St. SW., Gibbs Gage, Mixed Use, 270 residential units. Note: There is a rendering available for this one.
 
I mean, as much as we all complain about downtown Calgary being full of parking lots and hostile streetscapes, downtown Edmonton is infinitely worse. I mean it's mostly horrible. Calgary's downtown and surrounding neighborhoods have much better bones and a lot more going on. Calgary's inner city has a lot of positive momentum, which I suspect will only attract more investment, hence a bit of a positive feedback loop. Edmonton on the other hand 🤷🏻‍♂️ not so much (besides maybe Strathcona). Over the next decade I think the difference between Edmonton's and Calgary's inner city's will only continue to grow.
 
I imagine things will pick up for Edmonton’s core. It’s been a much slower go than in Calgary, but I remember Calgary had a tough go of it 20 years ago and now look at how far Calgary has come!
Ottawa is an interesting case, a lot of high-rises are being built there but a lot of them, probably more than half of them are out in the suburbs.
Outside of Vancouver and Toronto, Calgary has easily seen the best growth for inner core development of any other city. We’ve had lots of room for improvement of course 😉
 
I know these DP applications were touched on earlier but perhaps a thread could be opened up for each so we can capture more information when it becomes known
1. 1405 4 St SW, IBI Group, Mixed Use, 219 residential units
2. 4th St. Lofts, 1409 4 St. SW., Gibbs Gage, Mixed Use, 270 residential units. Note: There is a rendering available for this one.
We have a thread for the 4th street lofts, but not for the other two. I'm trying to recall which ones those were?
 
We have a thread for the 4th street lofts, but not for the other two. I'm trying to recall which ones those were?
I somehow missed that thread. The 1405 4 St project is the site of the old Sony store. At one time it was going to be developed by Grosvenor but then they sold the property to someone else.
 

Back
Top