adamyyc
Active Member
Just going to leave this here:
Richmond residents wary of development proposal for Viscount Bennett High School site — Calgary Herald
The proposal would accommodate 2,500 dwellings
apple.news
2501 Richmond | 105m | 30s | Minto
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
apple.news
JWhite
Active Member
Developer presenting at the CA meeting
Nimbus
Active Member
Must. Preserve. Derelict. School.
It was more about traffic in the article adamyyc linked. The people interviewed recognized the school should be developed, but wanted townhouses instead of towers. I think that is progress, in a sense.
darwink
Senior Member
That's one reason you ask for as much as you can under our development approval model.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Has there been any info on the heights of the proposed buildings? An inner city site right beside a freeway should absolutely have towers!
1875
Senior Member
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Check the PDF linked in the first post of this thread - 3 storeys along 25 St, 5 along Richmond Rd, and transitioning to 30 along Crowchild.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
30 is massive, I was expecting something along the heights of Groves of Varsity (10-14 storeys).
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I think most forget that the 2,500 units are hardly a near term thing. The traffic fears - even if they materialize - won't be noticeable until after multiple phases are completed. At the pace we build stuff of this scale, that's likely 2030 or later - assuming no economic or regulatory speed bumps over that period that slow it down.
It's about as good of a place for serious density that we have. If it happens, it will come online in a slow enough pace people may hardly notice. As long as the development doesn't trigger a bunch of unnecessary car capacity in the area, the impacts should be modest.
Looks like they posted new content on the website to support the open houses. Here's the Transportation slide. I really like the opportunity to strengthen and enhance the cycling network here, particularly as 26 Ave SW is an increasingly important corridor with improvements already planned. I also like the pedestrian bridge potential, give better access to Marda Loop retail and the NB BRT options. All pretty logical stuff.
It's about as good of a place for serious density that we have. If it happens, it will come online in a slow enough pace people may hardly notice. As long as the development doesn't trigger a bunch of unnecessary car capacity in the area, the impacts should be modest.
Looks like they posted new content on the website to support the open houses. Here's the Transportation slide. I really like the opportunity to strengthen and enhance the cycling network here, particularly as 26 Ave SW is an increasingly important corridor with improvements already planned. I also like the pedestrian bridge potential, give better access to Marda Loop retail and the NB BRT options. All pretty logical stuff.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Calgary Pitchfork Sales Highest in Country
adamyyc
Active Member
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).
Albertasaurus
Active Member
30 storeys seems very reasonable for that sort of location, especially for buildings along Crowchild. The tallest of the Cidex towers by Westbrook is over 30.
That said, I think a lot of developers propose higher than they intend to build on these sorts of controversial sites (see Glenmore Landing) knowing that they will likely need to give some concessions to the NIMBYs.
That said, I think a lot of developers propose higher than they intend to build on these sorts of controversial sites (see Glenmore Landing) knowing that they will likely need to give some concessions to the NIMBYs.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
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.
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.