2501 Richmond | 105m | 30s | Minto

[adamyyc]

Yes.
View attachment 523926

I feel like that could alleviate the traffic issue a bit.

 

[CBBarnett]

Or go back just a bit further to before we made Richmond Hill a bizarre, walled off community thanks to the 33rd Avenue extension and Crowchild. Here's what it was like in 1966:

If connectivity and lack of greenspace are an issue, just shift the through-road back to 32nd Avenue, open every intersection and demolish the existing 33rd Avenue alignment to free by about 5 hectares of park space to be added to Richmond Green Park.

 

[AJX]

I’m going to get roasted for this, but I think if I were a resident in the neighborhood, I would probably complain. I’m not a Nimby type person at all, and I totally support this kind of development but I have to say 2500 units (assuming 2500 cars go along with it) is a lot for an area that has poor access.

Glenmore Landing has half the number of units and much better vehicle access. I think Glenmore Landing is a perfect sized proposal for that type of area.

For the record, I’m not a heavy vehicle supporter, I don’t even drive very often, but if I lived in the neighborhood, I wouldn’t want it to be flooded with cars either. 26th will make a great cycle/transit lane but cars aren’t going away anytime soon. 2500 cars will flood the neighbourhood with vehicle traffic. I think 1200 to 1500 units is more reasonable.

I think it’s a fair comment. The unfortunate design of 26th 33rd Richmond Road and Crowchild gives the area poor access.
An off ramp on southbound Crowchild into the development and an offramp lane coming out as a development on southbound Crowchild might make a big difference, and having 25th St., go all the way to 33rd Ave.
Either way, I wouldn’t want to be a resident on 25th St. once this gets built.
You also have to remember that they are trying to get as many units as a can approved, 2,500 is like the whole build out of East Village I don’t know that they will get that many units approved but maybe they’re hoping for half that.

 

[Habanero]

I’m going to get roasted for this, but I think if I were a resident in the neighborhood, I would probably complain. I’m not a Nimby type person at all, and I totally support this kind of development but I have to say 2500 units (assuming 2500 cars go along with it) is a lot for an area that has poor access.

Glenmore Landing has half the number of units and much better vehicle access. I think Glenmore Landing is a perfect sized proposal for that type of area.

For the record, I’m not a heavy vehicle supporter, I don’t even drive very often, but if I lived in the neighborhood, I wouldn’t want it to be flooded with cars either. 26th will make a great cycle/transit lane but cars aren’t going away anytime soon. 2500 cars will flood the neighbourhood with vehicle traffic. I think 1200 to 1500 units is more reasonable.

They can build 2,500 units with 1,250 parking stalls. Problem solved.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

They can build 2,500 units with 1,250 parking stalls. Problem solved.

For the first time ever, I actually don't think parking is the issue. It is the traffic through the neighborhood. Parking comes up with the missing middle developments because even if it is a smaller development the amount of off street parking is just above the bylaw minimum.

 

[Habanero]

For the first time ever, I actually don't think parking is the issue. It is the traffic through the neighborhood. Parking comes up with the missing middle developments because even if it is a smaller development the amount of off street parking is just above the bylaw minimum.

Traffic is more what I meant. If they only build 1200 stalls, then there are only 1200 cars to create extra traffic. I agree with the original poster who said 2500 residential units would create a lot of traffic for a neighbourhood that doesn’t have very good egress/ingress.
If the developer only builds say 1000 parking stalls for the 2500 unit development, then traffic probably won’t be an issue.

 

[Dārayavauš]

The land use application has been submitted:

DMAP

This redesignation application proposes a development of 4.64 hectares of land in the community of Richmond/Knob Hill on the former Viscount Bennett school property. The application proposes:

• - 2,500 dwelling units across a range of zoning districts on the site
• - A Direct Control District based on the Multi-residential - High Density High Rise (M-H3) District, with a maximum height of 95 metres (about 30 storeys), is proposed in the northern and eastern portion along Richmond Road and Crowchild Trail
• - Multi-residential - High Density Medium Rise (M-H2) District, with a maximum height of 50 metres (about 15 storey), is proposed in the central portion of the site
• - Multi-residential High Density Low Rise (M-H1) with a maximum height of 26 metres (about 8 storeys) is proposed for the majority of the 25th Street SW and 30th Avenue SW frontage
• - 0.73 ha of publicly accessible private parks.

An amendment to the Westbrook Communities Local Area Plan is required in support of this application.


NOTE: If this application is approved by City Council, the building design and site layout details such as parking, landscaping and site access will be determined later at the development permit stage.

This would be great! Too bad it’s Calgary and it isn’t going to happen. 2,500 in a mixed use high density community? That would make us more of a proper city, can’t have that.

 

[Calgcouver]

This would be great! Too bad it’s Calgary and it isn’t going to happen. 2,500 in a mixed use high density community? That would make us more of a proper city, can’t have that.

The density proposed is unlikely to be built, and the 2500 unit count is very likely higher than will be built. It’s a hard CA and community to get this through, so I would take the same approach with the LOC as they did. Go in high and get whittled down to what you actually intend to build. I would imagine this will build out as basically all 6-story buildings, ~2.5 FAR blended across the total site area, likely 1500-1600 units.

 

[macca001]

Still early stages but this might be the first full-effort TOD proposal we have seen in a long time. The fact they de-emphasize car and parking circulations even at this stage is encouraging. A site of this prominent of location can really be a catalyst - if you want a walkable city and a city that can change from car-dependent inner burbs to something more urban, this concept is a strong step in the right direction.

The height of of the taller buildings will be a major point of discussion as this comes together, but overall the density and layout is exactly the type of thing we should be encouraging on an existing BRT stop, less than 5 minutes outside the city centre, with great and improving walking and cycling networks, in rapidly growing region of soon to be 2 million people.

The trick is to not screw this up and coax it into the right delivery:

• Don't screw around with Crowchild and contemplate new connections that would destroy the community by building new car capacity and circulation.
• Lean into the planned upgrades to 26 Avenue to be more walkable and bikeable rather than protest lack of parking and traffic flow - people, buses and bicycles are your flow for this central of location.
• Don't get overly fussed by parking and height - again, on a regional scale this location is about as good as you get and the stepped back fashion of this is thought out.
• The city should figure out some way to make the 33rd Avenue interchange less terrible to exist on/near outside a car. This is 2,500 potential units of people with a 500m walk to a booming cluster of retail and services in Marda Loop. They only have to pass through a dangerous, noisy, slip-lane covered interchange to get there.

This appears to be written by a member who does not live in the vicinity of this development. All these "tricks" seems to apply if you do not live in this area and have to contend with traffic. Traffic will be a major consideration whether the ultraism of walking and commuting in Calgary is there or not. The development must include parking for all residents. No street parking from residents should be allowed. Traffic patterns and access must be re-considered. This should include opening the south end of 25 St SW to 33 Ave SW, intersecting with the access road to the new Richmond Green development. Adding traffic lights at this intersection will maintain flow and safety.

Also, the plans do include a pedestrian bridge over Crowchild allowing better access to Marda Loop community.

 

[macca001]

Too tight on the east side of Crowchild to get a pedestrian bridge across for better access to Marda Loop?

The plans do include a pedestrian overpass into Marda Loop. Check out Item "I" on slide 23..

 

[macca001]

What sort of changes would you like to see done to this interchange. It is a good point, very close proximity to Marda Loop shopping area. There is a straightforward pathway from the site to the interchange, and at least there are sidewalks and pretty generously sized islands for pedestrians. But yeah, it is a bit basic and uncomfortable.

This is a good point, Minto does propose a pedestrian overpass to Marda Loop. Check out Item "I" on slide 23.

 

[Beltline_B]

. Traffic will be a major consideration whether the ultraism of walking and commuting in Calgary is there or not. The development must include parking for all residents. No street parking from residents should be allowed. Traffic patterns and access must be re-considered. This should include opening the south end of 25 St SW to 33 Ave SW, intersecting with the access road to the new Richmond Green development. Adding traffic lights at this intersection will maintain flow and safety.

Even myself as an avowed urbanist agree that traffic is a consideration. Normally, I don’t consider traffic a consideration for most inner-city projects but for this one because of the poor ingress/egress, and 2500 units potentially traffic could be a problem.
I would hate to see a development with 2500 units built in that area, become a real problem and discourage other developments in the future.

I am not sure I agree that 2500 parking spaces need to be built however, as not everyone would need to have a car. The way I see it if they build 2500 parking spaces it means the potential for 2500 cars coming and going from the development.
If the city puts permit parking everywhere around it, I don’t believe residents will park on the street. The development could then include somewhere around 1200 to 1500 parking spaces and there would be far less traffic in the neighbourhood.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

The city should just stick to their bylaw for parking 1-to-1 is excessive and is not grounded in reality. Open 33rd up into the community, it will make it less of a freeway in the section and naturally lower the speed limits.

 

[CBBarnett]

This appears to be written by a member who does not live in the vicinity of this development. All these "tricks" seems to apply if you do not live in this area and have to contend with traffic.

While proximity isn't a requirement to comment on developments - I happen to live three blocks from this development and will be greatly impacted by it's success and/or failure. I contend directly local traffic issues already, today - largely through the lack of good sidewalks, crossings and pathway access that makes this area dangerous to walk in. This project is an opportunity to resolve that via investment in traffic calming, sidewalks and safer crossings in all sorts of places.

Traffic will be a major consideration whether the ultraism of walking and commuting in Calgary is there or not. The development must include parking for all residents.

Traffic should be a factor, not to prevent development but to have it better managed - building parking at a 1:1 ratio to units will make the development more expensive, while also encouraging more cars in the area, not fewer. For the cars that do come with the new population, the goal should be to slow them down everywhere nearby so the burden of safety and noise is mitigated.

No street parking from residents should be allowed.

I agree - both current and future residents of this neighbourhood should not be allowed open access to street parking.

Street parking is a public resource and should be managed publicly with no special privilege given to those that live nearby currently or in the future. The city should be in the business of managing a public resource efficiently, not picking winners or losers.

Traffic patterns and access must be re-considered. This should include opening the south end of 25 St SW to 33 Ave SW, intersecting with the access road to the new Richmond Green development. Adding traffic lights at this intersection will maintain flow and safety.

I agree - they should open an additional accesses to 33rd so that vehicle and traffic patterns will disperse and access 33rd more seamlessly, rather than spend more time cutting through the neighbourhood. Again, any access should be paired with wider sidewalks, traffic calming and other measures so even if the total vehicle numbers increase, the issues they cause are mitigated.

Also, the plans do include a pedestrian bridge over Crowchild allowing better access to Marda Loop community.

Great news - it's one, of the several improvements that a development of this scale should activate to make the area easier to get around without driving.

 

[macca001]

This would be great! Too bad it’s Calgary and it isn’t going to happen. 2,500 in a mixed use high density community? That would make us more of a proper city, can’t have that.

Was there ever a connection from the Westbound lane of 33 Ave to 25 St (where the City currently has its sand storage)? Lights at 29 Street & Richmond Road is interesting (pretty short gap to the light at 29 St & 33 Ave).

The traffic access proposed will cause traffic chaos along 26 St and at the 33Ave/29St intersection. In peak hours this is a very congested intersection already. A more appropriate access, would be to extend 25St south to 33rd Ave. This will also connect nicely into the new Richmond Green access road.