MichaelS
Senior Member
Creating a thread for this project @Albertasaurus posted about in the urban development thread. The DP is up on DMap, but no drawings posted yet:
Heritage Plaza | 91m | 26s | Arcadis
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
It's very... Waterloo.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
It's the 2020s equivalent of every other tall building that has been built on MacLeod Trail - just random blob of height and density in a complete forgettable fashion.
I don't really know how to think about these types of places - on the macro-level, it's a bit of density in a reasonably central location. But these buildings do nothing to even incrementally improve the corridor's overall design, walkability or anything really beyond that. Just provide housing - perhaps that's enough sometimes. Still, I don't think it sets up much long-term success if even large projects don't improve the environment around them.
Here's the 1980s equivalent.
I don't really know how to think about these types of places - on the macro-level, it's a bit of density in a reasonably central location. But these buildings do nothing to even incrementally improve the corridor's overall design, walkability or anything really beyond that. Just provide housing - perhaps that's enough sometimes. Still, I don't think it sets up much long-term success if even large projects don't improve the environment around them.
Here's the 1980s equivalent.
Calgcouver
Active Member
I can't believe that mobility engineering has been able to push there agenda for arterials everywhere and we haven't even considered safe street designs on main streets at this point. We feel very far behind in terms of direction our mobility engineering standards and outcomes are headed, even in the North American context. Macleod Trail is going to see a lot of renewed interest in redevelopment and the LAP's give no detail and mobility will not budge on safer, pedestrian oriented design even in TODs. What a shame. We need Macleod to function differently for better outcomes but all that matters is maintaining or increasing car throughput at the expense of everything else. They are not making it conducive to interfacing building along Macleod or any of the surrounding streets, we will get mixed-use buildings fronting onto internal parking lots with the policy structures in place. Kind of the worst outcomes for dense developments imo. Truly feels like a continuation of the type of the development those Southland Towers are and that should be a completely unacceptable urban design outcome in this day and age.
The flared entrance onto Macleod Trail accessing this site is 23m wide, and the sidewalk is 1.2m at best. At least cars can maintain a speed of 50km/hr when they hit someone crossing the enormously wide entrance crossing.
Last edited:
Albertasaurus
Active Member
Agreed. If you compare this style of development to, say, University District or West District, where effort has been made to provide a high quality pedestrian realm with walkable streets, it's somewhat lacking. I get that these are smaller sites without the benefit of being able to master plan a whole neighbourhood, the corridor is going to remain an inhospitable place, albeit with more people living along it.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
It sure looks like something you'd see in a loo.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
This is a block to the south of this development. Such an amazing masterpiece of transportation design - rarely has such a diverse collection of angles, curves and design speeds for truck aprons existed in one place. It's amazing transportation professionals can be such sticklers for the rules and design outcomes, when clearly anything goes. It's as if the only real design rule is to make walking along MacLeod (and most other places) as stupid as possible.
You'd think the support of such randomness would mean that given enough time, we'd accidentally see a good street-level design on MacLeod. The 1,000 monkeys typewriting approach!
Cowtown
Senior Member
It’s a boring design, but from a glass half full perspective, it’s close to the Heritage LRT station. Not TOD distance, nor TOD connectivity but at least within walking distance.
MacMathuna
New Member
Isn't it TOD distance? By my calculation, it's about a 450m walk to Heritage.
Technically it is within TOD criteria (I measured 522m), but with the path it takes and the experience for the pedestrians, it might as well not be. Though if a pedestrian bridge was built straight across Macleod that tied into a development and also into the train station or tied into the existing pedestrian bridge, it would be a decent TOD connection.
When it comes to TOD, the criteria is a loose interpretation. lol
Here's what the current pedestrian experience looks like going from the proposed site to LRT.
When it comes to TOD, the criteria is a loose interpretation. lol
Here's what the current pedestrian experience looks like going from the proposed site to LRT.
Calgcouver
Active Member
Question for any City of Calgary planners on Land Uses for holding districts that are usually used for road widening or otherwise unknown areas that remained undeveloped or underdeveloped. The land uses in this area of Macleod Trail are C-COR, DC or C-C2 districts and are not holding districts usually employed with road widening projects. The police station zoning snakes around this property to Macleod, but is a land use that is intended for commercial.
The property lines for this subject parcel clearly delineate a road widening project, but the Devereaux project to the west does not account for that land and is likely to be built out per the current DP.
All four parcels have this, and some of the other properties that are within the road ROW on Macleod have commercial zoning as holding zones as well:
These areas also are not subject to the Public Realm Setbacks table in Part 3 Div 1 of the LUB (read: road widening setbacks from 2P80). These parcels (or at least parts of them) are likely to be used for road widening projects based on what has been proposed for that Macleod Trail and Heritage Drive interchange that is unfunded.
My first question for the City planners is with the Devereaux application and this application in, would this site not be viewed as a Comprehensive Large Site and would require a fixed state and understanding of what the public realm and roadway interfaces look like? I presume it would be very important to understand what the road layout is supposed to look like to properly understand how this property develops over time.
Second question is what is the use of commercial holding districts along this corridor if the plan is not to develop them with buildings (commercial, mixed-use, whatever) and why were these not addressed at the time of the LAPs?
Too detailed and long for this forum probably, but maybe someone can shed some light on what the interface is here for any would-be developers would be trying how to understand how to redevelop properties along Macleod Trail here.
Also i do understand this is Mobilitys plan:
But i do not understand how developers are supposed to interpret how to redevelop today with commercial land use districts on the City owned properties and this interchange looking like a hard maybe. In the lower mainland, at least the municipalities almost always know what these streets will look like in community plans and can articulate a vision as redevelopment happens. Curious as to how it is handled at the City.
Also if mobility eng cannot make an existing 60m ROW work for all mobility types, wow. be better at your job. You can make comfortably accommodate all modes of transportation here with minor alterations comfortably in half that space basically everywhere, without major throughput issues.
I fail to see why north of Anderson, Macleod Trail could not be more similar to H.C. Andersens Blvd in Copenhagen, and transition to the the #16 highway (to the north suburbs) the same way that H.C. Andersens Blvd does. It could do it in the North American context with more landscaping, snow clearing areas, generous parking and lane configurations and would very likely maintain throughput, as H.C. Andersens Blvd has the same function in Copenhagen as Macleod Trail does here and in a city with a higher metro population. My argument is that they can use the existing ROWs to enable good urban development and maintain or improve throughput with significantly increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists, without deeply pissing off Calgarian motorists and allowing for good urban design with new development.
The property lines for this subject parcel clearly delineate a road widening project, but the Devereaux project to the west does not account for that land and is likely to be built out per the current DP.
All four parcels have this, and some of the other properties that are within the road ROW on Macleod have commercial zoning as holding zones as well:
These areas also are not subject to the Public Realm Setbacks table in Part 3 Div 1 of the LUB (read: road widening setbacks from 2P80). These parcels (or at least parts of them) are likely to be used for road widening projects based on what has been proposed for that Macleod Trail and Heritage Drive interchange that is unfunded.
My first question for the City planners is with the Devereaux application and this application in, would this site not be viewed as a Comprehensive Large Site and would require a fixed state and understanding of what the public realm and roadway interfaces look like? I presume it would be very important to understand what the road layout is supposed to look like to properly understand how this property develops over time.
Second question is what is the use of commercial holding districts along this corridor if the plan is not to develop them with buildings (commercial, mixed-use, whatever) and why were these not addressed at the time of the LAPs?
Too detailed and long for this forum probably, but maybe someone can shed some light on what the interface is here for any would-be developers would be trying how to understand how to redevelop properties along Macleod Trail here.
Also i do understand this is Mobilitys plan:
But i do not understand how developers are supposed to interpret how to redevelop today with commercial land use districts on the City owned properties and this interchange looking like a hard maybe. In the lower mainland, at least the municipalities almost always know what these streets will look like in community plans and can articulate a vision as redevelopment happens. Curious as to how it is handled at the City.
Also if mobility eng cannot make an existing 60m ROW work for all mobility types, wow. be better at your job. You can make comfortably accommodate all modes of transportation here with minor alterations comfortably in half that space basically everywhere, without major throughput issues.
I fail to see why north of Anderson, Macleod Trail could not be more similar to H.C. Andersens Blvd in Copenhagen, and transition to the the #16 highway (to the north suburbs) the same way that H.C. Andersens Blvd does. It could do it in the North American context with more landscaping, snow clearing areas, generous parking and lane configurations and would very likely maintain throughput, as H.C. Andersens Blvd has the same function in Copenhagen as Macleod Trail does here and in a city with a higher metro population. My argument is that they can use the existing ROWs to enable good urban development and maintain or improve throughput with significantly increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists, without deeply pissing off Calgarian motorists and allowing for good urban design with new development.
Attachments
Last edited:
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Some really good points - MacLeod Trail is so wildly land-inefficient you really can have your cake and eat it too. Quality walkable designs on frontage style parking roads, plus keep all the lanes you want.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Everyone would appreciated a better Macleod design, there just doesn't seem to be much interest in it. There are much less important corridors getting attention over Macleod, it should be much higher on the list on Main Street priorities that it is.
I think it is being pushed off because it is easy to ignore, as no one really walking or cycling along Macleod because it favours the car 99.9 times out of 100. No one pushing for it to be something other than what it is. I'm surprised businesses are so content with Macleod the way it is, they are the ones suffering the most from its design.
With the setbacks along Macleod you could pretty easily make everyone happy and even allow for more development fronting other than a Tommy Guns and a Credit Union. The move for this project would be to build towers in their parking lot and turn London Drugs and the other units into the surface parking. With this phase they haven't sunk that idea.
I think it is being pushed off because it is easy to ignore, as no one really walking or cycling along Macleod because it favours the car 99.9 times out of 100. No one pushing for it to be something other than what it is. I'm surprised businesses are so content with Macleod the way it is, they are the ones suffering the most from its design.
With the setbacks along Macleod you could pretty easily make everyone happy and even allow for more development fronting other than a Tommy Guns and a Credit Union. The move for this project would be to build towers in their parking lot and turn London Drugs and the other units into the surface parking. With this phase they haven't sunk that idea.
The biggest issue I have with Macleod is all the entrance ways that come off of Macleod to/from side roads or parking lots. There aren't really any more per km than say 17th ave SW...but it's the way the traffic moves and the speed it moves at. Macleod traffic travels at a higher speed and cars turn into and pull out of those side roads/parking lots tend to zip in and out only paying attention to other cars. Even worse, cars turning left into those entrance ways tend to dart in quickly as oncoming traffic travels at a high rate and I don't trust them to pay attention to cyclists or pedestrians.
Personally, I would never feel comfortable cycling or walking along Macleod unless they somehow eliminated some of the entrance ways, slowed down traffic significantly or made left turns controlled only. It's such a car sewer to the point that I would never let my children cycle along there even if there was a protected bike lane.
CallmeCatbread
New Member
Absolutely no question Macleod needs a complete redesign. It's beyond saving in its current form. Nothing short of a total reconstruction could fix it, and it's primarily because of all the driveways you mentioned.