haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Ever been to Manhattan? One way streets aren’t the problem.
Manhattan and Calgary are not comparable, at all. One way streets in that city serve the purpose of moving as many people through a space as possible. This is becoming less desirable as a means to neighborhood building as we learn more about the disadvantages, and as we move toward constructing spaces where people live, work and play. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were a plan in the works for Manhattan to attempt two-way conversion in the near future.Ever been to Manhattan? One way streets aren’t the problem.
Ever been to Manhattan? One way streets aren’t the problem.
Agree 100% Plus the 1 ways are lined with parked cars on both sides with the exception of a few hours for rush hour, similar to the 2 ways in the area. The problem with downtown Calgary is it's a vertical 9-5 office park. Add many more residents and the area will change to suit.Ever been to Manhattan? One way streets aren’t the problem.
Does the City of Calgary have a “percent for public art” program?Don't worry about it, it's Calgary additional density is free with no public benefit needed. I would really like to start seeing some community or environmental benefit (even elevated design would be acceptable) to achieve higher densities. Honestly, 10 FAR is 5 FAR more than this site needs.
As I am aware the City of Calgary has a density bonusing program only for the Centre City. The application of density bonusing exists outside of the Beltline and Downtown on an ad hoc basis (i recall this being a part of the conversation related to the DC district created for RNDSQR Block).Does the City of Calgary have a “percent for public art” program?
I live in Mission and really wish we could get more ground-oriented housing forms (townhouses, stacked towns). But you're not wrong it could use the land more efficiently. One of the building types i'd like to see is low-rise hybrid buildings:IMO, The Cliff Bungalow/Misson area deserves higher density developments. A mid-rise or a small highrise tower can go up on this land but instead, it's rowhomes. Nothing wrong with rowhomes but this sort of development is better suited for an inner-city area like Bankview or Hillhurst. I see Cliff Bungalow/Mission as a spillover of the Beltline. Relative to the area, this is a pretty low-density development and inefficient use of the land given the prominent location. Better just to flip the land to a bigger developer.
I don't mind this although i find that townhouse product in mission always shoots for larger "luxury/executive" unit sizes above 2,000sf and I really wish they would focus on skinnier units, with tandem garages at the 1,200-1,600 sf range. Maybe use interlocked top floors to allow for alternating 3-bedroom units mid-building.