potatopizzafan
Active Member
I had a feeling this was the case, those other residential building on the block are looking rough and ready for demo
Marda Loop Commercial | 10m | 2s | Certus
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
adamyyc
Active Member
Kind of sad that Certus’ proposal won’t see the light of day. I really liked their proposal.
MJC
New Member
Open house today. 34th ave was upzoned last week by the city to 16 metres. This is a land flipper pursuing a DC to take advance of the LAP changes. O2 (planner) wouldn't identify the developer but confirmed Certus is not involved. O2 thought the lid was off density in Marda Loop now. Truman / Co-Op project seems like it will proceed a lot more smoothly.
Attachments
MJC
New Member
dirtymood
New Member
Wow, I was not expecting a 10+ storey building on this end of 34th. There's a couple of things I don't love about the proposal, especially the busy alleyway that would be added and would interrupt the sidewalk even more. The proximity to the max yellow and other alternative transportation modes makes it kind of hard to hate though! It's cool to see some developers being so ambitious with the part of the city.
MJC
New Member
See below... city snuck through a sneaky one upzoning all of 34th from this site to Co-Op. Unfortunately, this probably means that Co-Op is a slam dunk now. All they need to demonstrate is that as a major corner, a slight adjustment to the modified building height area makes sense. This is a game changer. I spoke with the chair of the MLCA and he said this LAP was a done deal as of May 7th but I'm trying to verify.
As a developer in Marda, have to say I am very disappointed with this decision and think it was a mistake. Marda is one of those neighbourhoods where the missing middle has worked well by putting a cap on density. Upzoning is only this strip and everything else is 6 storeys per the LAP but now you have an argument to transition down from 16 storeys in every direction... watershed moment in Marda's history.
As a developer in Marda, have to say I am very disappointed with this decision and think it was a mistake. Marda is one of those neighbourhoods where the missing middle has worked well by putting a cap on density. Upzoning is only this strip and everything else is 6 storeys per the LAP but now you have an argument to transition down from 16 storeys in every direction... watershed moment in Marda's history.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I don't get the "city being sneaky" comment here - from all materials, heights of this scale were debated throughout the process for a few years. The "done deal" you mentioned was the final draft of the plan getting approved by City Council, after being at committee earlier in the year for further debate. The whole process was a couple year long with countless debates on this kind of thing at the local area plan.
More broadly, even older concepts have been around for decades in all city plans are reflected here. Summarizing a few:
- Put more density near transit (e.g. Max Yellow)
- Put more density near main streets (e.g. 33 and 34th Avenue)
- Put more density where there's already existing services (e.g. grocery stores, shops, and amenities)
- Put more density nearer to downtown and activity centres rather than greenfield growth far away (e.g. 3km from downtown, 10 minute drive to 3 hospitals, 2 post-secondaries)
Back to the LAP, the density in Marda Loop at this scale was contemplated from the early days of the local area plan, here's the map from the mid-2024 with 12+ proposed on the Safeway, plus up to 12 storeys on this block:
Here's the next phase of engagement (Fall 2024) that proposed similar, but with height modifier here to 16 storeys:
Here's the final map in the LAP that was approved (2025):
On your comment, that the LAP is allowing "6 storeys everywhere else", that doesn't appear to be accurate from the maps above. Perhaps there wouldn't be a push for such density on 3 blocks of Marda Loop if the 50 other blocks nearby - all with similarly great access, location and amenity benefits to this site - weren't capped at 3 storeys.
Last edited:
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Overall, hard to disagree with density at this location - it's metres away from a few dozen restaurants/shops, multiple day cares, a grocery store (potentially with a second coming with the CO-OP project), several transit lines including Max Yellow that is only 4 stops (~10 to 15 minutes) from the centre of downtown.
Change is hard and people lose their minds over height but if this isn't a good idea here, where else has a better location? It's a stellar place to live for loads of people.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Area residents will lose it on Facebook but they're not realizing they're getting the best of both. Most keep their single-family home or duplex and get to be close to a high-density activity hub. All with none of the problems of downtown. Also, with proposals like this in Marda Loop it just shows how much of a joke Currie is.
MJC
New Member
Meeting was on May 6th and vote on May 7th: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings...a=Agenda&lang=English&Item=34&Tab=attachments
Surprisingly, it passed... doesn't look like it was even picked up in the news but is as big a change as the MCG upzoning last year. McLean, Wong, Sharp, Chabot, and Chu opposed, carried 8-5.
Interesting opposition:
- Wong: contradiction to MDP and in conflict with MDP and WELAPP, MDP prevails
- Chabot: work was not done on amendments to think through tradeoffs thoughtfully
- Sharp: council fatigue is not an excuse to dig into amendments, had to do it for Shag LAP
CPC seemed divided on the LAP upzoning: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=324015
Anyways, it's done. 34th Ave is upzoned to 16 storeys.
Surprisingly, it passed... doesn't look like it was even picked up in the news but is as big a change as the MCG upzoning last year. McLean, Wong, Sharp, Chabot, and Chu opposed, carried 8-5.
Interesting opposition:
- Wong: contradiction to MDP and in conflict with MDP and WELAPP, MDP prevails
- Chabot: work was not done on amendments to think through tradeoffs thoughtfully
- Sharp: council fatigue is not an excuse to dig into amendments, had to do it for Shag LAP
CPC seemed divided on the LAP upzoning: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=324015
Anyways, it's done. 34th Ave is upzoned to 16 storeys.
MJC
New Member
I don't think many Marda Loop residents understand 34th has been upzoned to 16 storeys. Due to transition areas, 33rd will now be 12 and adjacent streets 8, then 6,... It also means Co-Op is an easy approval. There is not a lot of support in the community for density like this and the use of transition zones will fuzzy the lines for high rises. 6 storeys everywhere else cascading down from a new high water mark. There is a limit on market demand so it is trading 40 projects for 1 tower. That means quick to turn midrise development like Sarnia has done to zombie land holds and derelict buildings. You'll get a couple spot density projects instead of widespread middle housing.
What will likely happen is small-scale, fine-grained development like Leonards on 34th will be ripped out as that will all be high rises as well. It's not a great process for developers who adhered to the MDP over the last couple years.
Transportation is a major issue in Marda and there is probably not a train coming in my lifetime. There is debate on whether the BRT is useful or not. I live a block from it and its good getting into downtown and a crapshoot getting back. The bus drivers don't put the right signs on their buses and sometimes they just don't come. Marda is a car dependent area and more congestion seems like a bad move.
There was strong, consistent opposition to the height on 34th. The overwhelming community voice was not considered, which is why I think the final snap approval without amendments was sneaky. Small-scale developments like this Certus project falling is a good example.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
How can these both be true at the same time? Does the "limit on market demand" mean that if one tower is approved then 40 other developments don't happen? If that's the case, wouldn't that mean less pressure to turn over smaller-scale and fine-grained areas for towers?
Empirically, the widespread middle housing you want is being built/has already been built in all surrounding communities to Marda Loop, like semi-attached, R-CG and townhome products (the latter of which are also often opposed as "too dense").
If anything, the areas around Marda Loop are running out of older homes to convert to middle housing as almost all sites have been turned over to infills - often its bee replaced with denser, but still too low density to be affordable for the area. There's no business case to rip down expensive new homes so development must go to the dwindling sites remaining. Perhaps the low density character of the area is exactly why there's increasing pressure for more density on the few sites remaining.
The thing is the MDP says a lot about trying to densify around transit nodes, main street corridors and where services already exist too.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
This is simply not true, I take the MAX Yellow everyday, we're a one car household.
Otherwise, I do see what you're saying about funnelling what could've been more 6 story development in one site but even though people think they're affected by high-rise, are they really though? Does anyone not within say, 2-3 of 33rd and 34th benefit from the services that will exist because of such development. Maybe more concentrated development is better? Personally I do prefer 6 story development and do not like high-rise outside of very specific areas. Marda Loop isn't a sea of parking lots, I guess what you're saying is it could become one because of land holds but that is a risk for developers who you think would be hesitant to hold non-downtown property for that long just to be able to build another high-rise that isn't supported by the market.
Those same people decrying this will have their home values drastically increase, not because of the land assembly threat outside the primary and secondary corridors, but because they'll have their home so close to everything you need, some might call it a 15 minute city... An issue is increasing home values beyond the city-wide average could affect property tax increases beyond what some can afford.
MJC
New Member
Well, I can offer you my experience in development over the last 15 years. I'm not sure there is a great deal of difference in the target demographic for a high rise renter / owner vs. 6 storey building within the same neighbourhood. Absent induced demand (where amenities or some attraction give you an outsized market share of demand), there is a finite amount of demand. So if there is large spot density with high rises, it soaks up all the market demand. This makes other projects less likely to go forward. It also means that land values will generally rise as higher density means more massing can be constructed. This leads to land speculators - like what we are seeing on this site. This often leads to a cycle of upzoning. When land values get pushed up that high, the value of the underlying property is insignificant and you put up fences, let the houses go abandoned. That's your right as a property owner.
Putting a cap on supply will, in my view, create a more integrated, and complete neighbourhood. I don't think anyone can claim Paris, Mexico City, or London suffer from a lack of options. Focusing on middle density that can be developed is more appropriate for Marda Loop given the transportation constraints and limited transportation options.
The issue isn't density, it is complete community. My argument is that high rises will do more harm than good. It concentrates traffic volumes with no chance of a pressure valve. It's great some people ride buses but they are largely not useful in a city like Calgary where attractions / responsibilities are across the city. If you have kids and are driving them around, public transportation is not a good alternative form of transportation for most families.
A second issue is whether the current infrastructure work on 34th will need to be torn up again for this new density. I don't know if the services can support that many more units without further upgrades upstream.
A bit of an aside, but I doubt another grocery store is needed here. Currie is working on getting a grocery store and online grocery orders are increasing. Not that competition is a bad thing, but there is Blush Lane kitty corner already and Safeway 4 blocks away.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
As an experienced developer in the area you should know this is exactly what the city is doing with the work on 33rd and 34th.
Services to this specific site would likely need to be upgraded as it is currently multiple sites and any land assembly would mean fewer utility entry points that are larger that what is currently in the ground. It is a bit of facebook fearmongering to say this one site would require further upgrades upstream. On that, the water treatment plant at the Glenmore dam is getting a large addition. So what you speculate might happen because of this is happening regardless of whether this gets developed by Leonard or a high-rise developer.
I am continually astonished that people think the City is making things up as they go along when it comes to infrastructure upgrades. They know what pipes they have where and how strained their infrastructure is and is not.
Last edited: