Or 5 minutes by people mover
Stampede Station | 270m | 69s | Truman | NORR
- Thread starter ZoomZoom42
- Start date
24 hours old and the thread has 15K views. I imagine this will be a popular thread.
Tothewest
Active Member
Id say 10–12 (splitting hairs i know lol…). It cant be understated just how important the rejigging of the VP LRt station was….being able to cross macleo and walk on foot on the NW side of BMO and obv down 17th. Pretty quick connection, and significant customer base for the buildout of stampede trail. Every NHL team and touring act would now stay at these 2 properties.
maestro
Senior Member
$1.2 billion. That's probably the value of everything Truman has under construction right now. Those will be some pricey condos. A joint partner has been revealed.
louson.ca
Residential – Louson
louson.ca
ZoomZoom42
New Member
I can assure you, the Truman plans to build these announced. If it changes, it won't be because Truman scaled it back. At one point, they considered heights of 80- floors and 55 floors.
To answer another question I saw, this project is properly funded. It was in the works long before the smaller hotel was in the mix.
uofc888
New Member
Great to hear! I understand the DP's are being submitted next week, but any hints for the actual height of both towers?
aryanoboi
New Member
Based on the announcement that both towers will be the city’s tallest, my guess is ~250m and ~270m respectively.
900ft is a nice number which equals out to 274m, so that’ll be my guess for the 69 storey tower.
Nimbus
Active Member
Nothing but "nice" numbers for the 69 storey one.
Nimbus
Active Member
Here is the Eyeopener interview from this morning:
CtrlAltDel
New Member
Wanted to visualize what it could look like going north down Macleod Trail. Maybe something like this?
Hopefully by then, that house on the left will have a new deck!
trtcttc
Senior Member
Are there any obvious residential areas that will be impacted by this? Considering the location, find it hard they'll have too much opposition. It's funny how city projects can be done with zero consultation - Cowboys park, Scotia Place, Olympic Plaza, Victoria park station rebuild, etc. and a private investment in the exact same area is subject to consultation.
trtcttc
Senior Member
Surprised at the luxury residential given the current market conditions. The unit counts are pretty low that they'll be pretty expensive. Calgary is holding up ok, but I imagine a target audience for this is not just Calgary, but Toronto/Vancouver people as well.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
This reference to public engagement seems like a bit of a PR/marketing move more than a risk itself - I cannot recall a building in the Beltline ever being reduced in height due to community opposition, particularly not on the east side. We have that row of out-of-scale ugly condos on MacLeod Trail after all. Doesn't mean the application won't get a complaint or two - all those condos are losing their views - but public engagement has rarely cut the height of buildings in the way it's implied here in this location.
Now if they proposed 69-storeys in Marda Loop - yes, then I can see how public engagement might result in a height reduction. In Victoria Park? Nope - public engagement is just a PR/marketing plug now so they can point to something else as the cause if the project goes sideways in a year or two.
The application process would look at other stuff like shadow impacts on areas that are protected like the river pathways system. It's pretty far from everything that I can think of that would result in a shadow-based height reduction (like the Bow Tower on the Bow River).
Far, far, far more likely to disrupt this project than engagement feedback is changing economic conditions and unexpected cost increases. It's huge, luxury and based all assumptions of demand for high-spending travel and tourism. Years of construction leave it vulnerable for longer for a global recession, a financial crunch etc. which are way bigger risks than approvals on whether this happens or not IMO.
To be clear, the tourism trends are all positive right now - but those of us who have been around a while will remember charts that "always" point up can sometimes (unexpectedly) point aggressively down too.
Hopefully they can pull it off!
Albertasaurus
Active Member
I think they may require a land use amendment to achieve the desired FAR (correct me if I'm wrong) which automatically would open the door to some level of engagement. I don't expect there will be any concerns but there might be a slight chance of some Sasso/Vetro residents being upset at losing their views; of course, it's a given that highrises will go there someday, whether they are 60+ storeys or 35 storeys won't make a difference in the long run.