News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 

For a city that mostly developed when cars were available, I noticed Calgary has relatively narrow lots, even compared to Vancouver/Toronto and definitely narrower compared to the US. I wonder if that is just the timing of development? A guess (with no evidence) I have is that the weather restricts a lot of sprawl. Having giant yards and wide spacing of houses isn't great when there's snow for a good portion of the year. Whereas in Nashville it's more desirable.
Access to utility lines restricts sprawl in Calgary, as it does in many arid, western US cities. Calgary is likely one of the most restricted cities in NA to access water. Most development locations have no alternative to City of Calgary water and sewer. Locations around Nashville can easily subside on well and septic systems.
 
I noticed Calgary has relatively narrow lots, even compared to Vancouver/Toronto and definitely narrower compared to the US
I can see that for post-war developments in Toronto (outer parts of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough), but there are some REALLY narrow properties in the inner city. Check out what freehold properties are available for under $1 million. You'll see many in the 12'-16'-20' range. The backyard looks like a bowling alley.

In Calgary, we usually have at least 25' frontage, except for very rare exceptions in the oldest neighbourhoods, like Inglewood.
 
For a city that mostly developed when cars were available, I noticed Calgary has relatively narrow lots, even compared to Vancouver/Toronto and definitely narrower compared to the US. I wonder if that is just the timing of development? A guess (with no evidence) I have is that the weather restricts a lot of sprawl. Having giant yards and wide spacing of houses isn't great when there's snow for a good portion of the year. Whereas in Nashville it's more desirable.
Some of it is just good old fashioned government policy. This area structure plan for "Crowchild 'C'": (what is now Sandstone, Macewan and most of Edgemont, Hawkwood and Arbour Lake) is a 1979 plan that says "An optimum overall density of 22 persons per gross developable acre should be sought." (3.1.4.1.4, pg 40) That translates to 5450 people per square kilometer. That translates to about 7 units per acre (assuming 3.14 people per unit; the citywide average household size in 1981 was 2.81; for new areas like that 3.15 is pretty reasonable.) Later on, it says "The density should be variable between 5 and 15 units per acre depending on local site conditions." for sites with views and near natural corridors. 5 UPA is (at 3.1 people per hh) 3600 people per sq km.

Similarly, Burlington 1 (Monterey Park), a 1982 plan, similarly envisions 7 units per acre as a baseline. 2007 policies like East Macleod Trail (Walden / Legacy) specifically require a minimum of 8.5 units per acre overall; Northeast 'A' (Cityscape/Skyview Ranch/Redstone) requires 8.5 upa as a minimum overall, with 7 as a minimum density most places, and 9.5 near the LRT stations (with nodes of 20+ UPA).

(Link to all the policies)

Historically, the city has required those density levels, and unannexed exurban land was far enough away that we didn't get much of that. It's also just sort of how business has been done historically in Canada. One of my favourite maps to show people to illustrate the difference between Canada and the US is the Sarnia / Port Huron area. (Link to map). This is north of Detroit, so the Canada-US border is actually the river running north-south through the middle of the map. Same latitude, same climate, same soil, same everything. But you can see the difference:
1712683931806.png

Sarnia, on the right, has a higher level of density and it is built up continuously, where Port Huron, the US city, sort of fades out but there's this continuous fabric of low-density settlement where there's practically nothing in Canada. The US county on the left, St. Clair county, has 160K people in 1870 sq km - 86 people/sq km, which is actually double the density of the Canadian census division, Lambton County (128K people in 3000 sq km, 43 people per sq km). But Port Huron has under 30K people (and another 10K in Marysville on the south side) while Sarnia has more than twice as many, 72K. But Sarnia's population is in Sarnia; it's not spread out around on acreages, so things like cycling and transit are much more feasible for the majority of the population who don't need to live on a farm..
 
The old holy cross hospital in Mission is getting a residential conversion for part of it. Not a lot of details in the drawings posted on the DP though. It is only the SW building by the looks of it:
1712941129026.png


The link on the Architect's website isn't working for me, so not sure if more information is out there:
 
@MichaelS maybe you know the answer to this - what's the difference between the "under review", "planning commission" and "in circulation" status on the DMAP? I think I understand "submitted", "in advertising", "public hearing", and obviously "approved" and "released", but not really the others.
 
@MichaelS maybe you know the answer to this - what's the difference between the "under review", "planning commission" and "in circulation" status on the DMAP? I think I understand "submitted", "in advertising", "public hearing", and obviously "approved" and "released", but not really the others.

DP process per my understanding:

submitted - where it starts
in circulation - changes to this once the file manager has distributed it to reviewers
under review - typically the longest stage, between distribution and when a CPC meeting has been scheduled
planning commission - for large projects, once it has been scheduled for CPC this is the status
public hearing - CPC has reviewed the file and it's been scheduled for a council meeting
In advertising - 3 week appeal period following a decision
approved - the DP has been approved but the conditions (e.g. payment of associated fees) have not been met
released - final step, all conditions have been met
 
Last edited:
Thanks @zagox. I'll add that "in advertising" (in my understanding) seems to be the period where the project/rezoning is conditionally approved, and the city has posted it on their website to give the public a chance to start an appeal. If there's no appeal then the status goes to "approved".
 
The old holy cross hospital in Mission is getting a residential conversion for part of it. Not a lot of details in the drawings posted on the DP though. It is only the SW building by the looks of it:
View attachment 555682

The link on the Architect's website isn't working for me, so not sure if more information is out there:
(Jerry Seinfeld voice): That's a shame.

(My voice): Look at all the parking, the CA is going to love this.
 
Thanks @zagox. I'll add that "in advertising" (in my understanding) seems to be the period where the project/rezoning is conditionally approved, and the city has posted it on their website to give the public a chance to start an appeal. If there's no appeal then the status goes to "approved".
Missed that one, edited it in!
 
(Jerry Seinfeld voice): That's a shame.

(My voice): Look at all the parking, the CA is going to love this.
The parking already exists and most of it sits vacant all the time; this is just repurposing the inside of part of the existing complex. The main occupants include AHS cancer support services (I believe in the portion labelled Family Medicine wing on the plan), a Carewest facility with ~100 beds for older adults with complex mental health care needs (I believe in the north-south wing above the 1950 wing label), a surgical services that I think is mostly eye surgery (1967 wing), a Montessori school or similar (main floor 1996 wing), as well as a bunch of standard medical/professional building tenants; dentists, ear-nose-and-throat, psychiatry, etc. scattered hither and yon.

On the bright side, while googling, I found this article:
1713136393283.png


They probably still have just enough time to build the three towers!
 
The issue with hospitals is not access to land.
It was a horrible location when it closed in 95 and is an even worse one now. Hospitals changed rapidly to an outpatient model in the 90's, meaning lots more patients, staff and especially vehicles passing through a site. The Holy Cross site is simply too small
 

Back
Top