Myles86
Active Member
The fact that Amsterdam's ring road is 32km while ours will be 100km with a similar urban population within the ring illustrates this perfectly
|
|
|
Infill Development Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
If only we were founded 900 years ago and were the capital of a major global empire for centuries. *sigh* C’est la vie.
MissingMiddle
Active Member
I generally agree that centuries and wealth tend to refine cities a lot more, especially when they were built before the automobile lobbyist groups. But even Amsterdam 30 years ago was a car sewer.
It's that position of helplessness that disregards so much of the agency we've had in modern planning. It's factually *more expensive* and *less efficient* to build sprawl in virtually every metric (including wellbeing). Also, Calgary has never lacked the capital to create a great city.
I know you generally agree with this, so it's not an argumentative point. I'm just pointing out that all of this was within our control, and we chose to dig our own grave - we're just having the realization while we're six feet deep with a shovel in our hand and still have the opportunity to do something about it, which is why it's worth pointing out.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Absolutely. What the Netherlands has been able to achieve in the last few decades is astonishing. Literally returning highways back to the rivers they paved over to create them. A monumental cost for renaturalization, yet we can scarcely imagine spending less money on for say, a grade separation of our transit through the inner city, let alone eliminating high speed traffic on Memorial in the inner city, or to remove essentially on ramps in areas that are crosswalks. We have a long ways to go. We have a highly educated and largely well-travelled population compared to the global and even first world average though. So I’m unsure why it’s so foreign to people to have a pedestrian-oriented city.
Our provincial government has always lacked vision, and has squandered our wealth on useless garbage (the “Ralph bucks” are a good example). They continue to squander our economic opportunities as well by creating such an unstable environment that Varcoe (I think that’s the company name) just pulled the plug on a $4 billion project in the Grande Prairie region. These are just two example of hundreds, if not thousands, as you all know, of the government of most of the last 60 years squandering tax dollars and destroying our economic potential merely for political gain. Leading to two of the wealthiest major cities in the industrialized world being used as examples of sprawl on a constant basis.
Our provincial government has always lacked vision, and has squandered our wealth on useless garbage (the “Ralph bucks” are a good example). They continue to squander our economic opportunities as well by creating such an unstable environment that Varcoe (I think that’s the company name) just pulled the plug on a $4 billion project in the Grande Prairie region. These are just two example of hundreds, if not thousands, as you all know, of the government of most of the last 60 years squandering tax dollars and destroying our economic potential merely for political gain. Leading to two of the wealthiest major cities in the industrialized world being used as examples of sprawl on a constant basis.
darwink
Senior Member
Take a look at the assessed values of the parcels in that box. I get that they can feel under utilized, but to generate redevelopment you need a rather large spread from current estimated value to future value.
Look further south, just north of Heritage at Macleod. Old car dealerships to mixed used apartments.
Or even the sw corner of glenmore and Macleod. The old car dealership. 2.4 acres at $7.2 million.
You go into the retail side and you have bed bath and beyond. 2.17 acres at $10.5 million. The Staples and connected animal hospital: $17.2 million for 3.23 acres. The entire mini mall with the red lobster: $14.2 million for 2.61 acres.
The density needed to generate that spread would be massive.
Agreed. I'm not necessarily advocating changing out the stores (though it would be nice), but more in regards to the surface parking that's often underused and for some parcels barely used at all.
As far as the parcels with the retail, are you saying the land values are such that it would be too costly to develop a residential building? Not disagreeing, just clarifying.
As far as the parcels with the retail, are you saying the land values are such that it would be too costly to develop a residential building? Not disagreeing, just clarifying.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
Would it? I added per-acre values to your comment, just as a comparison; the commercial sites you mention are mostly ballpark $5M/acre. Chinook Centre, the most valuable single property in the city is $1.1 billion, but 55 acres - $19.8M/acre just as a ceiling for commercial.
Windsor Place, the northwest corner of 58th and 5th St is a four building rental complex; all four storey (looks like walkup?), it's also 2.17 acres like Bed Bath & Beyond (which will not be that much longer). Very much the same part of town. It's valued at $18.96 million, nearly double the value of the BB&B. ($8.74M/acre). And that's for low-rise, laundry room, built in 1968 apartments. The average rent for households in that block is $1090 per the Census. Surely a new building could rent for a little bit more, in addition to any additional density. The four-storey walkup across 5th Street is quite similar, the two units on the northeast corner are $13.07M on 1.39 acres ($9.40M/acre). So this elderly four-storey rental is double the value of the commercial land.
To guesstimate about what a new building would go for, I looked for a situation where there are both new and old rentals in the same area. There is a two-building complex on the north side of 25th Ave in Mission, right near the bridge. Cambridge Place and Oxford House; four storeys, 1968 construction. They are valued at $6.72 million on 0.6 acres, ($11.2M/acre). That's a little higher than the Chinook area, about 24%, which perhaps is the inner-city boost from the location. Right down the street is Elva, which is a five storey new rental building, just finished last year. It's not a lot more density; only one more storey although it has higher lot coverage due to underground parking. Still, it's not crazy density. It's on 0.36 acres, and is valued at $18.3 million; that's ($50.9M/acre). Even if there's a 25% bump in value due to inner city, that's still $40M/acre, which would be a factor of 8-10 versus the commercial land uses you talk about. And it's only five stories!
Elva photo by Alex_YYC.
If you do want to think about more density, look at the two 15ish storey towers in Manchester at the north end of the dense blocks on 55th Ave. I believe they are both affordable housing; they are 1 acre combined, and are valued at $64.75 million together ($64.75M/acre) 12 times the per-acre value of the Staples. That's a big addition in density, but it's not the highest possible value, particularly since they are affordable.
And at the top end, in the east Beltline, the Lallan apartments behind the former Bernard Callebaut plaza are four storey walkups, built in 1978, a little more recent but not a ton. $5.2 million for 0.48 acre, ($10.8M/acre); again, a 25% or so boost relative to similar buildings in the Chinook area. It's a block away from the 37-storey BLVD, which is on 1.99 acres and valued at $225 million ($113.3M / acre).
You could double the value with 50 year old walk-up apartments! You could probably get 5 to 10x value increase at four or five stories, probably 8 to 12x with five stories above retail, and 15 to 20x at high rise; and the location certainly justifies high rise.
Attachments
Last edited:
Chinook Arch
Active Member
Are you referring to assessed value from a property tax point of view? Or for how much it would cost for a developer to buy that land?
If we’re doing say a 20 story building with 160 units that would easily generate more property tax, and what they’re paying. Unless businesses pay a higher rate than residential, which could be the case. IDK.
A good example of how inner city density can be increased. Three SFH's turned into 23 units.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Bonus points for saving the mature trees too.
This is exactly the type of development that we need to keep encouraging. If we can continue to scale this up and replace large swaths of the inner city we can add materially significant diversity and supply of housing that will stabilize and grow these areas. Super important to the long term sustainability of both these communities and the city itself.
This is exactly the type of development that we need to keep encouraging. If we can continue to scale this up and replace large swaths of the inner city we can add materially significant diversity and supply of housing that will stabilize and grow these areas. Super important to the long term sustainability of both these communities and the city itself.
Zoom
Active Member
It would be cool to see a bunch of highrise towers around Chinook. We would have our very own midtown.
JoeUrban
Active Member
I'd like to see this area as like East Village, South. South Village perhaps
Urban Outdoorsman
Active Member
Ever since the city introduced the new H-GO land use designation I've been noticing them popping up like crazy on the Dmap. Pretty stoked to see more midblock missing middle type density!
All four of these are just from Banff trail/Captitol Hill
All four of these are just from Banff trail/Captitol Hill
My understanding is that H-GO is basically 4 units on a 50-foot+ lot, typically two buildings facing a central courtyard and a 4-car garage. I wonder if we'll ever see zoning for 2 units on a 25-foot lot, with one building and a 2-car garage. Could replace certain older/smaller detached infills, or those old 1910 era narrow bungalows.
MichaelS
Senior Member
H-GO applications usually also include basement suites, so 8 units on a 50 foot lot. Some examples of typical H-GO applications can be found on DMap, but granted these ones are two 50' lots each: