Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[Surrealplaces]

This is why many of the major projects have been on the east end of downtown. Here's some of the figures, not including the green line or any community improvements (like the underpasses and infrastructure upgrades):

$245M Central Library
$191M Studio Bell
$500M New Arena
$550 BMO Expansion
$440 Arts Commons
$1.93B Total

It may be desolate right now, but the city is really trying to make it great. In 20 years the east end of Calgary is really going to be something, imagine the long term impacts if any other community received that much investment and was at the intersection of the two rivers.

One of the problems I see with the East End of the Beltline, is many of parcels are large plots with one owner and set up to easily build multiple high rise towers in a single project. Because of thdevelopers will sit and wait until they can go ahead with a big project like Curtis Block.
In the meantime it leaves lots of empty lots well the waiting happens. It would be nice to see some lowrise projects fill in the area but I don’t think it’ll happen for a while because developers are waiting for The right time to do their large multi tower development.

If I had a magic wand I would get the city to divide up the large plots into smaller parcels and develop it into an overall plan like the Bridges, but with higher density. Have smaller plots sold off to various developers developing individual projects but have the overall plan managed by a group similar to CMLC.

 

[1875]

-Streetcars. We need a 17th Ave Streetcar, I can't believe we don't already.

yes

 

[Mountain Man]

And we can call it the Belt line lol.

 

[Calgcouver]

The problem isn't the zoning, the zoning is actually pretty on point for a city our size. A huge problem is that we don't charge an appropriate level of property taxes on suburban homes. The cost of servicing that kind of sprawl with infrastructure is significantly higher than inner-city communities, but the cost of living doesn't proportionally reflect that. What we're effectively doing is subsidizing our city to sprawl at the expense of everyone else, especially the dense urban neighborhoods.

As a buyer not educated in urban planning, why wouldn't you want significantly more floor area for a lower cost? Of course its the same people who will never vote for an increase in their own property taxes, curse at bike lanes for being too expensive, and that widening roadways would solve congestion *internal scream*. Since municipal politicians serve voters, the policy follows. There's a reason many of the highest density cities in the world, because they have geographic barriers limiting their growth upward instead of outward.

TLDR: The problem isn't that we're overvaluing our inner-city lands, it's that the ones on the outside are proportionally too cheap.

Here's a few ways to fix our problems:

-Hard cap on greenfield development expanding the city, nothing new outside what exists.
-Adjust property taxes to more accurately reflect cost of providing services, low density sprawl is a luxury that should be afforded.
-Significantly more incentives for affordable housing, not every new development needs marble counters. Recoup from increased tax revenue on sprawl.
-Require a percentage of each development be affordable, and a percentage of units with >2 bedrooms.
-Allow secondary suites everywhere, no more single family zoning.
-No minimum parking for new developments, developers will provide it where it makes sense. We already have >10M stalls in Calgary.
-No more widening roadways, induced demand is a death sentence.
-Focus on providing a diversity of housing types/densities.
-Stop promising train lines to the edge of the city. If we want a train line from Inglewood to 16th Ave N, why do we have to build a stop to 130th Ave S too? If people in Seton wanted accessible transit, they wouldn't live in a suburban wasteland. It also prevents the, "why is it $4B" argument.
-Streetcars. We need a 17th Ave Streetcar, I can't believe we don't already.

I agree with you on basically all points from a Planning Perspective, but from a developer's perspective I still think we give away too much density both in the new suburbs and throughout the inner-city and developed area and that is why I am specifically saying that the land strategy for this city sucks. I'm as anti-sprawl as the next guy and think you've got good ideas here. If they really want to promote development and investment back in the downtown, why can a developer build such an enormous group of towers south of the Elbow River Casino? We give away loads of density all over the place and i'm not seeing it help get buildings actually built that repair our broken urban fabric. Why would you build a tower downtown when you can get enormous height and density elsewhere? This is what I am trying to address with land strategy, we have greatly over assumed what kind of demand for high-rise development we actually have at this point in Calgary's lifecycle. Also tower forms are probably the worst for creating diversity in housing types, it will five you bachelor, 1 and 2 bed units. Low-rise forms do a better job of covering missing middle forms of housing.
The basis for determining height and FAR in East Victoria operates as if it is completely in a silo and is hinged on the idea of reducing heights from the Bow towards the River.

This is based on some planner's hope for a good aesthetic to the skyline, not any sort of market analysis or land strategy that is based on real and tangible land values and demand. The large parcels with single land owners have ensured they want to maximize the return of the land and it doesn't matter when it gets developed, only that they achieve maximum price when disposing of the serviced site and they get the neighbourhood of point towers they envisioned even if it takes 50+ years.
Here is the map of the FAR's that appear to be determined roughly from the above image.

If I was looking at the land strategy for this community, and I looked to the north where Fram + Slokker has given land back to CMLC in East Village due to lack of future demand, I would be drastically lowering my expectations for what sort of densities and heights we should be trying to achieve in East Victoria Park if we are looking to build an actual completed community within the next 30 years. If I was developing a land strategy for the downtownand surrounding area holistically, i would be trying to push tower development back to the downtown and focusing on low-rise and mid-rise development of adjacent neighbourhoods, something that Calgary's urban fabric has always been sorely missing. This would see development happen faster, our tax base increase, and parking lots turn into communities sooner. We should feel an urgency to fill in these gaping holes in our urban fabric and not wait forever because some planners think our skyline would look cooler from a distance if the heights transitioned that way. If this was me setting the densities, I would cut the majority of those expected FARs but up to 2/3rds. It would range from 1 FAR to 6 FAR tops with the majority of it sitting around 3 FAR. In my opinion this would build a better community than waiting an eternity for point towers getting built due to limited market demand. It would also encourage investment back in the downtown core which i feel is important. Just my opinion and two cents, I appreciate you sharing yours as well and I want that streetcar down 17th too!

 

[haltcatchfire]

What would the rail connection be required to be for a streetcar line on 17th? Could it tie into the red line at the end of 17th to handle maintenance? This is the reason the green line has to go SE first, to get to the maintenance facility.

I assume you’d also need a siding somewhere at one end of the line.

 

[Joborule]

What would the rail connection be required to be for a streetcar line on 17th? Could it tie into the red line at the end of 17th to handle maintenance? This is the reason the green line has to go SE first, to get to the maintenance facility.

I assume you’d also need a siding somewhere at one end of the line.

IF a streetcar down 17th is going to be a thing in the long run, perhaps it could go all the way to Westbrook, and be integrated with the proposed 37 ST SW/MRU Streetcar that's being considered.

I do have to ask though, what benefits does a streetcar offer over a bus service?

 

[Disraeli]

IF a streetcar down 17th is going to be a thing in the long run, perhaps it could go all the way to Westbrook, and be integrated with the proposed 37 ST SW/MRU Streetcar that's being considered.

I do have to ask though, what benefits does a streetcar offer over a bus service?

I always thought it would be cool to have a street car along 17th, up 14th street, then across to Marda Loop and on to MRU.

 

[MissingMiddle]

I agree with you on basically all points from a Planning Perspective, but from a developer's perspective I still think we give away too much density both in the new suburbs and throughout the inner-city and developed area and that is why I am specifically saying that the land strategy for this city sucks. I'm as anti-sprawl as the next guy and think you've got good ideas here. If they really want to promote development and investment back in the downtown, why can a developer build such an enormous group of towers south of the Elbow River Casino? We give away loads of density all over the place and i'm not seeing it help get buildings actually built that repair our broken urban fabric. Why would you build a tower downtown when you can get enormous height and density elsewhere? This is what I am trying to address with land strategy, we have greatly over assumed what kind of demand for high-rise development we actually have at this point in Calgary's lifecycle. Also tower forms are probably the worst for creating diversity in housing types, it will five you bachelor, 1 and 2 bed units. Low-rise forms do a better job of covering missing middle forms of housing.
The basis for determining height and FAR in East Victoria operates as if it is completely in a silo and is hinged on the idea of reducing heights from the Bow towards the River.
View attachment 297625
This is based on some planner's hope for a good aesthetic to the skyline, not any sort of market analysis or land strategy that is based on real and tangible land values and demand. The large parcels with single land owners have ensured they want to maximize the return of the land and it doesn't matter when it gets developed, only that they achieve maximum price when disposing of the serviced site and they get the neighbourhood of point towers they envisioned even if it takes 50+ years.
Here is the map of the FAR's that appear to be determined roughly from the above image.
View attachment 297626
If I was looking at the land strategy for this community, and I looked to the north where Fram + Slokker has given land back to CMLC in East Village due to lack of future demand, I would be drastically lowering my expectations for what sort of densities and heights we should be trying to achieve in East Victoria Park if we are looking to build an actual completed community within the next 30 years. If I was developing a land strategy for the downtownand surrounding area holistically, i would be trying to push tower development back to the downtown and focusing on low-rise and mid-rise development of adjacent neighbourhoods, something that Calgary's urban fabric has always been sorely missing. This would see development happen faster, our tax base increase, and parking lots turn into communities sooner. We should feel an urgency to fill in these gaping holes in our urban fabric and not wait forever because some planners think our skyline would look cooler from a distance if the heights transitioned that way. If this was me setting the densities, I would cut the majority of those expected FARs but up to 2/3rds. It would range from 1 FAR to 6 FAR tops with the majority of it sitting around 3 FAR. In my opinion this would build a better community than waiting an eternity for point towers getting built due to limited market demand. It would also encourage investment back in the downtown core which i feel is important. Just my opinion and two cents, I appreciate you sharing yours as well and I want that streetcar down 17th too!

Great points, I largely agree, fill in the gaps asap.

IF a streetcar down 17th is going to be a thing in the long run, perhaps it could go all the way to Westbrook, and be integrated with the proposed 37 ST SW/MRU Streetcar that's being considered.

I do have to ask though, what benefits does a streetcar offer over a bus service?

Apparently there's a list, notably, an increased quality of service, a "cool factor" which actually increases ridership, and the permanence of the route over a bus route provides security for investment around the line.

 

[MichaelS]

RNDSQR is working on a new project by the looks of it. More details to come.

View attachment 297106

Hmm.... this land use application was submitted today. The remainder of the block that Courtyard33 is on, where the RNDSQR sales office is located. I think we have heard that RNDSQR owns this property....

DMAP

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Great points, I largely agree, fill in the gaps asap.

Apparently there's a list, notably, an increased quality of service, a "cool factor" which actually increases ridership, and the permanence of the route over a bus route provides security for investment around the line.

The “cool factor” really is a thing. The average zoomer/millennial would muuuuch rather just hop on a streetcar than a bus, and likely many would choose it over expensive options like Uber.

My idea has been an inner city streetcar loop down 17 S, up 14 W, down 16 Ave N, and then down 4 E into the core connecting to MacLeod Tr S and back on to 17th.

With the likelihood of intensification of 17th between Crowchild and Westbrook in the medium and long term, a streetcar down there could be a really good idea, and could push up property values and speed up intensification. This could inter-line with the “loop” line I mentioned, and be a continuation to MRU and Marda Loop.

 

[Always_Biking]

My idea has been an inner city streetcar loop down 17 S, up 14 W, down 16 Ave N, and then down 4 E into the core connecting to MacLeod Tr S and back on to 17th.

With the likelihood of intensification of 17th between Crowchild and Westbrook in the medium and long term, a streetcar down there could be a really good idea, and could push up property values and speed up intensification. This could inter-line with the “loop” line I mentioned, and be a continuation to MRU and Marda Loop.

That would be great as it would largely connect a lot of the inner with a single transit line. Another less extensive idea that might be fairly inexpensive is a streetcar line from 17th ave Westbrook --> 14th street --> 10th ave --> 4th street SW --> 17th ave Westbrook.

It skips out on 1st Street SE/Macleod, which has LRT already there, but brings a rail transit line more into the heart of the Beltline. It also skips out on the CBD, but it is covered pretty well with LRT also, but with 10th ave it's pretty close to the CBD. and could encourage a whole new development boom along 10 thave.

 

[potatopizzafan]

Hmm.... this land use application was submitted today. The remainder of the block that Courtyard33 is on, where the RNDSQR sales office is located. I think we have heard that RNDSQR owns this property....

DMAP

Called it

My next prediction is that their most recent instagram post is a hint to this project.

RNDSQR on Instagram: "“ In the kitchen wrist twisting like a stir fry” - migos We’re back in the lab and got some of that new new coming your way. No shorts or puts over here. We are long #yyc #holdtheline #canyouguess"

200 likes, 7 comments - rndsqr_ on January 30, 2021: "“ In the kitchen wrist twisting like a stir fry” - migos We’re back in the lab and got so..."

www.instagram.com

 

[UrbanWarrior]

That would be great as it would largely connect a lot of the inner with a single transit line. Another less extensive idea that might be fairly inexpensive is a streetcar line from 17th ave Westbrook --> 14th street --> 10th ave --> 4th street SW --> 17th ave Westbrook.

It skips out on 1st Street SE/Macleod, which has LRT already there, but brings a rail transit line more into the heart of the Beltline. It also skips out on the CBD, but it is covered pretty well with LRT also, but with 10th ave it's pretty close to the CBD. and could encourage a whole new development boom along 10 thave.

The reason I like the more extensive loop is that it interconnects with all three CTrain Lines at multiple points, whereas the closest this proposal comes is just a direct connection at Westbrook. If we want a truly good multi-modal transit system, our primary lines have to inter-link at multiple points. I love the going up 4th idea, but that could/should be another line connecting downtown via 4 Street SW -> Mission -> Elbow Drive -> Britannia Crossing -> 50 Ave SW (bridge) -> Sandy Beach -> 20 Street SW -> 33 Ave SW/Marda -> 14 Street SW - 10 Ave SW -> 4 Street SW. If anything, the large loop should use 1st Street SW, to ensure as much coverage of the Beltline as possible, especially considering the East Beltline is going to see by far the highest growth in the coming decades. That plus 1st SW would look adorable with a streetcar running on it

First things first, we need a circle bus route for downtown, which for some reason we don't have.

 

[Urban Outdoorsman]

Hmm.... this land use application was submitted today. The remainder of the block that Courtyard33 is on, where the RNDSQR sales office is located. I think we have heard that RNDSQR owns this property....

DMAP

If this is another RNDSQR project then Mardaloop is one lucky neighborhood! Between RNDSQR and Sarina this neighborhood is transforming virtually overnight.

I just hope that when co-op redevelops the land they bought that they don't ruin it. The site they own in the most prominent corner of 33rd and could really make or break the of Mardaloop. Hopefully they can match the quality we've mostly seen so far in the neighborhood

 

[adamyyc]

If this is another RNDSQR project then Mardaloop is one lucky neighborhood! Between RNDSQR and Sarina this neighborhood is transforming virtually overnight.

I just hope that when co-op redevelops the land they bought that they don't ruin it. The site they own in the most prominent corner of 33rd and could really make or break the of Mardaloop. Hopefully they can match the quality we've mostly seen so far in the neighborhood

Really happy to see another RNDSQR building in the works for Marda Loop! This will a massive building! Frontage along 33rd Ave will be 300+ ft.

Also, I completely agree with you re: the Co-Op corner. That’s the most important corner/block in the neighbourhood.