Calgcouver
Active Member
Wanted to discuss thoughts in East Victoria Park and I think this may be a case where CMLC should actively be looking for lower densities (ie. no more high-rises, only low and mid-rise).
Was looking at a few sites in East Victoria Park and was considering what would be reasonable for redevelopment considering the current level of saturation in the inner-city condo market, and what kind of a scale the neighbourhood should be. I am beginning to think that it should be exclusively low and mid-rise buildings, 3-10 storeys. Nothing taller. I think that by allowing too much height and density on the land, the land will be worth too much, and proformas will only work for towers. I want to see prices stay down and for smaller wall-to-wall parcels be created that would allow for more "heritage sized" lots and blocks, similar to older parts of Yaletown or Gastown in Vancouver. Gastown for instance, was largely either renovated in, or purpose-built in the 1990s, and is an interesting and distinct place even though it is only kind of faux-old. I think this land strategy would create what could be a distinct area of the city, by zoning the land for lower heights and densities we could develop at a smaller scale, and we could fill the blocks in more easily and keep the cost of developable land in the area at a reasonable level. It could be an interesting way to create a more "loft-style" community.
I have a feeling that CMLC will shoot for East Village heights and densities (and they appear to be), but if that is the case, we won't see any meaningful development in the area for decades. It will remain as unproductive bus barns and large surface parking lots for a long time. Largely because we don't need more land for high-rise towers, constrict it to the Beltline and Downtown to force developers to make more productive use of the inventory of lots and density allowed there, and too intentionally push development and adaptive re-use back to the core. Kind of the exact opposite approach as Vancouver haha.
It sometimes feels like the case that we have so much land available for towers, that we only get a few, very large developments, instead of a critical mass of smaller scale developments that would fill in all those unproductive surface parking lots all over this area and throughout the inner-city broadly.
CMLC's massing renders for East Vic Park.
I think developments like this Gastown/Crosstown development by Westbank would be a very appropriate scale and look for the East Victoria Park area. The taller of the too buildings should be the maximum height allowed in East Vic Park imo.
And this zoning could even be more supportive of stacked townhomes like this Roncesvalle example in Toronto;
or these:
I understand this is a lot of text, but really think that this should be the land strategy for CMLC, and I am curious what everyone here thinks, because i know most of you like towers, whereas I prefer continuous streetwalls and human-scale development.
Interested to see what you guys think would be the highest and best use of the land in East Victoria Park!
TLDR: I don't think their should be anymore high-rises as part of the Victoria Park land strategy by CMLC, fight me about it
Was looking at a few sites in East Victoria Park and was considering what would be reasonable for redevelopment considering the current level of saturation in the inner-city condo market, and what kind of a scale the neighbourhood should be. I am beginning to think that it should be exclusively low and mid-rise buildings, 3-10 storeys. Nothing taller. I think that by allowing too much height and density on the land, the land will be worth too much, and proformas will only work for towers. I want to see prices stay down and for smaller wall-to-wall parcels be created that would allow for more "heritage sized" lots and blocks, similar to older parts of Yaletown or Gastown in Vancouver. Gastown for instance, was largely either renovated in, or purpose-built in the 1990s, and is an interesting and distinct place even though it is only kind of faux-old. I think this land strategy would create what could be a distinct area of the city, by zoning the land for lower heights and densities we could develop at a smaller scale, and we could fill the blocks in more easily and keep the cost of developable land in the area at a reasonable level. It could be an interesting way to create a more "loft-style" community.
I have a feeling that CMLC will shoot for East Village heights and densities (and they appear to be), but if that is the case, we won't see any meaningful development in the area for decades. It will remain as unproductive bus barns and large surface parking lots for a long time. Largely because we don't need more land for high-rise towers, constrict it to the Beltline and Downtown to force developers to make more productive use of the inventory of lots and density allowed there, and too intentionally push development and adaptive re-use back to the core. Kind of the exact opposite approach as Vancouver haha.
It sometimes feels like the case that we have so much land available for towers, that we only get a few, very large developments, instead of a critical mass of smaller scale developments that would fill in all those unproductive surface parking lots all over this area and throughout the inner-city broadly.
CMLC's massing renders for East Vic Park.
I think developments like this Gastown/Crosstown development by Westbank would be a very appropriate scale and look for the East Victoria Park area. The taller of the too buildings should be the maximum height allowed in East Vic Park imo.
And this zoning could even be more supportive of stacked townhomes like this Roncesvalle example in Toronto;
or these:
I understand this is a lot of text, but really think that this should be the land strategy for CMLC, and I am curious what everyone here thinks, because i know most of you like towers, whereas I prefer continuous streetwalls and human-scale development.
Interested to see what you guys think would be the highest and best use of the land in East Victoria Park!
TLDR: I don't think their should be anymore high-rises as part of the Victoria Park land strategy by CMLC, fight me about it