News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 7.2K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     5 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 5.3K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

MichaelS said:
I guess this thread is as good of a place as any to post this. As part of the massive capital spend that Administration is proposing to Council over the next decade, some details are starting to come out, and will be at tomorrow's Infrastructure and Planning Committee. Specifically item 7.9

Within that item on the agenda you can see attachments for the various infrastructure types, with what is proposed in this list (although I don't think it is comprehensive). The one that stood out to me as having some potential is as follows, found in the Roads and Pathways 10-year Capital Infrastructure Needs Assessment.

View attachment 720903
That is a good list, with a lot of downtown avenues and even 9th Ave through Inglewood. I don't expect all of them to get the full Stephen Ave treatment (for instance the main commuter aves downtown like 4/5/6/11 listed), but I sure do hope they at least come up with a proper design that incorporates corner bulbs, clearly defined parking lanes, tree alignments, and most of all, gets rid of these stupid janky curb lines. Maybe they will even deal with the public realm setbacks in the land use bylaw when they do these corridors. Probably not, but a man can hope!
Click to expand...
They still do janky curb lines on brand new development in areas under the public realm setbacks table. Lo and behold: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Calgary,+AB/@51.0489479,-114.0840423,3a,34.3y,259.31h,81.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srzGfzThogDWybTMUff2trA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=8.433289602121263&panoid=rzGfzThogDWybTMUff2trA&yaw=259.311310338902!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x537170039f843fd5:0x266d3bb1b652b63a!8m2!3d51.0447331!4d-114.0718831!16zL20vMDFyMzI?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

Measured the outside hybrid driving/parking lane in front of the Avenue building - looks to be about 4.6m wide on DMAP. Seems perfect to me:
1773326066440.png

I don't even understand how this could be applied it doesn't have compliant drive lane or parking lane widths and that building was completed in 2017.
 
Last edited:
Calgcouver said:
They still do janky curb lines on brand new development in areas under the public realm setbacks table. Lo and behold: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Calgary,+AB/@51.0489479,-114.0840423,3a,34.3y,259.31h,81.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srzGfzThogDWybTMUff2trA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=8.433289602121263&panoid=rzGfzThogDWybTMUff2trA&yaw=259.311310338902!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x537170039f843fd5:0x266d3bb1b652b63a!8m2!3d51.0447331!4d-114.0718831!16zL20vMDFyMzI?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

Measured the outside hybrid driving/parking lane in front of the Avenue building - looks to be about 4.6m wide on DMAP. Seems perfect to me:
View attachment 721290
I don't even understand how this could be applied it doesn't have compliant drive lane or parking lane widths and that building was completed in 2017.
Click to expand...
I love how there's no reason - even a bad reason - for doing this randomly wide lane. That randomly-determined, randomly-applied, and ambiguously-interpreted setback table strikes again.

The drawback is so obvious with a reduced sidewalk and planting area. The benefit is.....?

1773329001061.png

I am struggling to even imagine the decision rationale that supported this design. As far as I understand them, the setback rules are not explicitly saying "widen roads for more lanes" (even if that was their origin story decades ago). You are allowed to use the setback for public realm things like sidewalks and trees. So that means that someone actually made the call to actually add a weird 4.5m lane for no benefit instead of better public realm here. Amazing.

Also this location in Downtown West is one of those weird avenue stubs, where for some reason we built them out to their full width despite it being on the edge where traffic volumes are forever lower. This situation has 5.5 lanes even though there's not enough travel lanes connecting here to ever, under any circumstances, require 5.5 lanes of capacity. It's mathematically impossible for that volume of cars to ever fill up all lanes based on the capacity of connecting roads.

So not only is the 4.5m wide "super lane" pointless, so is half the rest of the road :)

It's just so bizarre that there appears to be few if any documented plans or strategies for how downtown roads are suppose to be planned, built or operated. Yet materially important decisions are being made all the time with the confidence that seems to me as an outside, imply that at least some people making decisions think there is a clear plan!
 
MichaelS said:
I half suspect that queue jump was removed because the Suncor Centre renovations requested to have that outside land closed as part of their construction site. Because the group within Roads Operations who grants these closure permits doesn't interact with transit planning, the request was granted. It doesn't matter that the time and cost savings for the busiest bus route in the city were impacted. You would think there would be a senior official, let's call that position I don't know, the GM of Operations, that would be on top of stuff like this....

In case these examples, or the now twice exploded critical water main haven't highlighted the point to everyone, the City really is a terribly run organization.....
Click to expand...
With most government and big corporate jobs, once you make it to one of these senior roles, unless you materially screw up, there's not really any incentive to work super hard. Especially in government jobs where there's not even the small link to stock prices.
 
I actually do know the reason for why that portion of 5th Ave was widened. This is (was?... might have recently been questioned, but only at a low level and no offiical decision one way or another) the official plan for the downtown streets, dating back decades. The plan for the setback is to widen the road, to allow a formal parking lane, and still have the same number of travel lanes on the avenues. Because there is no comprehensive budget for this, it occurs on a development by development basis. Avenue development permit comes in, the reviewer sees it and says, you need to move the curb line per this decades old plan, and the developer does it as part of their boundary conditions. This is the source of janky curb lines. It goes back decades. You can see the curb jut-out next to parking lots, but not next to older office buildings.

Despite now nearly 2 decades of policies pushing for more walkable streets (especially downtown), nobody has actually done anything about this street design requirement. This again goes back to a major complaint I have, where Calgary policy doesn't want to bother itself with infrastructure, it is much easier to hold engagement sessions and make the equivalent of watercolor paintings for maps. How will the future devleopment actually fit into the urban fabric? Who cares, that will be figured out later, and it is not their department. This is the outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
Surrealplaces said:
Pretty solid looking project, and it's right across from an lrt station. 👍

Do you know who the developer or architect is? I'll create a database entry.
Click to expand...
Those two homes to the east will fight this very hard. Good luck to the developer.

What a fun little access road that is off 26th Street.
1773340539997.png
 
Last edited:
MichaelS said:
I actually do know the reason for why that portion of 5th Ave was widened. This is (was?... might have recently been questioned, but only at a low level and no offiical decision one way or another) the official plan for the downtown streets, dating back decades. The plan for the setback is to widen the road, to allow a formal parking lane, and still have the same number of travel lanes on the avenues.
Click to expand...
Great insights, thanks for sharing @MichaelS.

This "official plan" reference is what struct me - where is this written down anywhere in a Council approved plan that actually says what the setbacks are to be used for in downtown, and the objective is to have a certain number of travel lanes, parking lanes etc. It's the missing thing I don't recall seeing - what actually directs 5th Avenue to be 5.5 lanes here and the setback to be used for a formal parking lane?

The Centre City Mobility Plan from about 20 years ago is about as close as recall, and it spends a lot of text describing mobility prioritization of pedestrians and using right-of-ways for non-parking uses. It doesn't get to the level of detail "you are required to have a 4.5m outside lane on 5th Avenue between 10th and 9th Streets SW". The downtown parking strategy is similarly not really focused at this level of design detail, and again supports trade-offs and transit stuff.

It's that "official plan" documentation evidence that's missing for me. Everyone says that's always been the plan, but no plan (that I am aware of) is explicit and specific enough to actual mandate this 4.5m wide lane example. Does TAC guidelines or some engineering body of knowledge say a 4.5m lane is required in such contexts? I am curious because almost nowhere does this, and we (Calgary) don't even do this consistently. Where's this official plan coming from that gives weight here over alternatives?

If nothing is actually written and documented, it seems to me like cultural or institutional interpretation of downtown street policies by transportation decision-makers are the real source driving this outcome. Related but different is how the actual authority is managed on what happens in the streets - something about our process is giving complete and total control to the auto-centric interpretation of the policies, so that they win 100% of the time downtown on the major avenues.
 
That is a very good point, and perhaps my use of the word "official" may have been incorrect. Or at least dated. I think it is one of those things that long term staff in the (now former) Network Planning group knew about, and would reference/implement. However, it was lost in the updated policies (again, see my comment about our aversion to any sort of detail in our policies), and now it is just a roll of the dice / mishmash of who happens to review a set of plans that come in on whether it is requested or not. Quite frustrating.
 
You guys missed the best part - the jankiness is mirrored on the north side of the street so there's like 5 meters where curb to curb is a smidge less than 15m wide.
Screenshot 2026-03-12 at 6.09.12 PM.png



There's even more weirdness on the west end of the block:
Screenshot 2026-03-12 at 9.32.44 PM.png


This house is now gone and so are the parking signs (but not the pole). Interestingly that pole looks to be about 2 meters from the painted crosswalk, despite the bylaw requiring 5 meters before you're allowed to park. Again this weird cut is mirrored on the other side for some reasonL

Screenshot 2026-03-12 at 9.37.05 PM.png
 
Some public information thing for the old Huson's Bay downtown.

retail-insider.com

Future of Calgary’s Hudson’s Bay Building Discussed

Experts will discuss the history, current status, and potential future of Calgary’s historic Hudson’s Bay building at a public event on March 26.
retail-insider.com retail-insider.com

Maybe someone here is interested in registering...

Heritage Calgary, in partnership with the Calgary Downtown Association, will host an information session titled “The Past, Present, and Future of the Calgary Downtown Hudson Bay Building” on March 26, 2026, bringing together experts to explore the legacy and potential next chapter of the prominent downtown property.

The evening event will take place at the Hudson event centre, located at 200 8 Avenue SW in downtown Calgary, the site of the former Hudson’s Bay Company flagship store that closed in June 2025. Doors will open at 5:30 p.m., with the panel discussion scheduled from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The event will include a moderated discussion, followed by audience questions and networking.

Sounds like there was some interest but the scale of the building's issues loomed too large. Unfortunately, I think to save the building it will take the City taking it over as a city-building project.

Redeveloping the property presents significant financial challenges. Industry observers estimate that modernizing the structure’s mechanical systems, electrical infrastructure, and structural components could require hundreds of millions of dollars in investment.

Several major investors have explored redevelopment opportunities for the site but have ultimately stepped back due to the scale of the required capital.

RioCan, one of Canada’s largest real estate investment trusts, previously examined the property but did not proceed with a redevelopment plan.

The size of the building’s floor plates also presents design challenges when considering modern uses such as residential or office conversions.

Nonetheless, urban planners and developers have proposed a range of potential concepts for the property, including residential housing, a boutique hotel, or a mixed use cultural and commercial hub.

Curious what the future scenarios will be.

Jessie Andjelic and Philip Vandermay from the design firm Spectacle Bureau will present potential future scenarios for the site, exploring how the structure might be repurposed in ways that respect its heritage while enabling new economic uses.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top