[retrofiturbanism]

The streetview links didn't work for me, but I will assume they were of a bunch of sterile towers with no street-level interaction and a bunch of mid-rises that had awesome storefronts and the like. I could just as easily find a bunch of commie block mid-rises from eastern Europe, or mid-rise housing projects from the US that suck for street-interaction. I could also show hundreds of streets in Hong Kong or pretty much any Korean, Japanese or Chinese city that are brimming with people despite being nothing but towers. Height doesn't make or break urbanism. Crap ground level design makes or breaks urbanism.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I agree wholeheartedly about the ground level design being the difference, and the importance of it. For me it's more about sunlight. In a place like Calgary where it's winter half the year, I prefer the lower rise type density such as Kensington or Mission, etc... Same good street level design but shorter towers.
That said, I'm not totally opposed to taller buildings either. I like taller buildings thrown in here and there among lower rise buildings. I like 11th and 11th or 500 Block, the way they mixed in with some other buildings of varying heights.

 

[Calgcouver]

The streetview links didn't work for me, but I will assume they were of a bunch of sterile towers with no street-level interaction and a bunch of mid-rises that had awesome storefronts and the like. I could just as easily find a bunch of commie block mid-rises from eastern Europe, or mid-rise housing projects from the US that suck for street-interaction. I could also show hundreds of streets in Hong Kong or pretty much any Korean, Japanese or Chinese city that are brimming with people despite being nothing but towers. Height doesn't make or break urbanism. Crap ground level design makes or breaks urbanism.

Fair enough, not saying mid-rise can't be shit and not saying towers are bad purely based on form. Towers can have a decent podium and street level interaction with the appropriate stepback, materials and articulation. On the whole, I think Calgary has a lot of towers with shit podiums that feel sterile. Lots of Metro Vancouver isn't considerably better. I mean, I like towers and build towers in the Lower Mainland. But my main argument isn't based on urban design. Guardian towers get built? My argument for wanting East Victoria Park mid-rise is an economic one. I think that towers have the potential to overwhelm the demand for condos/apartments in an area quite quickly in Calgary. Even in Victoria Park, Guardian towers get built saturating the market; Orchard is a non-starter because of lack of demand and lots of supply. EV is a decent example of this as well. I think EV's cycle is over for awhile. They can't make Arris work, and Fram + Slokker are trying to get out of the other development parcels they have there. Whereas Marda Loop and Kensington don't seem to be overwhelmed with units, and have a more stable building cycle. It is easier to build a mid-rise building and not see your project die because of a shifting market. Calgary is tough market for towers compared to what I am used to.

At the end of the day, I just have a real beef with unproductive parking lots and inner-city land. My number one priority looking at this plan, is to see the land fill in with productive uses. And i feel the best way to achieve this is smaller scale development, and that giving away too much height and density will be counterproductive in achieving that goal.

 

[retrofiturbanism]

I guess I just disagree with you on that point. Zoning for midrise would just result in this area being sterile, as developers and buyers will just move to west Beltline or East Village, as you will be paying more than concrete prices for woodframe product due to land cost. I like mid-rise districts as much as anyone here, but you can't build a mid-rise district in an area that is already building towers.

 

[Mountain Man]

Midrise and highrise have equal chances of being sterile, it's all up to the developers and architects who design them. Zoning for a certain density alone will have zero affect on the quality of the finished product. East Village is zoned for highrise and the majority of the buildings aren't styerile (Hat is pretty sterile though) meanwhile Kensington is zoned for midrise and has mostly avoided being sterile (St Johns on 10 is definitely sterile). It's all up to the city and residents to push for design quality and not just allow anything to go up anywhere.

 

[Just build it]

Midrise and highrise have equal chances of being sterile, it's all up to the developers and architects who design them. Zoning for a certain density alone will have zero affect on the quality of the finished product. East Village is zoned for highrise and the majority of the buildings aren't styerile (Hat is pretty sterile though) meanwhile Kensington is zoned for midrise and has mostly avoided being sterile (St Johns on 10 is definitely sterile). It's all up to the city and residents to push for design quality and not just allow anything to go up anywhere.

Is St John's a good definition of sterile? Sterile to me is Brookfield Place or City Centre. St John's isn't my color tastes, but the street level result is good. All retail units are active, and two of them are restos which have evening foot traffic.

 

[Just build it]

I guess I just disagree with you on that point. Zoning for midrise would just result in this area being sterile, as developers and buyers will just move to west Beltline or East Village, as you will be paying more than concrete prices for woodframe product due to land cost. I like mid-rise districts as much as anyone here, but you can't build a mid-rise district in an area that is already building towers.

Zoning is an issue. It's hard to zone for medium heights in an area that already has high rises or is better suited for high rises than say, Kensington or Bridgeland. I agree with Surreal on the mixture of high, medium and low rises (such as the west side of Beltline) as being the optimum mix, but in a place like Vic Park where there are no low or medium buildings, high rises are the best option.

Personally I prefer the lower and medium rise neighbourhoods, but sometimes it's not always feasible.

 

[Disraeli]

At the end of the day, I just have a real beef with unproductive parking lots and inner-city land. My number one priority looking at this plan, is to see the land fill in with productive uses. And i feel the best way to achieve this is smaller scale development, and that giving away too much height and density will be counterproductive in achieving that goal.

I did some maths today (oh boy) and City Centre grew about 51% over the last 20 years from a population of 28736 in 1998, to 43492 in 2018. Assuming we grow by %51 over the next 20 years, our City Centre population would be roughly 66000-- similar to the municipal government's projections if I remember correctly. If the that growth occurs, and assuming 1.55 person per dwelling unit, we will need about 14500 new units to be built. That works out to be about 25 developments the size of Curtis Block, or 65 developments the size of Underwood, or 200 the size of Opus South Bank. I don't think that is an unreasonable projection and it gives you a rough idea of the land that will be required. So hopefully City Centre continues to grow in population the way it has in the last 20 years and If it does, I think we will see most of those lots disappear based off demand.

 

[Surrealplaces]

By City Centre pop, is that Beltline/commercial core/Chinatown/Eau Claire/East Village?

 

[Zoom]

Is St John's a good definition of sterile? Sterile to me is Brookfield Place or City Centre. St John's isn't my color tastes, but the street level result is good. All retail units are active, and two of them are restos which have evening foot traffic.

I like St John's on 10th for the most part. The yellow is something I would change, maybe the whole color scheme, but the general design and the affect on the street is good.

 

[Disraeli]

By City Centre pop, is that Beltline/commercial core/Chinatown/Eau Claire/East Village?

And Downtown West End.

 

[BKha]

City Centre should easily top 50K within 5-7 years with the following projects soon adding residents and possibly more to come.

-West Village Towers
-Telus Sky
-Concord
-Underwood
-Curtis Block
-INK
-Verve
-500 Block
-The Hat
-The Hat 7th ave
-11th and 11th
-The Royal
-Residence Inn
-Redstone
-Barron conversion
-Cube conversion
-Sierra Place conversion
-Park Point (occupied but residents haven't been added to census yet)

 

[maestro]

Midrise and highrise have equal chances of being sterile, it's all up to the developers and architects who design them. Zoning for a certain density alone will have zero affect on the quality of the finished product. East Village is zoned for highrise and the majority of the buildings aren't styerile (Hat is pretty sterile though) meanwhile Kensington is zoned for midrise and has mostly avoided being sterile (St Johns on 10 is definitely sterile). It's all up to the city and residents to push for design quality and not just allow anything to go up anywhere.

Totally. This part of the city is full of sterile multi-tower developments and is being continued with Curtis Block. Arriva/Guardian is one of the more interesting blocks having been developed separately and around the historic schoolhouse. Of course, the schoolhouse being wedged between two private driveways expresses minimal effort which is a bit of a downer.

 

[gsunnyg]

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...-CMLC-Business+Plan+2019+Update+(Digital).pdf
So I came across the East Village Business Plan for 2019. Some key points I got from this+my views;
1. The sluggish economy is finally starting to take a toll on the much immune till date East Village. I think a lot of speculation and hype helped push the East Village through the oil collapse 2014 onwards but now a bit of reality is starting to set in. Looks like there won't be any new ground breaking residential towers/buildings this year (unless "Vibe" comes through with sales)
2. Vibe by Fram + Slokker is going to be 10 storeys. CMLC does expect the launch of sales this year which is great news. If they can manage to sell enough units then this one could be a sweet surprise that may break ground this year!
3.BOSA's Arris hasn't committed to a launch date yet for its first tower. The smaller tower will be 26 storeys and CMLC is expecting it to hopefully launch when RioCan Centre(I believe thats the podiums name) opens in Q1 2020. Sales could potentially launch this year. It sucks though because I was betting on this one to break ground this year. I was hoping the developers would make it a rental.
4. 'The Corner' by Interloq is going to break ground this year. This was that food court proposed by our ex-Mayor last year. Not to excited for it but I can live with it.
5. M2 will be completed in the summer, no tenants confirmed yet.
6. 9th ave Parkade will swing into full construction mode (steel, formwork, foundation etc.) in spring and is expected to be completed by Q4 2020

Overall, IMO, this is the slowest year for East Village since the initial boom began in the area. Its always nice to see more residential/office towers break ground but the economy/markets a buzz kill. At the very least I was hoping for a small rental project to move forward. Still plenty of action to see in EV that was begun last year like M2 getting completed, the Parkade getting some real construction action, plus theres the Food court by Interloq getting under way sometime this year. Also CMLC will start shifting a lot of their focus towards improving Victoria Park and the finalizing of the BMO centre, hopefully an Arena too. I also hope Arris' and Vibe's condo sales go strong so it can bring some confidence back into East Village. Would hate to see it just stall out and be forgotten as people turn their attention towards Victoria Park.

 

[retrofiturbanism]

I would say that the goal for Centre City growth is off. Probably closer to accommodating an additional 80K people to reach about 120K by 2076.