jdixon
Active Member
A new tallest building would likely require a revival of the commercial office market. As much as I'd want one soon, I'd expect maybe 20 years.
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Travisty
Active Member
The only way viable path I could see in the next 10 years is if a Suncor, CNRL, etc. decide to create a new HQ, and I dont see that happening. Even that would likely require a residential/hotel element like Telus Sky.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
> 20 years.
MichaelS
Senior Member
To be fair to the developer, the City would not allow parking on 17th Avenue given its current arterial classification. The update to the Calgary Transportation Plan in 2020 still maintained this classification for 17th, all the way from the West Ring Road to 37th Street SW. Perhaps this will be reviewed as part of the Westbrook Communities ARP, but given the timeline for that, and the City's desire to keep maximum traffic flow near LRT stations, I am not holding my breath.
For the drive through lane, the City would not have allowed the drivethrough to utilize the existing laneway to the south, creating the unfortuante parallel road layout we see. One of the main issues is the existing houses to the south are serviced via that lane, including their own vehicle access and waste and recycling pick-up. What would happen if the proposed Starbucks was very popular (as it is right off a main arterial commuter roadway into downtown) that generates a long line-up at its drivethrough every morning, trapping the residents in their own garages due the vehicle queue? Or, if a garbage truck gets delayed due to the long line-ups? Probably extreme examples, but that is likely the rationale.
The fact that a drive-through starbucks is included is perhaps disappointing, but I recall the developer saying without this use anchoring the development, the project would be unviable. If it were removed, a better design could be achieved, but a project may not be built for finance reasons. Is this better? Not sure, depends on your time horizon. Probably in 20-30 years, the market for multi-family in this area (and hopefully planning policy/street classification) will have changed to allow a better project, but that is 20-30 years of the existing homes further declining. At least there is no major underground parkade/infrastructure involved with this project, meaning future redevelopment will not be a major obsticle.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
That road classification is part of the crux of this problem. It prevents good development in itself, all the more unfortunate because of the LRT station is right there. This development is another example of trying and failing to have it both ways - either we leverage the LRT investment and prioritize transit-oriented development or we maintain the unnecessarily high level of service for car throughput adjacent to the station. We chose the latter, which will lock in car-orientation near the LRT station to an even greater degree than it currently is for another generation.
The second part of the problem is the drive-through itself. They shouldn't be allowed in urban contexts in general, but across from the LRT its all the worse. More pedestrian realm impacts for vehicle access, more idling cars adjacent to a community for the life of the development. Perhaps drive-throughs are appropriate in some pure auto-oriented areas (highway rest stops/offramps?) but a block from an LRT station? This is where the planning authority should have a backbone, not at preserving a counter-productive arterial road classification!
Market viability is always the challenge and I am sympathetic to the tension between what we armchair urban enthusiasts wish would happen in development v. what actually can happen in a development; the private sector builds the city, the planners just regulate it etc. Not everything will be ultra high-density, not everything needs to be. There's only so much development the market supports etc.. I get all that - but it's hardly like we aren't tipping the scales already. We are already interfering with market viability of different products by requiring off-street parking, requiring additional vehicle access and not granting street parking access here for arbitrary "planning" reasons.
Beyond just the regulatory role, the city is also an investor here due to the LRT station. Approving a drive-through across from a LRT station means it's failed at both roles - approving this would work to under-mining the public's own transit investment by failing to encourage transit-orientation and developments that utilize that infrastructure investment. Simultaneously as regulator they are asked to approve adding a nuisance into a neighbourhood that undermines the public realm for at least another generation. Sure, it will be polished looking for a while - but that McDonalds drive-throughs just down 17th Avenue probably looking shiny and new 30 years ago too. Being a better drive-through is not good enough of a reason in itself.
When it comes to transit-oriented cities, you can't have it both ways.
Last edited:
FCC1982
Active Member
I’ll go with the year 2030 for completion of the new tallest.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
New tallest building some time in the 2050's if we're lucky lol
FCC1982
Active Member
^That’s what they were saying when the 1980s boom went bust.
DougB
Senior Member
DT Calgary has many sites unemcumbered by height restrictions. Lease rates aren't high enough to justify the extra structural engineering and reduced spatial efficiency of going past about 50-60 floors. An office tower, for example, typically requires a set of elevator banks for each about 12-15 floors. Each bank eats into leasable space, so pushing beyond 50 something floors eats into economics, unless the building implements something exotic like sky lobbies so elevator banks can share the same shaft.
With the vacancy rate so high, I can't see the economics making sense for a very long time, if ever.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Did we have nearly 1/3 of the entire downtown empty back then? We went about 20 years without an office building, and Suncor was tallest for 26 years i think?
FCC1982
Active Member
Downton office vacancy rates hit +30% in 1982 and towers well under construction were halted. I remember being depressed reading that another tower would not be built for 30 years. Then we got Canterra & Bankers Hall East completed in ‘88 & ‘89 respectively and a fairly regular stream of towers after the 1990s.
You’re right about Suncor being the tallest for a long time though (28 years I think). Then we had a glorious burst with The Bow, EAP, Brookfield & Telus Sky.
I don’t think the next tallest will be an office tower although there may be an office component. If it’s another 28 years your prediction of 2050 will be pretty close
I’m really hopeful it’s much sooner than that though.
You’re right about Suncor being the tallest for a long time though (28 years I think). Then we had a glorious burst with The Bow, EAP, Brookfield & Telus Sky.
I don’t think the next tallest will be an office tower although there may be an office component. If it’s another 28 years your prediction of 2050 will be pretty close
I’m really hopeful it’s much sooner than that though.
Last edited:
FCC1982
Active Member
I came across this article when I was looking for vacancy rate info. It’s a different “glass half full” way of looking at the current situation.
www.westerninvestor.com
Calgary has more downtown office space leased than Vancouver
Alberta city also has more downtown office space fully leased than in all the other major Prairie cities, combined
www.westerninvestor.com
Last edited:
Rundown of the current multi-family (25 units or more) u/c in non-greenfield areas. I've copied this to the front page of the thread so we can keep track and make future comparisons. Anything missing, let me know.
Feb 4, 2022
Core development
U/C Units in Beltline/DT/EV
Oliver - 866
Sunalta Towers - 333
The Hat 14th - 239
1334 10th - 80
Arris Tower west - 310
Park Central II - 460
Sierra Place - 80
West Village Towers - 554
The Fifth - 34
Nude - 177
Curtis Block - 628
11th and 11th - 369
Total Units: 4,130
U/C in Near Inner City (Bridgeland, Kensington, Mission, Inglewood, Bankview)
Theodore - 114
Archer - 40
Riverwalk - 141
Block on 4th - 39
Elva - 61
Dominion - 300
The Bridge - 285
Brio Bridgeland - 25
Era - 178
Nimmons Court - 84
Bankview 19+14 -78
Lynbrook Manor - 48
Scarboro 17 - 52
Total Units 1,446
U/C Suburban (non-greenfield infill)
The Dells - 202
Kingsland Junction - 579
Northland Village - 229
19 + 2 - 51
Trail 19 - 78
Capella - 142
Grammercy - 83
Harrison - 67
Catalyst - 75
DeVille - 333
West 17 - 102
Cascade - 45
Montagomery Square - ?
Total Units 1,986
Feb 4, 2022
Core development
U/C Units in Beltline/DT/EV
Oliver - 866
Sunalta Towers - 333
The Hat 14th - 239
1334 10th - 80
Arris Tower west - 310
Park Central II - 460
Sierra Place - 80
West Village Towers - 554
The Fifth - 34
Nude - 177
Curtis Block - 628
11th and 11th - 369
Total Units: 4,130
U/C in Near Inner City (Bridgeland, Kensington, Mission, Inglewood, Bankview)
Theodore - 114
Archer - 40
Riverwalk - 141
Block on 4th - 39
Elva - 61
Dominion - 300
The Bridge - 285
Brio Bridgeland - 25
Era - 178
Nimmons Court - 84
Bankview 19+14 -78
Lynbrook Manor - 48
Scarboro 17 - 52
Total Units 1,446
U/C Suburban (non-greenfield infill)
The Dells - 202
Kingsland Junction - 579
Northland Village - 229
19 + 2 - 51
Trail 19 - 78
Capella - 142
Grammercy - 83
Harrison - 67
Catalyst - 75
DeVille - 333
West 17 - 102
Cascade - 45
Montagomery Square - ?
Total Units 1,986
Atticus
Active Member
^Wellings is missing from the list.
FCC1982
Active Member
Yeah Baby !!
Thanks for compiling that list surreal.
Thanks for compiling that list surreal.