News   Apr 03, 2020
 5.6K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.3K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

A small but interesting land use change is going to CPC next week for downtown. The CalFrac building (SE Corner of 4th Street and 8th Ave SW) is asking for a land use amendment to allow them to put a scrolling digital stock market ticker on their building.
Report, Background, Applicant Submission,

Here is the building in question:

Admin is recommending approval, and the Applicant Submission has their rationale as to why the alteration of the historic facade is okay (have only skimmed the documents, unsure what the official admin take on it is, but must be okay if they are recommending approval).
It would be cool to see stock tickers along these top and bottom edges of the Alberta Stock Exchange Building

View attachment 294310

I commented last year that they should put stock tickers along the Alberta Stock Exchange Building. They already have the perfect building for it.
A stock ticker in the Stephan location would still be cool, but I think they should have two tickers scrolling in opposite directions.
 
Last edited:
One of these video boards along Stephen Ave would be cool. Granted there are not really any good places for it on Stephen Ave...

Best place downtown for it I can think of is here.


But no way the tenant wants their view blocked. So looks like Len Werry is our only option... Or some future dev in the C+E.
 
Have been preaching this since day 1 on this site! Calgary's Downtown streets could become so much more vibrant to walk around with a few high quality Digital LED billboards placed along store fronts and facades of buildings. It's the one of those things still missing in Calgary that I see all the time in bigger metro cities around the world.

Would be cool if the City opted to install a collage of LED billboards instead of a mural along a blank side of some building on a high traffic road like Stephen Ave or 17th ave as part of some sort of expansion to the Beltline Mural project.
 
Richard White, if you’re reading this, retire. You’ve aged out of saying anything interesting and you unapologetically reinforce the status quo, while simultaneously crowning yourself an “urban realist” and writing anyone who would like to improve from what the status quo is off as an “urban idealist”. Let me be the first to say, retire, you are unbelievably uninteresting, have no unique takes and your only audience left is senile or lives in Airdrie or Cranston.

Sincerely yours,
“An Urban Idealist”
 
Last edited:
The crazy thing to me is that these new development homes really aren’t that much cheaper than inner city homes, if you’re willing to move into an infill or townhouse instead of a single family home.

When you factor in the time/cost of commuting (assuming you commute into downtown) or even running daily errands, the costs quickly support a bigger up-front mortgage for an inner city home.

Also, I’m not really sure what additional privacy you’re afforded by moving to these new neighbourhoods given how close homes are together, except for not sharing walls.

Reduced capital spending in far flung neighbourhoods means more spending in downtown/inner city, attracting more people.
 
I cringe every time I see one of his articles. Sure, lots of people like single family homes in the burbs. We don't need an article to explain that. What we needs is people with fresh perspective on how to grow the inner city, and make it more attainable for those who prefer the inner city.
 
I cringe every time I see one of his articles. Sure, lots of people like single family homes in the burbs. We don't need an article to explain that. What we needs is people with fresh perspective on how to grow the inner city, and make it more attainable for those who prefer the inner city.
In particular, when they're subsidized and incentivized like crazy, no wonder people buy something. I would have hoped a 'realist' would understand such simple concepts, but it's hard to set your sights low enough for him.
 
Richard White, if you’re reading this, retire. You’ve aged out of saying anything interesting and you unapologetically reinforce the status quo, while simultaneously crowning yourself an “urban realist” and writing anyone who would like to improve from what the status quo is off as an “urban idealist”. Let me be the first to say, retire, you are unbelievably uninteresting, have no unique takes and your only audience left is senile or lives in Airdrie or Cranston.

Sincerely yours,
“An Urban Idealist”
My thoughts exactly. The Herald is as much to blame, but given their audience is older conservative types these articles fit the bill.
 
I cringe every time I see one of his articles. Sure, lots of people like single family homes in the burbs. We don't need an article to explain that. What we needs is people with fresh perspective on how to grow the inner city, and make it more attainable for those who prefer the inner city.
To be fair to Mr. White, I remember reading a series of columns he wrote some years back where we was comparing successful inner city rejuvenations to that of Calgary. The city of Portland comes to mind.
Unfortunately, the inner city of Portland has now been overrun with homeless which has made living there a lot less desirable.
 
In reading his article, he's not necessarily wrong. It's true a lot of people want single family homes, and it's true that we can't realistically say no to any and all new greenfield development. Just don't understand his take, it's not exactly news to anyone.
He talks about the urban idealists wanting no greenfield development, and that there are no advocates for new communities. We've had decades with plenty of advocates for new communities, and that's why we are struck in the position we're in. Not an article proposing or discussing solutions to anything, just general griping.

Personally I don't have an issue with people wanting to live in a SFH in the burbs. It's going to happen, here and everywhere. But it needs to be controlled better, and the overall costs need to be dealt with. If people want to live in a SFH in a new community, that's fine, but they need to pay more of their share.

If I'm understanding this chart correctly, the City's developer levy for new homes in the Auburn Bay area for example would be about 16K per home (based on a rough calculation of 18 homes per hectare.) Depending on the part of the city, it could be more or less, but generally it's going to be in the range of 10-20K. The houses in the square hectare where I took the calculation from, range near the $700K mark. Would an extra 15K upfront make much of a difference to those who want that lifestyle? Probably not. The city could probably add another 30K per home, and there would still be people buying, but it might slow down the amount of people buying and would help even out the costs.
 
Last edited:
The crazy thing to me is that these new development homes really aren’t that much cheaper than inner city homes, if you’re willing to move into an infill or townhouse instead of a single family home.

When you factor in the time/cost of commuting (assuming you commute into downtown) or even running daily errands, the costs quickly support a bigger up-front mortgage for an inner city home.

Also, I’m not really sure what additional privacy you’re afforded by moving to these new neighbourhoods given how close homes are together, except for not sharing walls.
I think this a part of the reason that Calgary's redevelopment and intensification actually exceeds perceptions set by the baby-boom generation of the RW types, even if there still is substantial growth on the edge. The suburbs aren't particularly affordable on paper, let alone factoring other lifestyle costs.

Even regionally Cochrane, Airdrie and Chestermere all don't have particularly cheap houses anymore, many areas of these bedroom communities exceed Calgary's burbs in price, even some of Calgary's existing communities. A quick non-scientific google suggests many new mid-range SFH 20km from the core go for $500 - $750K, depending on the quadrant and area. This cost also comes with others including punishingly long commutes for most daily activities and the costs for multi-car ownership in many cases.

Calgary's price gradient for homes is remarkably shallow - the price doesn't drop as much as I would expect to make the the burbs the always and forever, obvious answer for the cost-conscious home-buyer. Perhaps RW types are totally correct - the demand for new burb SFH is so insatiable the market bids them up so they are over-priced given the lifestyle and amenities.

Either way, there's a reason we've seen non-stop redevelopment in most inner city areas for going on 2 or 3 decades now - demand.

The value proposition for more central living is actually increasingly obvious for even people that aren't particularly urban aficionados. And it's not just the highly urban lifestyle in the Beltline that continues to improve and have no true competition for walkable, amenity rich density, it's the whole stretch of the inner city neighbourhoods 5km out in every direction that are competitive. This forum is a testament to it - there's always stuff going on in almost every community, almost every inner city community is expanding housing types, choices and amenities in response to demand.

Perhaps that's the part of the RW articles that feels most out of touch - 25 years and 500,000 people ago the burbs were cheap and the other costs (e.g. car ownership costs, commute times) were more reasonable. You could write these articles every week. Now, it's far less obvious there's a dominant trend as the direct and indirect costs of living in the burbs has increased and the options of the inner city have improved. Further, the inner city shows little sign of slowing down regardless of how we are continually told that suburbs are the obvious, more affordable and preferred option for everyone.
 
Last edited:
I think this a part of the reason that Calgary's redevelopment and intensification actually exceeds perceptions set by the baby-boom generation of the RW types, even if there still is substantial growth on the edge. The suburbs aren't particularly affordable on paper, let alone factoring other lifestyle costs.

Even regionally Cochrane, Airdrie and Chestermere all don't have particularly cheap houses anymore, many areas of these bedroom communities exceed Calgary's burbs in price, even some of Calgary's existing communities. A quick non-scientific google suggests many new mid-range SFH 20km from the core go for $500 - $750K, depending on the quadrant and area. This cost also comes with others including punishingly long commutes for most daily activities and the costs for multi-car ownership in many cases.

Calgary's price gradient for homes is remarkably shallow - the price doesn't drop as much as I would expect to make the the burbs the always and forever, obvious answer for the cost-conscious home-buyer. Either that or the RW types are totally correct - the demand for new burb SFH is so insatiable the market bids them up so they are over-priced given the lifestyle and amenities.

Either way, there's a reason we've seen non-stop redevelopment in most inner city areas for going on 2 or 3 decades now - demand.

The value proposition for more central living is actually increasingly obvious for even people that aren't particularly urban aficionados. And it's not just the highly urban lifestyle in the Beltline that continues to improve and have no true competition for walkable, amenity rich density, it's the whole stretch of the inner city neighbourhoods 5km out in every direction that are competitive. This forum is a testament to it - there's always stuff going on in almost every community, almost every inner city community is expanding housing types, choices and amenities in response to demand.

Perhaps that's the part of the RW articles that feels most out of touch - 25 years and 500,000 people ago the burbs were cheap and the other costs (e.g. car ownership costs, commute times) were more reasonable. You could write these articles every week. Now, it's far less obvious there's a dominant trend as the direct and indirect costs of living in the burbs has increased and the options of the inner city have improved. Further, the inner city shows little sign of slowing down regardless of how we are continually told that suburbs are the obvious, more affordable and preferred option for everyone.
No question there's solid demand for the inner city. Even with an uneven playing field, inner city development keeps rolling.

The cost of suburban lifestyle does have a price tag for sure. I never paid much attention to it, but have noticed how nice it is to live close to downtown. I cycle into work, and the cost of gas and parking is exactly $0.00 A pair of coworkers come in from Airdrie and Legacy. They're paying probably $10-15 round trip on gas, and $22.00 for parking. Not to mention wear and tear on the vehicle, and not to mention commute times. Right now it's only one day a week, and they're complaining every time. Imagine if were even 2 or 3 days a week.
Aside from cost, there's a life style bonus from living close in. Some days after work, a group from the office will head out to partake in some happy hour specials. I like it, because I can have a some beers and hop on the bike and head home when I feel like it. The people who partake all live close to downtown and walk, cycle or have a short transit run. Virtually all the ones who don't live out a ways and can't because they have to drive, and they're always in a rush to beat traffic.

I'm not trying to turn this into an urban vs suburban discussion, but only pointing out that there are some overt benefits from inner city living. Most of the older boomers don't even have a clue of what urban lifestyles are out there.
 
Most of the older boomers don't even have a clue of what urban lifestyles are out there.
I can tell you, talking to my parents, they (and others I'm sure) believe downtown is just office buildings and 17th. Not sure they grasp what it means to actually live and work in the same area and the other things that are downtown.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top