Marda Loop Commercial | 10m | 2s | Certus

@CalgaryTiger

Well, I don't know how productive that attack is but I can respond with my perspective.

Services often need to be upgraded as pipes are undersized to deal with additional capacity. So a 350 mm might need to be larger at some point on some street where there is a constraint. It isn't fear mongering, its realistic. 34th is torn up right now and the work may be futile. Residents in Marda Loop should be concerned about wasting tax dollars on this in addition to the endless nuisance.

I don't agree the city informed citizens correctly on this either. The personal attacks from thin-skinned folks are probably the reason people don't want to speak up. I can tell you in isn't well known in the community. The LAP is convoluted. The map doesn't say 16 storeys is supported. It says it is in a modified zone. Then you need to know to search for that modified zone. It's hardly clear disclosure, and I stick to my point that it's sneaky.
 
MJC said:
@CalgaryTiger

Well, I don't know how productive that attack is but I can respond with my perspective.

Services often need to be upgraded as pipes are undersized to deal with additional capacity. So a 350 mm might need to be larger at some point on some street where there is a constraint. It isn't fear mongering, its realistic. 34th is torn up right now and the work may be futile. Residents in Marda Loop should be concerned about wasting tax dollars on this in addition to the endless nuisance.

I don't agree the city informed citizens correctly on this either. The personal attacks from thin-skinned folks are probably the reason people don't want to speak up. I can tell you in isn't well known in the community. The LAP is convoluted. The map doesn't say 16 storeys is supported. It says it is in a modified zone. Then you need to know to search for that modified zone. It's hardly clear disclosure, and I stick to my point that it's sneaky.
Click to expand...
It is a conversation of opposing viewpoints, not an attack. I didn't say anything personal. I appreciate that a developer has come here to give their opinion but you're using your authority as a developer to make your points, so at the same time I can say that as a developer you know better than to say residents should be concerned about the current work being futile and the current work will need to be redone at taxpayer expense and will cause a similar nuisance. That is simply not true, the cost of upgrades to any site are the responsibility of the developer and the upgrade would not be to the extent of the work they're doing. There is some nuance here being that the changes to this site have happened since the work of the upgrades has been underway.

There are legitimate points to be made about the affects of the maximum development in an area that has been undergoing a large and very invasive infrastructure upgrade.

Living in the community for over five years, I can tell you there have been numerous pieces of mail over the last couple year about the LAP.

In my opinion, and by no means attacking you, just opposing your opinion; no one is being deceived. Are some people against the LAP, yes but I appreciate that the greater goal of proper city building has won out. So many times it loses out because some people fear the worst (Glenmore Landing). I'll take the win here, in my community, where (selfishly) I'll benefit from the services and others things that more people in the area bring.
 
Last edited:
I’m sure many will disagree with me, but my own personal opinion is that 16 stories is too tall for the location. Density is great, but Marda Loop as an area, has a nice feel to it.
I’d rather see something in the range of 8 to 10 stories here and at the co-op location.
 
BKha said:
I’m sure many will disagree with me, but my own personal opinion is that 16 stories is too tall for the location. Density is great, but Marda Loop as an area, has a nice feel to it.
I’d rather see something in the range of 8 to 10 stories here and at the co-op location.
Click to expand...
I agree. I live in the neighbourhood and have been supportive of the density and development in the neighbourhood. But for some reason, 16 stories feels too tall at this location, even if it is so close to a MAX stop. I think it’s because this is the gateway to the neighbourhood and vehicle circulation at this intersection isn’t great, and I don’t think it will get much better even with the Main Streets improvement.
 
16 stories to me doesn’t fit the vibe of the neighborhood. It provides density , but I’d rather see increased density of low rises up to 6 floors spread out over a bigger area and avoid having the towers.
 
My own personal personal preference would be to have low rise buildings at this location and the COOP. 8-12 floors at the COOP location, and up to 6 floors along 34th ave. That said, the Marda Loop area would need to have zoning increases in other areas around Marda Loop for the density to be spread out rather than taller buildings clustered in one area.
 
Cowtown said:
16 stories to me doesn’t fit the vibe of the neighborhood. It provides density , but I’d rather see increased density of low rises up to 6 floors spread out over a bigger area and avoid having the towers.
Click to expand...
Wide spread urban style 6 storeys have many advantages and are a good strategy.

The problem is the "wide spread" part. Until very recently with the main street upzoning and the latest local area plans, 6 storeys were few and far between, almost nowhere would support them.

We are now seeing a boom in the 6 storey format thanks to these policy changes, which is great - but it still has largely condemns density to the corridors that aren't always the best - often they are the worst place to live in the area.

For example, I find the planning rationale pretty weak why 32nd Ave can't support 6 stories, despite being 50m from the main street.

1748360742725.png


Another example is the 3 storey limit surrounding South Calgary Park - the exact community space, green space and amenities high density housing really needs - is opposite of what we should do. Fear of mid-rise shadows is way overblown and carries far too much weight.

All that said - it's all a step in the right direction! But need to allow density in the communities, not just the main streets if we want to create a real mid-rise city.
 
CBBarnett said:
Wide spread urban style 6 storeys have many advantages and are a good strategy.

The problem is the "wide spread" part. Until very recently with the main street upzoning and the latest local area plans, 6 storeys were few and far between, almost nowhere would support them.

We are now seeing a boom in the 6 storey format thanks to these policy changes, which is great - but it still has largely condemns density to the corridors that aren't always the best - often they are the worst place to live in the area.

For example, I find the planning rationale pretty weak why 32nd Ave can't support 6 stories, despite being 50m from the main street.

View attachment 654222

Another example is the 3 storey limit surrounding South Calgary Park - the exact community space, green space and amenities high density housing really needs - is opposite of what we should do. Fear of mid-rise shadows is way overblown and carries far too much weight.

All that said - it's all a step in the right direction! But need to allow density in the communities, not just the main streets if we want to create a real mid-rise city.
Click to expand...
I see these zoning compromises as just that, trade-offs. The market is not so robust that what is zoned to a 3-storey limit is required. In the future, if/when all the zoned land has reach its development potential then it would be time to consider expanding the area zoned for greater density.

I do see what you're saying about density around parks, I'm not so sure it was shadowing that was the concern. I think an engaged group of homeowners was able to keep the area around South Calgary Park 3-storey.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top