West District | ?m | ?s | Truman

A lot of hours were spent coming up with the layout of the West District from the open spaces, the amenities and the block plans. Tripling the density of blocks to cash in on investors that don't give a shit about the community is going to have an impact. Simply abiding by taller towers are better or more people are better and labelling every other than schools as NIMBYism is not any more rationale than an actual NIMBY

The investor comment is a real thing. I'm not drawing any conclusions about West District here. However, I've seen similar plans changed for greater densities and actually constructed. The scale at streetlevel feels cold and claustrophobic and the interior courtyard amenity is cramped and dark.

To me, The height of the tallest tower in the latest block is less concerning than everything else on the block including the second tower and tall podium. It's reminds me of a slightly shorter Park Central which is expected in a downtown setting but, missing that family oriented human scale of inner suburbia.
 
trtcttc said:
Do we know the unit breakdown of the condos and how big they are? I live near a school with a recently completed apartment project nearby. It's those midrise types and have a good mix of 2/3 bedrooms. Lots of kids live there. Usually smaller families of 1 or 2 kids but it's not true that people with kids only live in SFHs. I don't know about these condos in detail but I can definitely see them targeting smaller families that cannot afford a SFH/duplex but still want to live in a desirable area with good amenities.

I was born in Asia and nobody I knew lived in a single family home, I didn't even know they existed until coming to Canada. Even in more rural areas there'd be small concentration of short apartments, but very few places with rows of SFH like North America. But I think it's not really a mindset but just when the cities developed. Older cities in NA had extensive transit and people lived in higher density areas. People just adapt to the land/population at the time and how convenient it would be to get around. Anyhow, it's important we allow people to have families in apartments and building apartments that support that. Calgary is much better than Vancouver/Toronto in that regard but definitely creeping towards shoebox condos. It's hard to prove a direct link, but there's likely a correlation between housing prices and people's willingness to have kids. At least I see it in my cohort of late millennials.
Click to expand...
What I’m seeing in my neighborhood is people with kids moving into the townhome builds. They’re more expensive than an apartment, but cheaper than a SFH. Those rowhomes offer a similar experience to SFHs in that you get the ground level living with two or three bedrooms.
Again, not cheap but still far more affordable than a SFH in an inner city hood.
 
On this West District tower debate - I think the design and quality of the development are great and there's no issues with towers or density. The average density of "typical" communities is so inefficiently low, a 3 or 4x density should be the norm always from places from previous eras like Coach Hill or Cougar Ridge. What they are proposing is fine in any community.

But I do have to wonder - why did we allow such a place to be built with poor transit access in the first place?

I am not against suburban density obviously, but this whole pocket was never on a long term plan or map, there was never a transit plan or project to extend or improve quality service to the area that I am aware of. At least the deep southeast's suburban density has an LRT right-of-way imagined for the Greenline (in a million years), East, NE and north central have similar plans that roughly align more density with future higher-order transit corridors.

West District has none of this but is ironically is building at more transit-friendly designs and densities that the other corridors so it will work out eventually - it's just a weird place for such density with non-existent transit plans. Perhaps it's a build it first, then transit will have no choice to serve it better one-day approach, but it really didn't align with existing plans and strategies from my outsider perspective.
 
CBBarnett said:
On this West District tower debate - I think the design and quality of the development are great and there's no issues with towers or density. The average density of "typical" communities is so inefficiently low, a 3 or 4x density should be the norm always from places from previous eras like Coach Hill or Cougar Ridge. What they are proposing is fine in any community.

But I do have to wonder - why did we allow such a place to be built with poor transit access in the first place?

I am not against suburban density obviously, but this whole pocket was never on a long term plan or map, there was never a transit plan or project to extend or improve quality service to the area that I am aware of. At least the deep southeast's suburban density has an LRT right-of-way imagined for the Greenline (in a million years), East, NE and north central have similar plans that roughly align more density with future higher-order transit corridors.

West District has none of this but is ironically is building at more transit-friendly designs and densities that the other corridors so it will work out eventually - it's just a weird place for such density with non-existent transit plans. Perhaps it's a build it first, then transit will have no choice to serve it better one-day approach, but it really didn't align with existing plans and strategies from my outsider perspective.
Click to expand...
Think to much thought is being given to Transit. This district is high end. Not many are going to be using the bus or LRT in their daily commute.
 
CBBarnett said:
On this West District tower debate - I think the design and quality of the development are great and there's no issues with towers or density. The average density of "typical" communities is so inefficiently low, a 3 or 4x density should be the norm always from places from previous eras like Coach Hill or Cougar Ridge. What they are proposing is fine in any community.

But I do have to wonder - why did we allow such a place to be built with poor transit access in the first place?

I am not against suburban density obviously, but this whole pocket was never on a long term plan or map, there was never a transit plan or project to extend or improve quality service to the area that I am aware of. At least the deep southeast's suburban density has an LRT right-of-way imagined for the Greenline (in a million years), East, NE and north central have similar plans that roughly align more density with future higher-order transit corridors.

West District has none of this but is ironically is building at more transit-friendly designs and densities that the other corridors so it will work out eventually - it's just a weird place for such density with non-existent transit plans. Perhaps it's a build it first, then transit will have no choice to serve it better one-day approach, but it really didn't align with existing plans and strategies from my outsider perspective.
Click to expand...
I think they could kind of easily turn the train north at 85th and have the West Blue Line terminus be at West District. You can capture the dense area by Spring Bank Hill and West District. Will that SW part of the city keep growing out past Stoney? I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Golfing guy said:
Think to much thought is being given to Transit. This district is high end. Not many are going to be using the bus or LRT in their daily commute.
Click to expand...
Even if this was true - seniors, retail workers, housekeepers, university students and teenagers exist in mixed use districts like this, some of which will be likely to use transit.

But it's not true - the West leg of the Blue line isn't the busiest of the lines, but still sees 30,000+ "high-end" office works a day use public transit. Obviously transit isn't just for the lower classes. Transit attracts everyone when it's planned for and designed to work fast for people.

The question is why something like West District didn't seem to take transit in consideration when first approved at the substantial density it's planned for (and even more of a question now asking for even more density).
 
CBBarnett said:
Even if this was true - seniors, retail workers, housekeepers, university students and teenagers exist in mixed use districts like this, some of which will be likely to use transit.

But it's not true - the West leg of the Blue line isn't the busiest of the lines, but still sees 30,000+ "high-end" office works a day use public transit. Obviously transit isn't just for the lower classes. Transit attracts everyone when it's planned for and designed to work fast for people.

The question is why something like West District didn't seem to take transit in consideration when first approved at the substantial density it's planned for (and even more of a question now asking for even more density).
Click to expand...
West district transit users can jump on a bus and be at the blue line 69st station in 10 mins. Maybe an express route when WD is built out. Not every development needs to be on a LRT line
 
CBBarnett said:
The question is why something like West District didn't seem to take transit in consideration when first approved at the substantial density it's planned for (and even more of a question now asking for even more density).
Click to expand...
From the Community Guide:
"West District will be host to a transit hub featuring multiple connecting bus routes, as well as nearby 69th Street C-Train Station being a short commute by bus."
The area is already served by two bus routes (98 to 69th Street & 111 to Westbrook) with potential to increase service.
 
Bobjim2000 said:
From the Community Guide:
"West District will be host to a transit hub featuring multiple connecting bus routes, as well as nearby 69th Street C-Train Station being a short commute by bus."
The area is already served by two bus routes (98 to 69th Street & 111 to Westbrook) with potential to increase service.
Click to expand...
The block to the north of Rise is where they put the location for that transit hub. Apparently going to be a proper "off-street" terminal
 
whatchyyc said:
I'd wonder if Truman is pushing the density further past the original plans makes it possible to one day extend the Blue Line north to WD rather than the current Aspen terminus plan
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it would worth the massive price tag to push the Blue Line that extra few miles. I would think it would over half a billion $$
 
Golfing guy said:
I’m not sure it would worth the massive price tag to push the Blue Line that extra few miles. I would think it would over half a billion $$
Click to expand...
With the other major density cluster around 85th Street, you can probably achieve most of the benefit with a 85th Street station extension + upgraded service levels to the 98 and other local buses, rather than a further and much more expensive Blue line extension all the way to West District. The caveat is that the 85th Street Station has to be located and designed right -current planned location of the 85th Street station is poor.
 
The density level is satisfactory although a more comprehensive initial consideration of transit systems should have been conducted. Implementing better bus service and extending the Blue Line network would have proven wiser than focusing on high-end users alone. Could’ve planned that better.
 
I think a large amount of backlash here is simply people's conceptions of what "towers" are. The first phase of Rise is only 320 units. You don't need to build a tower to accomodate that. It could have easily just been a typical suburban 8-10-storey midrise with underground parking. The reason Truman decided to go with the point tower form was to allow for a public amenity courtyard and wider sidewalks, as well as create a distinctive skyline for the community as a whole.

But I doubt a 320-unit midrise would make the front page of the news. It seems to me that the loaded language of "towers" is carrying much more weight here than is actually warranted. Of course, there are already towers in the area (Oddessy) as well as a 250m broadcast tower directly west of the site but since people have already been accustomed to them, they are largely out of sight and out of mind. I think people primed with this language of "towers" are thinking of large oppressive office buildings rather than what is actually being proposed here. People can and will argue about services, roads, or transit but the reality is if this were a similar-size proposal without any towers involved, there would be no backlash and it would hardly be mentioned. That's how Mondrian, Plaza, Gateway, Oak and Olive, etc. got through with no trouble. Now all of a sudden you add 10 more storeys and everyone is up in arms.

In fact, just down the road at Springbank Hill, Truman's 731-unit Willows Phase 4 midrise complex was approved with zero protest or backlash against it. Perception seems to be key here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top