Urban Outdoorsman
Active Member
Nice to see more high density development along the nw train line. Hopefully one day crowchild will be littered with high density TOD's
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
FCC1982
Active Member
Perhaps now but it wasn’t always that way. I’ll be sorry to see that mall go.
JoeUrban
Active Member
These are two interesting comments because they're, well the first one isn't true but it has been portrayed as being true.
@Disraeli is correct, the Heritage Act says that compensation for loss of economic value would have to happen.
The City in the past has said what @darwink said, that designating over an owner's wishes basically requires the city to buy the property. The thing is that's completely not true. What the Act says is compensation only for the loss of economic value, and of course the owner would need to prove it.
darwink
Senior Member
Loss of economic value, if the site has redevelopment potential, can be quite significant - the cost to buy a parcel of similar with similar zoning, minus the resale value of the designated property. The easy move for the city is to buy it themselves, and then sell it, though I acknowledge that that isn't what is needed. The net effect on the city would be similar.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Which also leads to an issue where the city regularly approves density increases to parcels that contain Heritage Inventoried buildings, immediately pricing themselves and Heritage Calgary's heritage grant program out of having any effect on preservation of the sites.
Disraeli
Active Member
It certainly can be depending on the site. Back in the early 2000s the city and the previous owners of the Lougheed Building negotiated a covenant in which the city paid annual payments of around $250000 for 10 years to the owner in compensation, and for restoring and maintaining the building. That gives some idea of the dollar figures involved.
However, it is highly unlikely that a board, or court, would consider the potential cost of buying an alternative property to develop. Assessing compensation would primarily be based on the value of the site in question. They would look at the development potential if the building were demolished, the development potential if the building remained, and any economic value the heritage building had already in terms of rent. But again, this is if the city and owner cannot first come to an agreement.
I agree. Zoning is a big bargaining chip for heritage preservation and it shouldn't be tossed away lightly.
darwink
Senior Member
It is an interesting conundrum, since the city cannot deny rezoning for those reasons - it would be a slam dunk appeal.
JoeUrban
Active Member
I think the solution there would be an active policy that granting additional free density for a proposal that involves demolishing an inventoried historic resource is discouraged.
At the edge of town, if a developer wishes to build something twice the size that their parcel of land will allow, they have to buy more land. In the centre city if a developer wishes to build something twice the size that their parcel of land will allow, they just ask the city for free density, even if they're demolishing historical sites at the same time, it's ridiculous.
JoeUrban
Active Member
I see there's a land use amendment and a building permit application for the NW corner of 15 Ave and 2nd St SW.
View attachment 254888
Addresses:
1413 2 ST SW
302 15 AV SW
310 15 AV SW
314 15 AV SW
316 15 AV SW
View attachment 254889
This plot contains the Heritage Inventoried Rossmore Apartments and the house at 302 15 Ave SW which has been submitted for inclusion on the inventory but as far as I know it has not been evaluated yet
Discover Historic Calgary resources
www.calgary.ca
This is an interesting and really unique streetscape as there are those two buildings plus the Alexander Terrace apartments and the Western Hospital.
View attachment 254890
In front of the un-inventoried brick home is also the kind of fun 1907 dog prints immortalized in the sidewalk
Anyone have any details on the BP?
More details on this
Decided to do some 15 min photoshopping to show before and afters. It was tough since the perspective in the development render doesn't seem like an actual possible view, but who knows.
Last edited:
gsunnyg
Senior Member
wow and no retail? this is should be a no until they can come back with a better proposal to replace whats already there.
Disraeli
Active Member
I know planning must approve if a DP application is pursuant to a land use bylaw (although the Province could in theory amend the Municipal Government Act to allow for a condition of heritage protection just like they have for off-site levies ext).
However, I'm pretty sure City Council could reject a land use redesignation on the basis of heritage preservation or could try to set it as a condition for approval. My understanding is that the City Council’s powers are fairly plenary when it comes to their decision to approve rezoning.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Argh. Tough one. Such a loss of the historic walkup, but not an unreasonable replacement - very Berlin modern - great density and form, pending a more detailed shot of the materials and of how offensive the parking interaction is with the street. Is there two "halves" to the building anticipating a phased approach pending uproar of the walkup? Perhaps something that will be sliced off during the debate?
Now this is a real heritage trade-off debate!
Now this is a real heritage trade-off debate!
CCF
Active Member
Don't love the loss of the walkup apartment. There's so few of that style left in Calgary.
Travisty
Active Member
Why...Why there? The building they are taking out is better than the bigger bland one. There are so many dumps and gravel parking lots within a three block radius. I'm not the smartest person, but having a tough time figuring this genius plan out.
Last edited:
1875
Senior Member
the irony of trying to protect a parking lot in inglewood (from a great project) while at the same time casually knocking over a building as nice as any on 9th ave (which appears to be alot nicer than inglewoods most recent addition, irvine). it must be 2020.