[Calgcouver]

View attachment 170410
Damn the intensity of all that development got me stoked! I just hope it's executed properly at street level.

This is definitely the hill I am choosing to die on, but this is exactly the problem with Calgary's goals. They will zone this for high-rises, land prices will be high and speculative, and this shit will stay surface gravel parking lots with a couple of cold, full-block/multi-tower parcels sprinkling the otherwise barren landscape for the next 30 years. They are throwing too much density at anyone that will take it, but we just don't have the demand to soak this all up. Everything here should be 4-10 stories. Nothing taller. This would bring speculative land prices back to reality, and smaller projects could fill in the land in the next 20 years. It should look like a version of Olympic Village in Vancouver, but with shorter buildings. I would rather see continuous street walls with low and mid-rises, and a vibrant community built here in the short term. And you know what might happen if we set lower density targets in Victoria Park? It might encourage developers looking to build tall towers to look back to underutilized land downtown where a density bonus structure could be beneficial for them. There is just so much land available for high-rises and we simply aren't going to have the demand to build this out even in 50 years. They need to think shorter term and much smaller scale. Everywhere doesn't have to look like Yaletown/False Creek.
And pic examples of what I want to see (as i do in most posts):

 

[dougsie]

Agreed 100%. There's enough vacant lots there that even a 4-10 storey limit would add enough new residents to the area to make it vibrant. Let the remaining parking lots in the core fill with highrise residential, and focus on more human-scaled development elsewhere

 

[CBBarnett]

I am on the same page as Calgouver. We aren't lacking high-rise sites and the exorbitant land costs (and long-term sterilization that seems to come with tower sites). I would much prefer a dense but low/mid rise district with a few towers rather than the other way around. No more Guardians please. We have no successful examples of a complete contemporary mid-rise neighbourhood (Bridgland is on it's way to some extent, University District off to a promising start for it's 20 year journey). We could get nearly the same population as these towers propose and offer the next generation of Calgarians something at scale that is different than our tower-suburb dichotomy.

 

[retrofiturbanism]

I will disagree. Centre City is for high-rise development. There are places for mid-rises, but east Beltline isn't one of them.

 

[FCC1982]

Bring on the development!
Hoping at least some tall towers come to fruition in this area. I think along the tracks is a great swath for some 50-60 storey towers.

 

[Mountain Man]

I think we need a mix of high and midrise there, lets keep some sun but also achieve high levels of density. Stampede Trail (4St) should have lower heights to allow for some sun to reach the ground and make patios use-able 3 seasons of the year. As you go toward the core, then taller buildings should be built, and as you go towards Inglewood, lower buildings.

 

[Calgcouver]

I will disagree. Centre City is for high-rise development. There are places for mid-rises, but east Beltline isn't one of them.

Fair enough. But this is this is exactly how you will get a fully-developed East Victoria Park by 2065, and a downtown that won't see a tower for 25 years. I think if you zone it too high, we can look forward to preserving gravel parking lots for future generations to enjoy!

 

[Spring2008]

I agree - was hoping for at least a midrise area within the mix. Hope we don`t end up with sterile towers, but the public realm discussion throughout the master plan shows promise.
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=77003

 

[retrofiturbanism]

Why are towers potentially sterile, but not mid rise buildings?

 

[Calgcouver]

Why are towers potentially sterile, but not mid rise buildings?

Towers v. low/mid-rise streetscape sterility

Why towers are sterile:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.290...4!1sUet-RkEk6UU94EGL6YIj3A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.042...4!1s2NJ6fgTizSt7EpwEZEIk-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.042...4!1stTvumRl3k2191BzgRqfteg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.639...4!1szuDesI06jBMsq9q1xlsoSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.641...4!1s0doT3etiic69tJXIjS7MTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.692...4!1ssBEBQVamc3_EBryMp48fMQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Why mid-rise is usually fine-grain and better/less sterile:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.054...4!1s9cNlLulYVsS0Thv99wSv0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.283...4!1s4HEFluJhccGCgFvOSKyEQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.270...4!1snrUijajCKS9JsDd2cwUrjg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.624...4!1sdgQnMeniL_EF7cRxd7vVAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.645...4!1sUtcgCxo1lbUUy0kbwt3sZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.424...4!1sf5o73jyup0c3Hz3jcOi9lA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.426...4!1sHbtsQwXIugSWO5S_ZHNlZw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.498...4!1sAzvZIBDaVR-V-3hKACoE1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.735...4!1sbF1MlANSnZp-3R0gcELw7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[gsunnyg]

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=76895
This document shares what was presented to the Planning Commision. In it they address the podium concerns. I think I read somewhere they want 1-2 storey podiums with setbacks on the high-rises. As long as the setbacks are sufficient enough then there shouldn't be a problem.

To Add:
Another problem with Calgary is that we're a follower not a leader, and we always tend to follow other North American cities, which IMO is the worst examples to follow. Once the initial renderings came out, I was sure the city was gonna rip something off from Edmonton or some other American city like LA. Ideally I wanted them to do something creative that would differentiate Calgary from other cities, something like Piccadilly Square instead of ur typical grid high rise cluster. I love the high rises along the rail line but I agree that 4-8 storey podiums would be ideal along the festive/main streets. At the very least Im hoping they can pull off a Yonge Street look. If this is gonna be another Edmonton carbon copy, then we're screwed. We also gotta take into consideration that this is a 50 year plan, with the initial phase suppose to 10-20 years. Maybe 20 years later they can re-amend the plan if it isn't working out.

 

[Calgcouver]

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=76895
This document shares what was presented to the Planning Commision. In it they address the podium concerns. I think I read somewhere they want 1-2 storey podiums with setbacks on the high-rises. As long as the setbacks are sufficient enough then there shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for posting this. Gave that section a read, and I just find the Design Guidelines as being vague and lacking teeth. In this case I think it would be worthwhile to tighten up the Design Guidelines with more focus and with sharper language. I think this would be especially important for the Warehouse District, where I just don't think towers should be permissible. I guess I view the Warehouse District as having potential to be like Mainland Street/Hamilton Street in Yaletown.
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.275...4!1s2lCmpvAXCgxsMHzsV7J95g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

[Mull]

How does one notify the planning commission of these thoughts?

 

[gsunnyg]

How does one notify the planning commission of these thoughts?

I think March 18th is the public hearing. However, I think if they are sort of going for what Arriva did with their tower and podium, then highrises setback should be fine.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0419...hv3pu35UvyAtAdW9GPfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
IMO, something like that is acceptable (in terms of setbacks), maybe even set the tower back slightly more. You can hardly tell there's a tower dominating over you when you're walking along the sidewalk.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I will disagree. Centre City is for high-rise development. There are places for mid-rises, but east Beltline isn't one of them.

I think ideally it should be a mixture. I'm saying that because I'm not much of a fan of highrise neighborhoods, unless there is a good mixture of low-rises in with them. I do agree that the best place for high-rises is areas like East Beltline or along the CP tracks, etc.. but too much of that does not make a nice neighbourhood. How to zone in such a way that you can get a mixture is a tricky one.