General Construction Updates

[JonnyCanuck]

You know one of the biggest problems here is that the city centre right now only caters to the younger crowd and not as effectively as Vancouver, Montreal, or Toronto. If you look at the forecasts for the population group between 20-34 its actually projected to shrink from where we are today. .

Wow ... if this holds true, who is going to be renting the 2000+ apartments that are either under construction or about to start?

 

[Spring2008]

Some good points, but I'm not sure what else you can do to attract families to Downtown/Beltline besides focusing on safety, playgrounds/parkspaces, and similar amenities which the city is doing quite well in. Most parents would choose not to live in a highrise, me included. In Van/TO families are living in small apartments because they can't afford a townhouse/detached house etc. and even if they could afford million dollar plus houses, they're not willing to commute 1-2 hrs each way to get to downtown. Anecdotally, I notice a lot of young families in Calgary's inner-ring communities, so I think the City is doing well on this front. The new RC-G zoning for example is making rowhousing easier to build. Most of our inner-city communities are clean, safe, with lots of new playgrounds/parkspace, good amount of schools. It's a big win for attracting more families in these established neighborhoods versus sprawl. This is one of the key way Calgary will add density over the next few decades.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I think the new zoning could be a game changer. Plenty of people with families love the inner city and would be quite happy in a rowhouse, or low rise, in neighborhoods like Hillhurst or Sunnyside, or say a bit further out like Killarney, Capital Hill, Renfrew, etc..
While not a huge boost to density, small and medium increases to inner city neighborhoods, still helps build up the core, and helps offset sprawl. Just as important as the tall towers.

Some good points, but I'm not sure what else you can do to attract families to Downtown/Beltline besides focusing on safety, playgrounds/parkspaces, and similar amenities which the city is doing quite well in. Most parents would choose not to live in a highrise, me included. In Van/TO families are living in small apartments because they can't afford a townhouse/detached house etc. and even if they could afford million dollar plus houses, they're not willing to commute 1-2 hrs each way to get to downtown. Anecdotally, I notice a lot of young families in Calgary's inner-ring communities, so I think the City is doing well on this front. The new RC-G zoning for example is making rowhousing easier to build. Most of our inner-city communities are clean, safe, with lots of new playgrounds/parkspace, good amount of schools. It's a big win for attracting more families in these established neighborhoods versus sprawl. This is one of the key way Calgary will add density over the next few decades.

 

[retrofiturbanism]

You know one of the biggest problems here is that the city centre right now only caters to the younger crowd and not as effectively as Vancouver, Montreal, or Toronto. If you look at the forecasts for the population group between 20-34 its actually projected to shrink from where we are today. If the city is determined to grow the inner city, they're gonna need to start making policy changes. You can hardly raise a family in the beltline or downtown with a 2 bedroom condo, on top of that there aren't enough perks to convince a lot of the younger crowd to live downtown with the higher rents and condo prices. Most of my friends have begun moving to Toronto or Vancouver. The only thing that really retained the younger crowd in Calgary was the prosperity of the oil boom, now that the economy has sunk, not only is net migration of younger crowds from other provinces going to be hard but they're gonna think twice about living in a lesser lively city. And lastly, going back to overall perks of living in the city centre, the most important issue IMO is the lack of services. Our whole Beltline and downtown should be connected with a street car or an underground tube/train that allows people to move around the core of our city effectively, the Green line will help somewhat but lets just say ur living in the west end of the beltline, it becomes a long mission to get to a mall like the Core as parking is out of the question. IMO, I think the city cares but not enough to try, they always bring an initial hype but so far a lot of their visions have never followed through. They've been trying to fix downtown for decades through development plans for Eau Claire, Westend downtown and now East village and it looks like they've pretty much given up for any real future fixes. Not to be rude but sometimes I go to these Development Open houses and its just older people (nice people) that really don't know what they're talking about, we need people that understand how other global cities are vibrant with a younger vision in mind, not a 60 year old telling me what the city expects to have out of an entertainment district (no disrespect). I would be even open to the idea of having people from Vancouver, London or other vibrant cities employed with our cities planning organizations like CMLC and jointly tackle our core.

It's perfectly fine that Beltline is primarily a young professional or retiree community. The same goes for many centres of large cities. Families can't afford it so they move just a little further out. And when you say that there are not enough perks to convince young people to live in the Beltline, why have 6500 of them done so in the last 10 years?

But agreed on the streetcar. There should be one between Beltline, Kensington, 16th avenue N, Bridgeland and East Village.

 

[Social Justice]

You know one of the biggest problems here is that the city centre right now only caters to the younger crowd and not as effectively as Vancouver, Montreal, or Toronto. If you look at the forecasts for the population group between 20-34 its actually projected to shrink from where we are today. If the city is determined to grow the inner city, they're gonna need to start making policy changes. You can hardly raise a family in the beltline or downtown with a 2 bedroom condo, on top of that there aren't enough perks to convince a lot of the younger crowd to live downtown with the higher rents and condo prices. Most of my friends have begun moving to Toronto or Vancouver. The only thing that really retained the younger crowd in Calgary was the prosperity of the oil boom, now that the economy has sunk, not only is net migration of younger crowds from other provinces going to be hard but they're gonna think twice about living in a lesser lively city. And lastly, going back to overall perks of living in the city centre, the most important issue IMO is the lack of services. Our whole Beltline and downtown should be connected with a street car or an underground tube/train that allows people to move around the core of our city effectively, the Green line will help somewhat but lets just say ur living in the west end of the beltline, it becomes a long mission to get to a mall like the Core as parking is out of the question. IMO, I think the city cares but not enough to try, they always bring an initial hype but so far a lot of their visions have never followed through. They've been trying to fix downtown for decades through development plans for Eau Claire, Westend downtown and now East village and it looks like they've pretty much given up for any real future fixes. Not to be rude but sometimes I go to these Development Open houses and its just older people (nice people) that really don't know what they're talking about, we need people that understand how other global cities are vibrant with a younger vision in mind, not a 60 year old telling me what the city expects to have out of an entertainment district (no disrespect). I would be even open to the idea of having people from Vancouver, London or other vibrant cities employed with our cities planning organizations like CMLC and jointly tackle our core.

I agree with the general gist of the post. Three bedroom units and more services have always been an issue that should be addressed. However, I think initiatives such as the Beltline Art Mural project give the neighborhood more soul.

Condo prices and rents have been decreasing year over year since 2014. In fact, I wish I waited to buy my place:

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/...rentPage=1&ZoomLevel=15&PropertyTypeGroupID=1

Check this guy out:
https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/...V-SW-Beltline-Calgary-Alberta-T3C3R6-Beltline

550sf, one bedroom, 4th floor for $149,000. it's not fancy but you'll never see that price point in Vancouver or Toronto.

 

[CBBarnett]

One concept that is missing from Calgary - I think it speaks to gSunnys' point - is that Calgary lacks an "urban tradition" like we see in Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver. We have centre city boosters and promoters over the years, but almost all of their focus hasn't been on the inner city as a whole, really just the office core ( e.g. promoting entertainment districts not fighting to preserve the Victoria Park mixed-density housing stock that has long since been converted to parking lots). No current councillors live in the centre city that I am aware, and I would guess only a handful in the past 40 years have either. Few - if any - take transit regularly. Some are active in the bicycle / walkability side of things, but always a minority among the larger pool of suburban councillors.

My point being is we (i.e. everyone involved in decision-making, projects, transportation policies, developers etc.) have long equated downtown CBD = centre city with only a rounding-error worth of attention/funding paid to the other areas we speak of when we talk about residents and inner city vibrancy. To gSunnys point, Montreal and Toronto's centre cities and inner neighbourhoods have always had more to offer, including the social/political/economic ecosystem that promotes - or at least retains - their livability and attractiveness (major caveats of course during the modernist 1950-1970 era of freeways plowing through centres of these cities).

As a result of this missing "urban tradition", regime after regime of decision-makers, residents, voters etc. have neglected to invest in the real stuff that makes inner cities livable. Look at the condition of our sidewalks (e.g. no clear right-of-way including permanent random power boxes, poles, trash bins; variable & random widths to facilitate autos, poor closure controls, bad and inconsistent conditions etc.) for a small and daily reminder that no one setting policies really has cared / cares about the urban experience in the way that are taken for granted in Montreal and Toronto.

With population comes votes and money, which drives investment and political clout. I hope this starts tipping the balance back a bit. These green shoots of inner city focus are tiny compared to the work it takes to develop the systems of inner city support and sustainment that are ubiquitous in much of Toronto and Montreal, but its a start. I do feel it might take a more aggressive / revolutionary reform of our local governance processes to truly achieve what the inner city needs for political support though.

Inner city succession from Greater Calgary anyone?

 

[kora]

Look at the condition of our sidewalks (e.g. no clear right-of-way including permanent random power boxes, poles, trash bins; variable & random widths to facilitate autos, poor closure controls, bad and inconsistent conditions etc.) for a small and daily reminder that no one setting policies really has cared / cares about the urban experience in the way that are taken for granted in Montreal and Toronto.

I don't think we have to look much further than the failed reconstruction of 17th Avenue to show where priorities lie. It's basically a glorified utility replacement scheme with no actual improvement in sidewalk width. The sidewalk that was widened by 30 cm was in the largely unusable space between trees and curbs.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I hope this so called optimism in Calgary is based on more than surveys, ratings or just 'we have been in a recession so long now, we are due for a recovery' sentiment. We still need many more good paying jobs to attract people from out of province to move here, particularly in the inner city.
The population and employment projections over the next 4 years, that were shared in another thread, do not echo a spike in residential condo development. We already know that commercial development in the inner city will be capped for years to come.

It's worth keeping in mind that Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver consistently have below-average income levels and above-average unemployment rates, and this hasn't slowed their growth. There's a few reasons for this.

First, a lot of migration is driven by consumption, not employment. People move to places where they can have access to health care, education, a suitable place to live, low crime rates, livability, etc. They look for employment or start businesses once they arrive. This is the primary reason that Canada is attractive to immigrants who are willing to quit their jobs as doctors or engineers in their home countries and drive cabs in Canada.

To the extent that large cities provide better access to things like hospitals, schools, and universities, it's also why a lot of Canadians migrate to large cities. The "meds and eds" are the main drivers of urban growth.

The biggest cities attract the most growth, but not without limits. High rents and commute times are some of the consequences of rapid growth, which will push people to look for alternative places to live.

Finally, a lot of the work that needs to be done in the service-oriented economy must be done within cities, but not any city in particular. Businesses need need lawyers, accountants, airports, potential employees, etc, which can typically be accessed in any city of over 1 million people.

All of this basically means that there is a good chance that Calgary continues to grow with or without the oil industry. Hell, even Detroit's population has seen continual growth over the past 100 years for these very reasons (so long as you look at metro Detroit rather than the inner-city).

 

[Cowtown]

Very true. So many other cities without an oil and gas industry continue to grow....just not on hyper-warp like Calgary has over the last 50 or so years.

Funny thing you mention Detroit. My cousin from Winnipeg thinks Calgary will be the next Detroit, and he once asked me "What would Calgary be without the oil industry?" My reply A larger version of Winnipeg.

It's worth keeping in mind that Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver consistently have below-average income levels and above-average unemployment rates, and this hasn't slowed their growth. There's a few reasons for this.

First, a lot of migration is driven by consumption, not employment. People move to places where they can have access to health care, education, a suitable place to live, low crime rates, livability, etc. They look for employment or start businesses once they arrive. This is the primary reason that Canada is attractive to immigrants who are willing to quit their jobs as doctors or engineers in their home countries and drive cabs in Canada.

To the extent that large cities provide better access to things like hospitals, schools, and universities, it's also why a lot of Canadians migrate to large cities. The "meds and eds" are the main drivers of urban growth.

The biggest cities attract the most growth, but not without limits. High rents and commute times are some of the consequences of rapid growth, which will push people to look for alternative places to live.

Finally, a lot of the work that needs to be done in the service-oriented economy must be done within cities, but not any city in particular. Businesses need need lawyers, accountants, airports, potential employees, etc, which can typically be accessed in any city of over 1 million people.

All of this basically means that there is a good chance that Calgary continues to grow with or without the oil industry. Hell, even Detroit's population has seen continual growth over the past 100 years for these very reasons (so long as you look at metro Detroit rather than the inner-city).

 

[gsunnyg]

It's perfectly fine that Beltline is primarily a young professional or retiree community. The same goes for many centres of large cities. Families can't afford it so they move just a little further out. And when you say that there are not enough perks to convince young people to live in the Beltline, why have 6500 of them done so in the last 10 years?

But agreed on the streetcar. There should be one between Beltline, Kensington, 16th avenue N, Bridgeland and East Village.

https://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Documents/community_social_statistics/beltline.pdf?noredirect=1
Heres the point I'm trying to get at, the cities centre communities don't draw nearly enough young folks as it should. If you look at the link and pick an age group optimal to live in the Beltline, 25-34, we have a total of 9205 females and males living in the Beltline in 2014 vs 210851 overall population for the 25-34 age group in the city. Thats barely 4.36% of the overall population of 24-35 year olds living in the Beltline which is suppose to be the leading youth driven area in the city. Moreover adding all sections of the Downtown and Mission, I still don't think the calculations would get close enough to reach 10% of the overall population living in the city centre. I understand many choose to live at home longer now due to economic circumstances or other outlying factors such as having a children at an early age. But from what I see in the data, those are pretty weak numbers. I know many other inner city neighbourhoods are drawing the younger folks like Kensington but too say the Beltline is doing enough to attract youth, I don't think so, I'm just reading the stats and the numbers look pretty mediocre. There's a lot of room for improvement, and if this age group is expected to decline over the years then we're going to need to do more to draw other demographic groups in as well. There was a time when I was younger and almost everything important use to be in Downtown but unlike Vancouver and Toronto, this isn't the case anymore. If you want the best shopping experience you go to Chinook Mall, if you want diverse cuisine you go to the NE, etc. The suburbs have everything that the core offers and much more. I'm not being pessimistic, Im trying to be critical, we can do a much better job other than just sticking up highrises everywhere.

 

[Spring2008]

Yes, I like the uptick in midrise too in places like Mission, Kensington, Bridgeland, Ingelewood, Marda Loop etc. Families/older people are more drawn to this product as well and it's a good way to add density to many commercial areas outside of City Centre. Most people in the general population don't like living in highrises. Great to see many different housing product, best way to add diversity within inner-city. Still have room for a ton more and then there's the inner ring suburbs to deal with eventually.

Ah yes. I was getting Curtis Block mixed up with the Oxford proposal...which is a ways off of course. Same for the next phases of Portfolio.

We're heading in the right direction, and having places like the Royal open up with a Canadian Tire/Urban Fare and 5th and 3rd opening up a Loblaws is helping push that progress. I'd love to see the east end of 17th pick up on the development side. As much as I like tall towers, I'd also like to see some more low-mid rise projects go up around the east end of the Beltline and EV.

 

[retrofiturbanism]

. However, I think initiatives such as the Beltline Art Mural project give the neighborhood more soul.

Thanks!

 

[Stephen Ave]

Sad but true. 17th Ave. was already fine as it is, they could’ve spent the money fixing up an avenue that really needed it like 10th Ave.

I don't think we have to look much further than the failed reconstruction of 17th Avenue to show where priorities lie. It's basically a glorified utility replacement scheme with no actual improvement in sidewalk width. The sidewalk that was widened by 30 cm was in the largely unusable space between trees and curbs.

 

[Stephen Ave]

Calgary the next Detroit. Lol. Give your cousin a smack in the head for me would you.

Very true. So many other cities without an oil and gas industry continue to grow....just not on hyper-warp like Calgary has over the last 50 or so years.

Funny thing you mention Detroit. My cousin from Winnipeg thinks Calgary will be the next Detroit, and he once asked me "What would Calgary be without the oil industry?" My reply A larger version of Winnipeg.

 

[Social Justice]

https://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Documents/community_social_statistics/beltline.pdf?noredirect=1
Heres the point I'm trying to get at, the cities centre communities don't draw nearly enough young folks as it should. If you look at the link and pick an age group optimal to live in the Beltline, 25-34, we have a total of 9205 females and males living in the Beltline in 2014 vs 210851 overall population for the 25-34 age group in the city. Thats barely 4.36% of the overall population of 24-35 year olds living in the Beltline which is suppose to be the leading youth driven area in the city. Moreover adding all sections of the Downtown and Mission, I still don't think the calculations would get close enough to reach 10% of the overall population living in the city centre. I understand many choose to live at home longer now due to economic circumstances or other outlying factors such as having a children at an early age. But from what I see in the data, those are pretty weak numbers. I know many other inner city neighbourhoods are drawing the younger folks like Kensington but too say the Beltline is doing enough to attract youth, I don't think so, I'm just reading the stats and the numbers look pretty mediocre. There's a lot of room for improvement, and if this age group is expected to decline over the years then we're going to need to do more to draw other demographic groups in as well. There was a time when I was younger and almost everything important use to be in Downtown but unlike Vancouver and Toronto, this isn't the case anymore. If you want the best shopping experience you go to Chinook Mall, if you want diverse cuisine you go to the NE, etc. The suburbs have everything that the core offers and much more. I'm not being pessimistic, Im trying to be critical, we can do a much better job other than just sticking up highrises everywhere.

What would you suggest the city do to attract more young people to the City Centre?