News   Apr 03, 2020
 1K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 854     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
7,917
Reaction score
21,621
Location
Calgary
Same situation with Riverfront Pointe (sp?) the Point of View project by Booker's. When the flood hit they weren't affected because they had built up by 4 or 5 feet iirc. I remember them raising the road to match the raised height of the building's base.
If you go back and look at flood photos of the east village you can see how much flood mitigation was done by raising the land.

The land was raised by quite a bit!

View attachment 272133
 

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,477
Reaction score
8,335
Location
Mission
Also, the lot in Eau Claire that Concord is on didn't flood.
 

people.talking

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
238
Reaction score
368
Location
Calgary & Moncton
If I remember correctly there is an outline for Chinook that has the southeast parking of the mall as well as the lot to the east of that being developed into apartment as well as an expansion for the mall.
 

CBBarnett

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
706
Reaction score
1,984
Midtown: impressive density, I didn't see it on their site but I am assuming 4,000 - 5,000 units? So 1/3rd of a Beltline worth over the build-out period of several decades. Take my pros/cons with a grain of salt as it's not much more than a massing diagram at this point.

Pros:
  • Obvious improvement to what's there
  • Transit station considered in the first phase.
  • These units would have to go somewhere in the region, better here than on the southern edges of the city. Great node and the midtown logic is sound, if hard to execute and with limited success so far.
Cons:
  • Too much "tower in the park" - it's a 2020 - 2050 version of what lots of cities built from 1950 - 1980 as car-oriented suburban tower developments, now wildly criticized for creating isolated pockets of density and having pointless/unusable lawns that ultimately fall into disrepair. Le Corbusier would be proud.
  • No details that inspire confidence the pedestrian realm will be considered beyond some generic street renderings. Surface parking, large and useless setbacks, roads with big turn bulbs, and a lot of detail on a 30-year-away pedestrian bridge connection to keep pedestrians out of the roads reveal the priorities at the early stages. It reads as a plan designed by engineers to max density, not rock the transportation boat, throw a bone to some stormwater concerns (e.g. lawns instead of buildings), and ignore the reasons why a community like this could actually be a great place to live. Perhaps that is fine this early in the process, but also a warning sign.
  • We aren't exactly lacking zoned capacity to create a "midtown" at Chinook - all those planning policies and station area proposals for the past decade or two are in place and do a good job articulating some of the details missing here (e.g. connectivity, streetscapes etc.) Why is this one different and by going through with it, will be more successful than the numerous plans already floating out there?
Some of this critique will be withdrawn later when better renderings and more details are available, but we should always be careful as path-dependency - particularly car-orientation - kicks in early. Nothing about this proposal inspires confidence yet, perhaps a good example of doing the "not doing the right thing, but doing the wrong things better". Reminds me a bit of the Brentwood Co-op that suffered similar issues of not quite articulating the right things.

I hope to be proven wrong come 2050 when it's done!
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
2,450
Phase 1 is good. The entire project is huge.
  • Residential: 5,977 residential dwelling units;
    [*]Retail: 16,877m² (181,662 ft²) of retail use;
    [*]Office: 20,722ft² (223,055 ft²) of office area;
    [*]Hospitality: 41,978 m² (451,857 ft²) of hotel use;
    [*]Community Facilities: 2,265 m² (24,383 ft²);
    [*]Total Gross Floor Area: 52,457 m² (5,646,436 ft²);
I think building phase by phase over 20-40 years could be good. *Edit: indeed after I wrote this found a section of the site which says the timeline is 2023-2047* Low and slow. Too many projects trying to seek financing/investors/buyers and you end up with what happened in Edmonton, 5 simultaneous TODs and all ended up like box malls after all pleaded 'there is no market' to city council since they all ate each others lunch and prevented each other from passing financing thresholds.

The developer has committed to funding the station, so the city's costs are in operating and extra LRVs. If the city can approve Trinity Hills, the city can approve this.
 

Attachments

Chinook Arch

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Messages
200
Reaction score
299
Definitely it would be a slow go. That's a shitload of units!

I like the plan, and even if the final product was half the amount of units and development, I'd still be happy.
 

Top