News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

^ Edmonton had a project a 10 years ago, to try to make the pond at Hawrelak Park swim-able with a beach.

Basically ran into regulatory hurdles - anything swimmable that is modified basically has to be maintained to pool standards according to AHS. This pushed the project from $5 million, to $10 million, to $60 million!!
 
Surrealplaces said:
Looks like they're swinging for the fences on this one. Probably looking to leverage the future Green Line.

This application proposes to change the designation of these properties to allow for:
  • mixed-use buildings (e.g. commercial store fronts with apartments above)
  • a maximum building height of 100 metres, about 29 to 32 storeys (an increase from the current maximum of 46 metres)
  • a maximum building floor area of 36,910 square metres (an increase from the current maximum of 22,146 square metres), based on a building floor to parcel area ratio (FAR) of 10
  • the uses listed in the proposed Mixed Use - Active Frontage (MU-2) District.
Click to expand...

Normally I get irritated about land use applications that double the approved max, but this is an exception. With the half block north being Enmax and the half block north of that being vacant (with past plans being for medical or other non-residential) it appears they have strategically proposed a height that shadows just up to the rear property lines of the next block north which is SFH so I don't really see much of an argument against it.
With such a huge ask over existing zoning I wonder what bonusing amenities they could possibly be convinced to trade for the additional density?
 
Sikome is also in the middle of nowhere 17 km from anything anyone wants to be at. We need something like this in the core area, near bars and other amenities.
 
UrbanWarrior said:
Sikome is also in the middle of nowhere 17 km from anything anyone wants to be at. We need something like this in the core area, near bars and other amenities.
Click to expand...
Sikome is in a decent spot, Fish Creek draws tons of people in it's own right, especially from the surrounding communities. Definitely agree with the central part though, sitting on a beach patio in summer would be very decent.
 
Ubran Outdoorsman said:
I've been to the Cairns lagoon and I'd say it's only soso. It's basically a glorified version of the outdoor pool in Riley park. Sikome lake is better.

That all being said, it would be nice to have a decent beach along the bow that isn't just mud or gravel
Click to expand...
I've never gone in the water at the Cairns lagoon....too many dirty Euro backpackers
 
JoeUrban said:
Normally I get irritated about land use applications that double the approved max, but this is an exception. With the half block north being Enmax and the half block north of that being vacant (with past plans being for medical or other non-residential) it appears they have strategically proposed a height that shadows just up to the rear property lines of the next block north which is SFH so I don't really see much of an argument against it.
With such a huge ask over existing zoning I wonder what bonusing amenities they could possibly be convinced to trade for the additional density?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Calgcouver said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does the City of Calgary have a “percent for public art” program?
 
adamyyc said:
Does the City of Calgary have a “percent for public art” program?
Click to expand...
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).

Here is the density bonusing framework in the LUB, public art is in there: http://lub.calgary.ca/Part11/Division_7_Rules_Governing_Centre_City_Bonus_Overlays.htm
 
Ubran Outdoorsman said:
Looks like Sarina has bought and intends to develop the entire block that Coco is on.


Click to expand...
Interesting! I guess they managed to make a deal with the holdout homeowner. I’m glad they managed to get this property because it was going to disrupt the continuity of that block, and I was worried the lot they already cleared was just going to sit there vacant.

They recently listed the property that their Harrison showroom was supposed to be before they changed the building to purpose built rentals.
 
The bow to bluff park is officially a go 🙏

1618012394953.png
PXL_20210409_224147133.MP.jpg
PXL_20210409_224245260.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top