PLATFORM | ?m | 6s | CMLC | Kasian

The Familia

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
233
Reaction score
222
This one intrigues me. If the facade turns out like the rendering it will look really cool. Nice to see the ground floor usage. I can also see it being heavily used once the new arena opens up. It wouldn't be much further than some people park and walk to the current Saddledome.
 

CBBarnett

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
520
Reaction score
1,182
This one intrigues me. If the facade turns out like the rendering it will look really cool. Nice to see the ground floor usage. I can also see it being heavily used once the new arena opens up. It wouldn't be much further than some people park and walk to the current Saddledome.
I've always struggled with this one. To me it's a perfect example of doing the wrong thing better. It's pretty and uses a hard to build site but:
  • We added parking supply to the core without mapping parking demand. We have no ability to evaluate whether we need it or not.
  • We added more car trips to a poorly designed car-sewer we always complain about on here in 9th Avenue
  • We did not consider alternative solutions that wouldn't require a parking garage to be built. Perhaps $80M could have been used to "unlock" even more existing privately-owned parking that is poorly utilized like most condo towers built in recent decades?
  • We "future-proofed" this parkade to transition to something else, yet have no real way to follow through other than hope one day we can reuse this (unlike our previous attempt at the City Hall Parkade which was designed to place a tower over it but never happened)
  • We added alternative uses, but not complementary uses. See Arts Parkade at U of C for an example of this innovative idea in practice
  • We aren't leveraging the investment by saving money elsewhere or aligning it with the bigger picture (e.g. blanket policy of zero parking requirements for all new buildings within 1km of here as this investment provides all the parking we will ever need (1) and there are 3, soon to be 5 LRT stations within 1km of here (2) and that it's the most walkable part of the city so we should be saving money on car infrastructure (3).
 

MichaelS

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
917
Reaction score
2,283
Well, 2 substantial civic buildings (new Library, Studio Bell) were built without parking because of the plans for this parkade, so we did leverage your last bullet point to some extent. It was also part of the justification for zero parking in N3, and can be used in further parking relaxations/reductions if sought by developers of other buildings within the vicinity.
 

CBBarnett

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
520
Reaction score
1,182
Well, 2 substantial civic buildings (new Library, Studio Bell) were built without parking because of the plans for this parkade, so we did leverage your last bullet point to some extent. It was also part of the justification for zero parking in N3, and can be used in further parking relaxations/reductions if sought by developers of other buildings within the vicinity.
Fair point but I don't think this is bold enough. Having developers potentially receive relaxations on future buildings leaves plenty of room for individual influence and discretion as opposed to a rule that says something like "within 600m of a public garage, parking requirements are removed" or "parking requirements are removed if you are 600m from LRT stations with mulitple lines".

It's all about trade-offs and I get that. But we built these institutions without parking deliberately at the location of our car-free transportation hub - it doesn't get more accessible to non-car travel in Calgary (or Alberta or anywhere in Canada outside the cores of the biggest cities) than literally that block.We already have thousands of public and private parking stalls nearby. If there was ever a place to make an argument that we don't need to spend $80M on a garage we can't prove we need it's here.
 

MichaelS

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
917
Reaction score
2,283
Fair point but I don't think this is bold enough. Having developers potentially receive relaxations on future buildings leaves plenty of room for individual influence and discretion as opposed to a rule that says something like "within 600m of a public garage, parking requirements are removed" or "parking requirements are removed if you are 600m from LRT stations with mulitple lines".

It's all about trade-offs and I get that. But we built these institutions without parking deliberately at the location of our car-free transportation hub - it doesn't get more accessible to non-car travel in Calgary (or Alberta or anywhere in Canada outside the cores of the biggest cities) than literally that block.We already have thousands of public and private parking stalls nearby. If there was ever a place to make an argument that we don't need to spend $80M on a garage we can't prove we need it's here.
Well, Council does have a rule that says something to this effect. Or rather, a Policy. The Calgary Parking Policies (Policy #TP017) made effective July 31, 2017:
While there is a lot of rules/policies in that document, the part that I am referring to can be found on page 31/82, Policy 5.2.1:
1582402474187.png

The policies for this section, below, lay out the criteria necessary to qualify for zero parking:
1582402521683.png
 

Top