I will 100% complain the car lanes will be too wide in the centre once this opens. I can call it now.
This project obviously cares about demonstrating they have parking and car access. Every rendering has parking and vehicles featured prominently. They even put it second of the bullet list of what the project actually is on their website, ahead of what is actually being built:
PHASE 1
- +/- 346,000 sf
- +/- 460 underground parking stalls
- Medical office, residential, retail and restaurant
- Project budget over $190M
Typical parking stalls are around 300sqft (180sqft for the stall itself + 120sqft each stalls share of ramps, circulation lanes etc.) So to get a sense of the scale here in car infrastructure investment, 138,000sqft of the project's Phase 1 is underground parking (28.4% of the total sqft being constructed). This doesn't include the temporary surface lots in the renderings, so there is additional stalls being provided in Phase 1 beyond what's needed. I don't know what costs are these days, but at $50,000/underground stall that's $23M gone into the parkade in Phase 1 alone.
Do they need this much parking?
I would (unsurprisingly) argue of course no they don't given the location and uses. Perhaps they feel they do need it, especially if they only imagined the traffic of today for the Foothills and not what is possible in the future over the life of the development. It's not particularly transit-oriented yet - given the low frequency of the MAX route - but a few blocks from U of C and across the road from a major employment centre should have been enough to expect many residents and visitors to be easily car-lite.
I also don't know what parking requirements were added by the city ( i.e. were they forced to build this much because of the bylaw? or just didn't bother asking for a relaxation?) Regardless, it's a pretty clear example of the magnitude of investment required to support car infrastructure at this scale.
That said, despite the limitation caused by such a vastly car-oriented approach and investment, the project appears to do a reasonably good job to be more welcoming and reasonable to pedestrians. It's a notably conservative project in that it pulls few innovative punches (in design, land use, parking etc.) and just does 2005 Calgary a bit better, rather than seeks to build 2050 Calgary.