News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.6K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.3K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

lemongrab said:
I think it could be a bit of a spectrum from subsidizing vs. facilitating. Gov'ts do both all the time to pursue greater objectives.

Is it really a problem if a city decides that selling a parcel at 85% of FMV (and perhaps other favourable terms) might be better than selling it at 100% to someone who wants to build a gas station or strip club or let it sit as a parking lot for a few decades?
Click to expand...
If it solely to create co-op units for the purpose of them being co-op units, I say no. If the co-op has a fees geared to income component, sure, subsidize away.

Just gotta remember co-op is the delivery model, it isn't an end in and of itself which serves a public good. Could technically turn all of Mount Royal into a Co-Op to stop subdivisions and upzoning forever.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Interesting... "NOTE: this application seeks to bring the existing building into conformity with Land Use Bylaw 1P2007 by amending the height and FAR modifiers to reflect the as-built situation."

Also saw this, https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/?find=DP2022-01655 "Pennylane Music Festival - July 7 to 17, 2022"
Click to expand...

I wonder if we're going to see that as the Cowboys Stampede tent or if Covid finally killed Cowboys? Pennylane Entertainment owns the nightclub but to my knowledge the nightclub hasn't re-opened and last Stampede they didn't have the Cowboys tent. Love it or hate it, Pennylane shuttering the nightclub and ditching the branding would be the death of a Calgary institution that was well known by people outside our city (I've traveled to England and people I met there knew about the mountains, Banff and Cowboys when I mentioned I was from Calgary). Curious to see what happens.
 
This might fall more under urban development. Passed by the new pump track in Inglewood.
Great to see kids using it, and right beside it was a parking lot with plenty of spaces. Only about 20% of the spaces were in use, so parking isn’t likely going to be an issue like the nearby residents thought.
A20F1E24-478B-43ED-B0DF-192BEE51EA2E.jpeg


Also a pic of the river walk east of Centre street. Still heavily used despite all the construction.
I can’t remember who it was but someone on Twitter was griping about how it was a waste of money and would never be used lol.
79F7F6B8-AB36-466C-8054-9C29C50CA06C.jpeg
 
Surrealplaces said:
Also a pic of the river walk east of Centre street. Still heavily used despite all the construction.
I can’t remember who it was but someone on Twitter was griping about how it was a waste of money and would never be used lol.
View attachment 388598
Click to expand...

It's top quality infrastructure here, and always busy. The only issue is that it might actually be undersized for the usage :)

The bicycle path was standard at the time it was built, but now seems too narrow especially for the warmest half of the year when traffic is higher. The type of cyclist here also differs as you get the whole mix - some of the highest volume in the network of commuters and people using the path as transportation, loads of families and children learning to ride, scooters, group rides etc. Could easily have been a 4m+ bicycle path to allow for safer passing and most consistent travel conditions.

Sidewalk too. It's plenty wide at many times of year - in certain places. The wavy natural curvy design leads to pinch points, especially with a large number of walkers/runners travelling in groups. This is unlike many other areas of the city, where the average group size is likely much lower.

All that said - the proof is in the usage, it's what successful public spaces look like. Huge amenity for the city.
 
Last edited:
Surrealplaces said:
Also a pic of the river walk east of Centre street. Still heavily used despite all the construction.
I can’t remember who it was but someone on Twitter was griping about how it was a waste of money and would never be used lol.
Click to expand...
I think it was Richard White. I don't want to go through his blog posts, but I remember him writing a blog about how the new path section wasn't in use and was a waste of money :rolleyes:
 
Stephen Ave said:
I think it was Richard White. I don't want to go through his blog posts, but I remember him writing a blog about how the new path section wasn't in use and was a waste of money :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Strong chance for David Parker too, he's been putting out some serious garbage takes in his back of the Business in Calgary column.
 
Stephen Ave said:
I think it was Richard White. I don't want to go through his blog posts, but I remember him writing a blog about how the new path section wasn't in use and was a waste of money :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am of the opinion that Richard White has aged out of providing interesting commentary on city-building, at least in my opinion over the last number of things I have read from him. He is just such a booster of the status quo for Calgary (excessive automobility, sterility, etc.) and I just feel he's talking about a Calgary that may have been interesting 15-20 years ago. I would prefer to see regular columns and material that are more forward-thinking regarding Calgary's changing urbanity that have a more critical lens of changes that we could make to improve the City, as opposed to just endless boosterism for the lackluster status quo that is routinely compromising in urban design and actual vibrancy. I used to enjoy his writing more a number of years ago when he was making more interesting comparisons between Calgary and other places he had travelled, my two cents not trying to be harsh.

I just couldn't disagree more with his take-aways at this point. In his Copenhagen v. Calgary article he uses West Village Towers as a shining example of urbanity, talks about how Calgary doesn't have a problem with automobile-dependent sprawl and comes to this conclusion:
1648579363056.png


I can't think of a worse conclusion to draw than saying Calgary should not try to be more like a place like Copenhagen. The culture of excessive automobility, sprawl and a complete lack of paying attention to the details in terms of urban design is what Calgary should put the blinders on and continue to replicate? Why don't you learn from your experiences travelling and try to bring good ideas to Calgary to solve some of our problems that are not unique to us. He just is defending and boosting up the the largely indefensible status quo of development and urban design in Calgary and I don't find that interesting or thoughtful to read anymore.
 
Last edited:
Calgcouver said:
I just couldn't disagree more with his take-aways at this point. In his Copenhagen v. Calgary article he uses West Village Towers as a shining example of urbanity, talks about how Calgary doesn't have a problem with automobile-dependent sprawl and comes to this conclusion:
View attachment 388676
Click to expand...

What kind of fluff travel/city-building piece lands on the conclusion that we should "look inward, not outward"? Like that's kind of the whole point of these city v. city articles. I guess we aren't going to see anymore of these articles?

But let's follow that logic - if we shouldn't try to be like Copenhagen, we shouldn't try to be like a generic, sprawl covered North America bland city either. After all, the goal is apparently to be as unique as a city and not evolve like others do.

Destroying car-dependence and sprawling, inefficient land uses is the single most obvious thing we can do to be unique to the vast majority of our competitor cities.

I'll wait for the article that supports that!
 
Calgcouver said:
I am of the opinion that Richard White has aged out of providing interesting commentary on city-building, at least in my opinion over the last number of things I have read from him. He is just such a booster of the status quo for Calgary (excessive automobility, sterility, etc.) and I just feel he's talking about a Calgary that may have been interesting 15-20 years ago. I would prefer to see regular columns and material that are more forward-thinking regarding Calgary's changing urbanity that have a more critical lens of changes that we could make to improve the City, as opposed to just endless boosterism for the lackluster status quo that is routinely compromising in urban design and actual vibrancy. I used to enjoy his writing more a number of years ago when he was making more interesting comparisons between Calgary and other places he had travelled, my two cents not trying to be harsh.

I just couldn't disagree more with his take-aways at this point. In his Copenhagen v. Calgary article he uses West Village Towers as a shining example of urbanity, talks about how Calgary doesn't have a problem with automobile-dependent sprawl and comes to this conclusion:
View attachment 388676

I can't think of a worse conclusion to draw than saying Calgary should not try to be more like a place like Copenhagen. The culture of excessive automobility, sprawl and a complete lack of paying attention to the details in terms of urban design is what Calgary should put the blinders on and continue to replicate? Why don't you learn from your experiences travelling and try to bring good ideas to Calgary to solve some of our problems that are not unique to us. He just is defending and boosting up the the largely indefensible status quo of development and urban design in Calgary and I don't find that interesting or thoughtful to read anymore.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree with you more. I can’t even be bothered to read his articles anymore as they’re much too annoying.
I can’t stand his stupid comparisons of Calgary to other cities.
 
Calgcouver said:
I am of the opinion that Richard White has aged out of providing interesting commentary on city-building, at least in my opinion over the last number of things I have read from him. He is just such a booster of the status quo for Calgary (excessive automobility, sterility, etc.) and I just feel he's talking about a Calgary that may have been interesting 15-20 years ago. I would prefer to see regular columns and material that are more forward-thinking regarding Calgary's changing urbanity that have a more critical lens of changes that we could make to improve the City, as opposed to just endless boosterism for the lackluster status quo that is routinely compromising in urban design and actual vibrancy. I used to enjoy his writing more a number of years ago when he was making more interesting comparisons between Calgary and other places he had travelled, my two cents not trying to be harsh.

I just couldn't disagree more with his take-aways at this point. In his Copenhagen v. Calgary article he uses West Village Towers as a shining example of urbanity, talks about how Calgary doesn't have a problem with automobile-dependent sprawl and comes to this conclusion:
View attachment 388676

I can't think of a worse conclusion to draw than saying Calgary should not try to be more like a place like Copenhagen. The culture of excessive automobility, sprawl and a complete lack of paying attention to the details in terms of urban design is what Calgary should put the blinders on and continue to replicate? Why don't you learn from your experiences travelling and try to bring good ideas to Calgary to solve some of our problems that are not unique to us. He just is defending and boosting up the the largely indefensible status quo of development and urban design in Calgary and I don't find that interesting or thoughtful to read anymore.
Click to expand...
I can't believe people still use the climate argument against density. I guess all the people walking and biking outside during the winter in cities like Moscow, Toronto, Montreal, etc. are just robots? If anything, our harsh winter climate should've forced us to build more compact. All the money that goes to snow cleaning and maintaining roads and sidewalks could've been used to fund well sheltered transit stops and more efficient snow removal.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top