artvandelay
Active Member
Very cool. The fact that developers are on here sharing details about their projects is a great thing about Skyrise Calgary. I’m excited to see this project progress!
RNDSQR Block | 44.8m | 12s | RNDSQR | 5468796 Architecture
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
MJC
New Member
A few thoughts:
- concurrent DP provides a much stronger case, all the LUB does is approve the density and provide a large land lift
- far too high for Inglewood and for 9th ave (23m / 6 storeys max is much more appropriate)
- up-zoning = inflating land prices and curtailing smaller-scale development
- Inglewood is already a community that has it all in my view, I would treat massive regentrification as a real threat, especially with outsized projects like this
- Overall, I think we should be cautious about concentrated density in city building. My personal take is that lower density that is spread out is more comfortable and better for pedestrians. Mexico City is 25 million in greater area and few buildings are above 6 storeys.
- this height is trying to redefine the character of the street rather than refine it...and I think that is a bit disappointing
- The Grid was a very painful project for ICA to go through, and it turns out it was a flip (currently out for sale)
- City has badly mishandled ARP process in Inglewood and exacerbated further with DAG (Development Area Guidebooks) suggesting it will completely supercede all city ARPs with homogeneous density blocks...it is a real threat to whitewashed character across the city. I wouldn't blame someone from the community pointing to this as an example of how developers have no regard for the ARP or the character of the community. I think they have a case to make...
- there is no such thing as 'character' in Calgary right now that is actually identified and respected, for better or worse. Here, I would say maybe for the better as we get cool-looking concepts like this. Torode has left some much less inspired projects on 9th.
- set-backs are thoughtful and the structure is interesting. I don't think there is anything wrong with making a 2020s mark on Atlantic Avenue. I don't see any connecting points from this building to Atlantic Avenue as a heritage neighbourhood...but there wasn't really anything on this site to begin with (to my knowledge - let me know if that is incorrect!)
- concurrent DP provides a much stronger case, all the LUB does is approve the density and provide a large land lift
- far too high for Inglewood and for 9th ave (23m / 6 storeys max is much more appropriate)
- up-zoning = inflating land prices and curtailing smaller-scale development
- Inglewood is already a community that has it all in my view, I would treat massive regentrification as a real threat, especially with outsized projects like this
- Overall, I think we should be cautious about concentrated density in city building. My personal take is that lower density that is spread out is more comfortable and better for pedestrians. Mexico City is 25 million in greater area and few buildings are above 6 storeys.
- this height is trying to redefine the character of the street rather than refine it...and I think that is a bit disappointing
- The Grid was a very painful project for ICA to go through, and it turns out it was a flip (currently out for sale)
- City has badly mishandled ARP process in Inglewood and exacerbated further with DAG (Development Area Guidebooks) suggesting it will completely supercede all city ARPs with homogeneous density blocks...it is a real threat to whitewashed character across the city. I wouldn't blame someone from the community pointing to this as an example of how developers have no regard for the ARP or the character of the community. I think they have a case to make...
- there is no such thing as 'character' in Calgary right now that is actually identified and respected, for better or worse. Here, I would say maybe for the better as we get cool-looking concepts like this. Torode has left some much less inspired projects on 9th.
- set-backs are thoughtful and the structure is interesting. I don't think there is anything wrong with making a 2020s mark on Atlantic Avenue. I don't see any connecting points from this building to Atlantic Avenue as a heritage neighbourhood...but there wasn't really anything on this site to begin with (to my knowledge - let me know if that is incorrect!)
JoeUrban
Active Member
Nope, other than the ~2003 small building directly to the east of the bank the site looks identical to how it did as far back as 1979, and before that it was just vacant land since 1911.
That said, it looks like the site had a depression or berm in the 1920s
And some small structure (fencing?) and what looks like a semi-circle landscape feature towards the alley in the 1940s so I'm curious what this parcel's use might have been
I dug deeper, believe it or not starting in 1949 the site was "Turk's Used Cars", so it's been a used car lot for 70 years (!)
Last edited:
Atticus
Active Member
Even though I generally like this project, I agree with many of your points. Inner city density is great, but density levels almost needs to be done on a parcel by parcel basis. This project would be much better at 8 floors IMO, while most others along 9th are better suited at 5-6 floors. This one could handle 8-9 floors due to it being on a busy corner with minimal shadowing on residential, but yeah, 12 is getting up there.
Concurrent DP and LOC would be nice, but as mentioned earlier in the forum, it's expensive for developers. There needs to be a middle ground process, where a developer submits a land use application, along with a 'general' plan. A rendering showing the intended plans as far as:
-building materials
-scale
-number of floors
-general massing
-general outline for parking and access
-general location of CRUs
The land use getting approved is conditional on the DP being close to the general plan. If the DP varies too much from the general plan, the city can have the option to refuse the DP. I know it opens up some areas of subjectivity but if the developers submit a DP similar to what the concept plan was, it shouldn't be a problem.
Concurrent DP and LOC would be nice, but as mentioned earlier in the forum, it's expensive for developers. There needs to be a middle ground process, where a developer submits a land use application, along with a 'general' plan. A rendering showing the intended plans as far as:
-building materials
-scale
-number of floors
-general massing
-general outline for parking and access
-general location of CRUs
The land use getting approved is conditional on the DP being close to the general plan. If the DP varies too much from the general plan, the city can have the option to refuse the DP. I know it opens up some areas of subjectivity but if the developers submit a DP similar to what the concept plan was, it shouldn't be a problem.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
It's all relative when it comes to density, and I don't always agree that height is a problem, but design can be (in which height and street interface, shadows, flexibility of spaces are components). Here's a random brain dump and some useful statistics that might be worth throwing into the conversations:
Let's put Calgary into perspective with it's contemporaries closer to home. 10,000 people / km2 is a rough idea of what is required to support local pedestrian-oriented retail - sometimes more, sometimes less. Globally, 10,000 people /km2 is quite low in most European and Asian cities considered anywhere near vibrant, but for Canada it's not a bad place to start. Keep in mind that population density ignores the far harder to measure "bridge and tunnel" population (e.g. downtown is a good place for retail due to number of people who visit, not number of people who live there etc.) Destination streets always can get a vibrancy benefit by the tourist, non-local visitors.
The following table I threw together from 2016 Statscan data. Here's the link for the data-nerd folks link. Also there are definitions of what a Census Tract (CT) is on there, I won't get into it here. By 2021 I think all these cities will see a few more census tracts over the arbitrary threshold. Most importantly for folks that dream of a more urban Calgary that demands more urban designs and has more urban vibrancy (whatever that means to you), the total population living at higher densities is important for political, economic and cultural clout:
| City | Number of CTs over 10,000 people / km2 | Population living at 10,000 people / km2 |
| Edmonton | 1 | 5,362 |
| Calgary | 2 | 14,163 |
| Ottawa | 5 | 25,900 |
| Vancouver | 43 | 227,000 |
| Toronto | 121 | 690,000 |
| Montreal | 180 | 590,000 |
- The densest Census Tract in Alberta is in Calgary, in the Beltline's most developed core area - roughly 14 to 8 St W, 10 to 17 Ave S. This stretch has a 2016 population of 8,109 and a density of 14,134 / km2. This area will see further density increases in 2021 census due to all the residential towers near the Midtown CO-OP that should be counted by then.
- We *may* have a third CT over the density threshold in 2021, essentially the other central chunk of the Beltline from 10 to 17 Ave S and 8 St W to Macleod-ish due to the growth in the area
- Interesting side-fact: Alberta only had 3 census tracts with over 10,000 people / km2 in 2016 (2 Calgary, 1 Edmonton)
- Inglewood gets unfairly screwed in Statscan analysis by the geographic threshold of it's CT, it's too small of a population so get lumped into a giant area including the railyards with only 4,078 people. Obviously this creates a very low density (770 people / km2). The City's geographies are more generous, giving the neighbourhood somewhere double that (~1,500 people/km2) if we use the City's neighbourhood boundary.
- In general Calgary's density takes a hit for CT-based density calculations due to our far greater supply of open space getting lumped into the area calculations. This is due to mostly to our far above average supply of park space and rivers/floodways, followed closely by our really low lot coverage rations from lawns, setbacks and wasted space between built structures.
Last edited:
Rollerstud98
Active Member
Should be awarded historic car dealership site status and preserved lol
MJC
New Member
There is no compensation paid to the community for this density either. Developer will earn $30k + / per additional residential unit allowed & approximately $50 per additional buildable SF (probably more on Atlantic). So on a 21,083 SF site here, if you increase FAR from 3.0 (proposed Historic East ARP) to 6.5, there is an additional buildable 73,800 SF - worth $3.7 MM. What is the community going to get out of that? In Kensington we would get $130,000 for street improvements, public street furniture, ect. I think the deal is only slightly better in Inglewood, still a pittance. City is talking about reinvesting the property tax lift funds from redevelopment but I'll believe it when I see it.
I inherently don't support the density for density's sake argument. Most people in Calgary don't want Seoul density. We will never be a Toronto either, so don't need to aspire to have Toronto density. I think small cities have their own appeal we can be proud of on its own terms. Look at the Economist Intelligence Unit most livable cities...almost all of them are smaller.
There are many, many, many parking lots throughout the city that should be a target before dozing communities and houses for towers. Downtown is spot density with vast, unwalkable stretches of parking lots. I think towers in small cities actually hurts the entire connectivity of a community as it makes for longer cycles between development and then long oversupplied holding periods where developers hold out until the next cycle, guarding an inflated land value.
I don't think downtown Calgary is an urban place either. Can't even find an open coffee shop on the weekend.
I inherently don't support the density for density's sake argument. Most people in Calgary don't want Seoul density. We will never be a Toronto either, so don't need to aspire to have Toronto density. I think small cities have their own appeal we can be proud of on its own terms. Look at the Economist Intelligence Unit most livable cities...almost all of them are smaller.
There are many, many, many parking lots throughout the city that should be a target before dozing communities and houses for towers. Downtown is spot density with vast, unwalkable stretches of parking lots. I think towers in small cities actually hurts the entire connectivity of a community as it makes for longer cycles between development and then long oversupplied holding periods where developers hold out until the next cycle, guarding an inflated land value.
I don't think downtown Calgary is an urban place either. Can't even find an open coffee shop on the weekend.
JoeUrban
Active Member
This is super interesting data, and one that helps explain to me "Why are Toronto residential communities so vibrant while being mostly homes"?
An example is the Annex. (Korea Town, Little Italy, etc are similar)
Primarily turn of the century brick duplex or row houses.
2.81 sq km
17k dwelling units
30,000 people.
so just over the 10k people / km2
Many of these innercity homes in Toronto have 2 or even 3 units (basement, main floor, and sometimes loft attic) and look similar to this (although often not this fancy)
This combined with tons of turn of the century to mid century small unit CRUs = original built form with the necessary population + huge variety of retail options, I've counted as much as 18 CRUs per 100m side (36 CRUs both sides of the block over 100 m)
In Calgary we try to create the density population through towers and the like. But in theory if we allowed secondary suites throughout the innercity, including 25 ft lots, then that is the alternative to retain a lower form.
Also note that the vast majority of residential, even close to downtown in Toronto has an FAR of 1.0
Last edited:
JoeUrban
Active Member
Well I think the thing is density, and specifically density in the form of taller buildings should be looked at as one of several tools that can be used to fix a specific issue.
It should not be a religion, nor a compensation package for the development industry.
And the vast majority of Toronto is dense by way of suited duplex and rowhouses, not towers, at least outside of the CBD.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
This is exactly what I've always thought. Fill up empty parking lots before building towers. I'm not a fan of the way development is going in the east Beltline with a cluster of tall towers surrounded by empty lots. The tall towers are better than the empty lots that were there, but I would far rather see a dozen low rise developments (Marda/Lido/Ezra) around east Beltline than the tower guardian towers.
Sure, I like the odd tall one here and there, but we really need to fill up empty lots before adding really tall residential towers. It's one of the reasons I'm not opposed to this one.
I agree 100% about the Seoul type density. I lived in Hong Kong for 3 months, and loved it at first, but the ultra high density wears on you quickly.
Sure, I like the odd tall one here and there, but we really need to fill up empty lots before adding really tall residential towers. It's one of the reasons I'm not opposed to this one.
I agree 100% about the Seoul type density. I lived in Hong Kong for 3 months, and loved it at first, but the ultra high density wears on you quickly.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
Toronto gets much of its density from a mix of towers and rowhomes, duplexes.
The best example I think is Montreal. High density more evenly spread out. It's not a city of high rises, but high density neighborhoods built up from low rise multifamily housing.
The best example I think is Montreal. High density more evenly spread out. It's not a city of high rises, but high density neighborhoods built up from low rise multifamily housing.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
For "compensation to communities", I agree it's a mess. I would choose the wording of funding investments in inner city as opposed to "compensation".
Calgary has never had a real good plan to fund inner city neighbourhood improvements, the machine is entirely setup to fund and create new communities (although that is slowly changing). The current state is that funding is ad-hoc, inconsistent, insufficient and randomly applied over the years as political and organizational fortunes shifted. Giant mega-projects are always possible but missed is the rest of it.
Much effort has been place to pin costs on developers for impacts around their sites (the idea being they are the ones triggering the changes, therefore they should pay). However there are lots of problems with this approach on outcomes (money collected from small developments is hard to spend as it's too small, the developer bonusing gives things that the community doesn't really need etc.) Tax uplift isn't a silver bullet either as it only generates returns over long time frames and doesn't solve problems in areas with limited redevelopment (most areas).
Much less effort has been placed on developing a sustainable and effective public realm and infrastructure maintenance system. Add twice the foot traffic through density, there is no trigger to add twice the sidewalk automatically (unlike a road traffic increase). Instead it's a big political deal, with plans being drawn up over years of engagement, horse-trading between public groups, city departments, and Councilors for budgets. The results are slow and limited, as evidence by the state of nearly every popular pedestrian street in the city. Meanwhile that extra turning lane has been quietly added at every suburban intersection that needed it with no fan-fare.
What I would like to see is the development of those mechanisms that automatically invest in neighbourhoods that see density and growth much like those suburban intersections that keep getting bigger. Sidewalks should be automatically widened, service levels should automatically increase in all public realm areas. Less pressure should be placed on developments to solve all our problems, more placed on allocating revenues already in the system as they can be used beyond the immediate development area far more easily. This would create a far more tight and visible connection between what we are investing in (the pedestrian realm) and why we are investing in it (because there are more people walking in it).
Last edited:
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Also lot-line to lot-line development as the standard and zero off-site parking requirements.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Yeah the parking issue is what I'm still looking into. The main resistance to secondary suites here is parking-related so I'm curious how that went over in Toronto where you might have 3 suites on a 25 foot wide lot with no alley.
Edit: Looks like it was a directive of the Province as an affordable housing tool.
Cowtown
Senior Member
I'm not sure why people are using this development as an argument against highrises as density. It's barely a high rise at 12 storeys. I agree that it would be better at say, 9 floors, and that's probably what the end result will be, but Inglewood isn't going to be a neighborhood with high rises any time soon.
As for The Grid, it was a true high rise, but with it's location, the height wasn't an issue.
As for The Grid, it was a true high rise, but with it's location, the height wasn't an issue.