Hudson Condos | 20m | 5s | Sarina Homes | Casola Koppe

CBBarnett said:
It's probably a good case study in growth for popular areas and the limits and strengths of planning. Community opposition to my corridor approach succeeded in removing the areas north of 33rd and east of 19th Street from the main area to expect growth. But growth pressure came anyways, so now that growth is inconsistent, awkward and more expensive. If 10 to 20 years ago the whole area was thought of comprehensively as a corridor the results might have been different.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are a a number of other streets that have the potential to someday be a proper corridor, but lack of a proper corridor plan is screwing things up. 24th ave so far looks to be kind of a mix-mash as well, but at least the new rowhome projects don't have much of a set-back, and at least offer some hope of fitting in later as the corridor evolves.

1647888584889.png
 
Looking at the zoning map for 24th ave, most of it is zones for low density housing, but it appears that any development that has applied for higher density (MU-1, M-CG, or even DC) has got the approval. Would it be easier to just go for it and start the whole avenue off at at least M-CG...and make anyone who wants to build a duplex or single family home go through the hoops to be the exception?
I'm not an expert on zoning, just posing the question.
 
The City is going to have to up-zone 33rd and allow more height to allow developers to justify costs to demo some of the infills. I also think if landowners are willing to sell in blocks, and take away uncertainty from developers that someone in the middle won’t sell, they could could get a decent price.
 
CBBarnett said:
It's too bad that there was such a narrow focus on Marda Loop as the existing business district rather than 33 Ave SW in it's entirely as a primary, main street corridor before all this infill started happening 10 to 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Better late than never, 33rd and 34th are becoming a Main Streets-ish. It's the next main street going through the design phase currently: https://engage.calgary.ca/33ave

The portion closer to 14th is the final phase. That's fine in my opinion as in the 10 years it probably takes the phasing to rollout those 10-20 year-old duplexes will be 20-30 years old and as the surrounding properties become more dense they'll become less desirable for those shopping in that price range. Who wants to spend over 1 million dollars on a duplex to be surrounded by renters? Gross! Ha all kidding aside, I think the land should hold its value so they'll be able to sell to a developer who can plop an apartment on their lot(s) and still see a good ROI.

I use to rent here: https://goo.gl/maps/oyrcEcWXHexe9VCQ8

Thought when the owner went to sell and I was forced to move a developer would buy it and build an apartment. It didn't happen as I think the seller wanted too much to make a duplex development possible, developers probably didn't see it as a lot that could accommodate an apartment. I thought if you took away the setback and used the relatively useless backyard you could build up and make an apartment work. But what do I know, I only lived there.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Better late than never, 33rd and 34th are becoming a Main Streets-ish. It's the next main street going through the design phase currently: https://engage.calgary.ca/33ave
Click to expand...
The only problem is that the land use part of that project explicitly focused on the retail district only here - https://engage.calgary.ca/33aveMS:

1647969066711.png


I don't know much about zoning but the changes seem really logical to me. Only problem is they didn't go far enough outside the very narrow focus area. The result is the mish-mash of spot-zoning and one-off land uses to the east. That may not be too big of a problem in itself - but would have been nice to consider the corridor consistently from the land use side so it's not a peace-by-peace redesignations process. In theory, that should minimize some of the inconsistency in redevelopment.

Compared to the Main Street changes along 17th Avenue from Westbrook to Crowchild - way more consistent and thinks full-corridor regarding land uses.

1647969413003.png

Will it matter in the end? Maybe not - lack of consistent land uses don't seem to be holding back these Sarina projects and better zoning =/= guaranteed better development. I think in Marda Loop / 33rd case it does seem to have played a role so far in how development is proceeding
 
adamyyc said:
The City is going to have to up-zone 33rd and allow more height to allow developers to justify costs to demo some of the infills. I also think if landowners are willing to sell in blocks, and take away uncertainty from developers that someone in the middle won’t sell, they could could get a decent price.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if the developers still do this but they used to buy blocks of houses in what they called options. The developer would go to a group of homeowners and make a deal to buy their house contingent on the neighbouring houses also selling.
It would be nice to see 33rd Ave. up zoned so that we could see more incentive for bigger developments.
 
CBBarnett said:
The only problem is that the land use part of that project explicitly focused on the retail district only here - https://engage.calgary.ca/33aveMS:

View attachment 387127

I don't know much about zoning but the changes seem really logical to me. Only problem is they didn't go far enough outside the very narrow focus area. The result is the mish-mash of spot-zoning and one-off land uses to the east. That may not be too big of a problem in itself - but would have been nice to consider the corridor consistently from the land use side so it's not a peace-by-peace redesignations process. In theory, that should minimize some of the inconsistency in redevelopment.

Compared to the Main Street changes along 17th Avenue from Westbrook to Crowchild - way more consistent and thinks full-corridor regarding land uses.

View attachment 387128
Will it matter in the end? Maybe not - lack of consistent land uses don't seem to be holding back these Sarina projects and better zoning =/= guaranteed better development. I think in Marda Loop / 33rd case it does seem to have played a role so far in how development is proceeding
Click to expand...
Good point I guess I assumed, incorrectly, that the zoning might change in future phases but there's no indication of that.
Zoom said:
It would be nice to see 33rd Ave. up zoned so that we could see more incentive for bigger developments.
Click to expand...
This might make me a NIMBY being that I live in the area but I hope they don't relax the building height along 33rd... IMO that corridor is perfect for low-rise high quality condos like the numerous projects underway along there now. Keep the height in the Beltline. Want a perfect place for height in the SW? Westbrook Mall and Currie.
 
Is Mardaloop area doing an LAP anytime soon? Because I imagine that would be the ideal way to set a clear and consistent vision for Mardaloop.

Using the zoning from the 'guidebook' I could see the commercial area being zoned as neighborhood commercial or flex, whereas the areas further east on 33rd being neighborhood connector, probably capped at 6 stories.

I don't really think that all of 33rd needs the same kind of density and uses as the main commercial area, so I'm actually pretty happy with the moderate density we've been seeing on the eastern section of 33rd. If the whole street was lined with a mix of 3-6 story buildings with a mix of housing types I'd be really happy with that. If there's going to be anything really big or dense I think it would be best to concentrate them close to Crowchild. Even then I think 12 stories is probably as tall as I'd want to go in Mardaloop. I'd like to keep South Calgary and area predominantly missing middle type development.
 
Last edited:
Urban Outdoorsman said:
Is Mardaloop area doing an LAP anytime soon? Because I imagine that would be the ideal way to set a clear and consistent vision for Mardaloop.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure the community thought the ARP from 2013ish would have done this, but then....the very first developments of significance exceeded the recommended 4 storey heigh limit on the north side of 33rd Ave.....

I can't imagine redoing the policy, and calling it an LAP instead of an ARP, will yeild dramatically different results.
 
MichaelS said:
I am pretty sure the community thought the ARP from 2013ish would have done this, but then....the very first developments of significance exceeded the recommended 4 storey heigh limit on the north side of 33rd Ave.....

I can't imagine redoing the policy, and calling it an LAP instead of an ARP, will yeild dramatically different results.
Click to expand...
The Marda Loop ARP 2014 only dealt with the area in the BRZ (now BIA) boundary. Was quite limited in that regard. "Main Street planning" since then looked at height and density along the whole corridor, but due to opposition on the east end, zoning was only upgraded in the 2014 ARP area, where new ARP already supported it. The rest of the zoning along the avenue was deferred to be part of the "West Elbow LAP" that would have dealt with all of Marda Loop and beyond. That process was had just started when it was shut down due to Covid in early 2020. West Elbow LAP has not been rescheduled, but proposed 2023-25. Meanwhile individual developers seek upzoning on a one-off basis, supported by higher level, newer, but locally vaguer policies like Municipal Development Plan "corridors" and Main Streets. The 1986 era ARP and zoning still in place seems to have little effect re. determined developers, except to require that extra process. And so it goes...
 
CalgaryTiger said:
This might make me a NIMBY being that I live in the area but I hope they don't relax the building height along 33rd... IMO that corridor is perfect for low-rise high quality condos like the numerous projects underway along there now. Keep the height in the Beltline. Want a perfect place for height in the SW? Westbrook Mall and Currie.
Click to expand...
I should clarify, by up zoning I mean low-rise buildings between four and eight stories. I agree anything over that height would be too much out of context.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top