Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[UrbanWarrior]

Oh wow and those figures are only up to April 2019. Nine residential high rises have come online in the Beltline neighbourhood alone since then, with another six currently under construction.

The downtown population (CBD, West End, East Village, Eau Claire, Chinatown, Beltline) will be surpassing 50,000 for the first time in history by next year. Very impressive for 4.7 km2 (including .5 km2 for the undevelopable Stampede Park).

 

[Disraeli]

@CBBarnett do you have that graph for other neighborhoods?

And I absolutely agree with you. There is more to the story of downtown than office vacancy.

 

[MissingMiddle]

Apologies if it's already been posted but here's an interesting article on Calgary's downtown vacancy rate from Alex Bozikovic, architecture critic for the Globe & Mail.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...n-to-turn-a-ghost-town-of-office-towers-into/

 

[CBBarnett]

@CBBarnett do you have that graph for other neighborhoods?

And I absolutely agree with you. There is more to the story of downtown than office vacancy.

Here's the big picture of everything south of the river before the escarpment starts (sorry Bankview, honourable mention to you but you are too hilly to include in my random selection of communties). Also sorry I forgot Eau Claire but finished my graphs already

Here's some data someone might find interesting on peak/minimum population, what year and how it compares to 2019:

Obvious story is the Beltline, but Downtown Commercial Core has long been a source of substantial population base, particularly how it's been distributed mainly to the western part of the Commercial Core. Lower Mount Royal is another sleeper hit - it doesn't have a growth story, but has been a stable, very dense population base to support area retail along 17th for decades.

Applying these numbers to context of the current projects and their scale, Sunalta Heights (333 units or ~500 - 600 people) or the Superstore Arris tower (~300 units/500 people) would seriously change their neighbourhood's numbers. A single building would increase the local community population by 10%-20%.

Toss in Eau Claire's 2,000 residents, the total population of this area is 58,000+ in 2019.

 

[Disraeli]

Thanks! I agree that a good boundary for the core is the rivers to the north and east, and the southern escarpment.

 

[JoeUrban]

Seems weird that Sunalta has lost ~200 residents compared to 2015.

Also I'd be curious what Mission's population was in 1982, Cliff Bungalow-Mission are now a single community and my impression was higher density was zoned in the Mission side in exchange to more of a conservation density on the CB side. I'd like to see if the combination of the two have surpassed the combined 1982 pop.

 

[CBBarnett]

Seems weird that Sunalta has lost ~200 residents compared to 2015.

Also I'd be curious what Mission's population was in 1982, Cliff Bungalow-Mission are now a single community and my impression was higher density was zoned in the Mission side in exchange to more of a conservation density on the CB side. I'd like to see if the combination of the two have surpassed the combined 1982 pop.

Short-term fluctuations are common in apartment districts, such as Sunalta. It really doesn't take much to push the number up or down a few hundred. In the Beltline it's one building going up or vacancy rates changing a few points adds up to hundreds of people. For smaller neighbouhroods, could be a slight change in vacancy, plus a few tear-downs that haven't been redeveloped yet. Sunalta does seem to have high fluctuations, don't know if it's a data thing or just a relatively stable built environment that is highly subject to changes in local vacancy so it's super visible in the graph.

The story for Mission and Cliff Bungalow below:

My interpretation:
Mission has a more classic lifecycle dip present, where the population was declining until the early 1980s then started trending upward with redevelopment. This is a pretty classic trend in many redeveloper neighbourhoods (1) families with lots of kids in the baby boom 1940s-1970s (2) kinds grew up then move away in the 1970s-1980s, (3) neighbourhood staganated until the curve of redevelopment removed lots of the now emptier homes with fewer children and replaced them with higher density apartment tower living in the 1980s, 90s and beyond. It's small size really shows the boost from a few key towers, notably the ones on 25th Avenue in 2004-2006ish.

Cliff Bungalow is different, but largely because it's so small and more stable. I would guess it's likely one of the more stable populations in the city (perhaps a negligible decline over 50 years). Why so stable? It's old, mixed typology housing with apartments, housing and townhomes from the start. Probably one of the oldest mixed typology neighbourhoods we have - so trends like baby-boomer kids moving away were already obscured from the existence of apartment blocks and rentals that made a big portion of the neighbourhood for a while.

So the net population of the two has long been increasing - tiny decline in Cliff Bungalow, more sizeable (but still relatively modest) increases in Mission.

 

[MichaelS]

A new building proposed along Glenmore Trail in Kingsland, at the address 612 67 Ave SW.

DMAP

It is on this parking lot, so adjacent to some big height, across from Chinook, and next to the recently upzoned former car dealership. So, might be substantial. No renderings that I can find yet.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

 

[1875]

north kingsland could use alot of love

 

[JoeUrban]

Has there been any discussion of the proposed LUA and DP on the corner of 2nd St NW between 16th and 17th Aves?

DMAP

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.

There is now a (pretty extensive) engagement site for this

Balmoral Land Use Redesignation

www.engagebalmoral.com

 

[gsunnyg]

There is now a (pretty extensive) engagement site for this

Balmoral Land Use Redesignation

www.engagebalmoral.com

View attachment 356662

View attachment 356663

Let's make some towers happen outside of the Core! Most of the NW 16th ave stretch, especially at the center street intersection, are great spots for a few highrises. Would make for a great TOD. I do hope they surround this proposal with more high rises or it will look odd like The Hub by Banff Trail.

 

[MichaelS]

So it looks like a DP got submitted for a new Beltline Tower, at the Sony Store site on 4th Street:

DMAP

Grovesnor at one point owned this, but sold it when they left town I think. Does anyone recall who bought it?

 

[1875]

great news

 

[DougB]

So it looks like a DP got submitted for a new Beltline Tower, at the Sony Store site on 4th Street:

DMAP

Grovesnor at one point owned this, but sold it when they left town I think. Does anyone recall who bought it?

That is a great site that should be redeveloped. That being said, I'm surprised the market would support yet another tower given all the unsold condos and rental units already under construction

 

[MissingMiddle]

So it looks like a DP got submitted for a new Beltline Tower, at the Sony Store site on 4th Street:

DMAP

Grovesnor at one point owned this, but sold it when they left town I think. Does anyone recall who bought it?

Anyone know anything about the health foods store there called Amaranth? Love to see this parking lot/retail developed, but would be sad to see a local grocer in the beltline drop away if it was good.