News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

JoeUrban said:
Weird I'm getting a 404 for the article link
Click to expand...
The link seems to have been broken for much of the day. Was getting the same error earlier.
CBBarnett said:
Interesting, but convoluted read. If I read the article correctly I think this is what happened?
  • Proposal approved by Rockyview Council in Sept 2021, given the scale and proximity to Calgary it would require a Regional board approval.
  • Calgary has a veto at the regional board and would have vetoed it on regional impact grounds, but the developer offered concessions not part of the original approval to pay for road, transit and recreation impacts. As a result Calgary didn't veto the proposal.
  • Rockyview Council members who voted against the original proposal at Rockyview Council complaining of "backdoor dealings" of Calgary to approve it - even though their Council already approved it.
That all sounds fairly.... reasonable. Ultimately, sprawl-inducing and painfully car-oriented of course, but the process sounded like it actually extracted better public value and mitigated some of the impacts to the region that otherwise wouldn't have been compensated for. Am I understanding this correctly? I don't really get what the complaint is.
Click to expand...
that is my understanding as well. Sour grapes from the opposing county councillors, but overall, the process went as it was supposed to is my understanding.
 
Has there been any discussion of the proposed LUA and DP on the corner of 2nd St NW between 16th and 17th Aves?


Applicant is looking to upzone from 28m max height to 71m or 20-22 stories
The newly minted North Hill Local Area Plan sets the north half of that parcel to 6 stories and the south to 12 stores so this will be very interesting to see what is decided.

I'm concerned if the plan is disregarded immediately after being passed and the LUA approved the rest of the inner-city communities may just wash their hands of the whole process.
 
Some discussion in this thread I think but the application doesn't have its own thread yet. Should also point out that the DP for the site appears to be independent of the land use application, as it is for a new daycare (150 kids) and pre-dates the land use application:

Your concern is something I definitely share, and I will be very curious how this one goes when it finally reaches Council for a decision. To so egregiously exceed the newly minted ARP seems pretty extreme, but we have seen this happen (albeit at a much lower scale) in placed like Marda Loop, where the new ARP said max 4 stories, and pretty quickly 6 storey DPs were getting approved. It raises a few points, that is, what is the point of participating in these ARP processes if they will just be ignored, or, why do we get our ARPs so wrong if it is not matching what the market needs to spur development?
 
MichaelS said:
Some discussion in this thread I think but the application doesn't have its own thread yet. Should also point out that the DP for the site appears to be independent of the land use application, as it is for a new daycare (150 kids) and pre-dates the land use application:

Your concern is something I definitely share, and I will be very curious how this one goes when it finally reaches Council for a decision. To so egregiously exceed the newly minted ARP seems pretty extreme, but we have seen this happen (albeit at a much lower scale) in placed like Marda Loop, where the new ARP said max 4 stories, and pretty quickly 6 storey DPs were getting approved. It raises a few points, that is, what is the point of participating in these ARP processes if they will just be ignored, or, why do we get our ARPs so wrong if it is not matching what the market needs to spur development?
Click to expand...
Right. Usually the excuse in the past is that the relevant ARP is old or out of date, and definitely sometimes they were pretty old, but this is brand new.
 
Ya, they are asking for a complete change in the built form in that LOC on the Van Son lot on 16th. The max FAR for the overall site based on existing policy is 3.34 FAR, which seems about right for a mid-rise building form which would create the intended forms (Mid-rise for the south lot and low-rise for the north lot). I could see them going up to about a 3.5FAR but that is about what should reasonably be accommodated with the intended built forms for those lots.

The applicant is asking for a max of 5.83FAR. That puts the building form solidly into high-rise territory and is frankly just to much floor area for this site, that is more like the appropriate densities we should be saving for the downtown. They are shooting for the moon on FAR here.

For example this is a 10-storey, 3.8FAR building, which I think would be even a little above maximum FAR I think would be appropriate for this site:
666f91ef0ac40d44e6685d7d67b2f265_Rendering_of_2725-2751_Kingsway.JPG


This is closer to the scale that the applicant is looking for (but they are proposing taller building by a few floors):
5aa0d97d60fd95b74086c7232831a432_View_at_corner_of_W_42nd_and_Alberta.JPG


Seems to me that the applicant's vision is getting too far away from the built forms intended for the site if you ask me. Also, i didn't comment on heights because I personally don't think that setting height maximums does anything good, setting an appropriate FAR/FSR accomplishes the goal of getting the intended built form by itself without being too prescriptive. Also encouraging larger ceiling heights is never a bad thing in multi-family homes.

There should certainly be wiggle room for interpretation and additional floor area for developments that provide significant public benefit outside of what is described in ASP/ARP/LAPs, but the approximate intended form category shouldn't deviate from low/mid-rise to high-rise IMO.
 
Yeah I agree height by itself is not a great way to determine appropriateness. I guess in the most basic sense the NHLAP categorizes the north half of the parcel as 'low rise' and the south side as 'mid rise' whereas the applicant is trying for 'high rise' in both which the LAP has only recommended for right at Centre and 16th Avenue.
 
MichaelS said:
what is the point of participating in these ARP processes if they will just be ignored
Click to expand...

At best, the ARPs set a minimum scale from which negotiations between the city and developers begin. But seriously, if you are a "concerned citizen" looking to shape the direction of your community, getting really stuck into the ARP process would be just about last on my list of things to invest time doing.
 
Surrealplaces said:
I love these density shots. In the Beltline portion of the shot from this angle alone, I count 20 residential highrises (not including the Residence Inn) that have been built in the last 15 years, as well as another still u/c.
Click to expand...
I love how you can also "feel" the density on the ground. Having been wandering around urban Calgary as a car-free resident for 15 years, it's amazing how much more active, bustling and interesting it is - thanks largely to the 10,000+ more people that live in that photo, all within walking distance of each other. If someone moved here more recently, it's natural to not appreciate the transition, but from a local perspective all I can say is - wow we have come a long way since 2006.

It's one of the reasons I always find it a bit funny when there's media / politician / public discourse on "downtown" or the "city centre" and it's many real and perceived issued, with a monthly piece for decades about office vacancy rates or a head office change as if that's the only story about this area of the city. Important issues for sure - but hardly the only thing going on, and often counter-factual to a far more interesting growth story that gets a fraction of the attention:

1634411483760.png


All this is sign we are becoming a bigger, more interesting and more complex place when the "official narrative" and what's actually going on differing so wildly sometimes. With some luck and good choices, the growth seems bound to continue - seems like the Beltline will be adding a tower or two every year for the foreseeable future. I wonder what that skyline picture and graph will look like with the next 10,000 people in it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top