News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 4.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 3.8K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Surrealplaces said:
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.
Click to expand...
I had a colleague think about taking the bus last month because they calculated that their current practice of driving downtown from their house near Nose Hill was costing over $4 / direction in just gas (forgetting financing, insurance, depreciation etc.) This was a corner case for sure just sharing for fun and was mostly as a by-product of higher than previous gas prices and this individual having one of those monster luxury, kitted-out trucks that are essentially designed to celebrate lack of fuel efficiency and complete lack of practicality in a city.

It was note-worthy as I have never heard someone with that kind of wildly out-sized, probably $100K+ truck have true contemplation of the daily cost before - because you'd think monthly payments in excess of $1,000/month for a depreciating vehicle would have been the trigger for contemplation before they bought it, not the $4 of gas after they drove it. It's a crazy example, but a real one, and this person could have bought $175,000 larger mortgage for the same cashflow, even at todays much higher interest rates.
Surrealplaces said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would add there's loads of areas in the newer suburbs that are way better for walkability and daily needs than the stuff built 30 years ago, which should be commended. That West District and whole 85 Street SW corridor is a prime example - it's actually fairly walkable, has a high density of quality restaurants and daily shopping, good pathways, loads of housing choice too. Apart from the lack of mixed use development and the general car-orientation of every suburb we built, it's not too bad by edge community standards.

The only problem - 85 Street SW is a wildly expensive area of the city, with some of the highest prices for homes anywhere, including the suburbs and inner city. This goes to my earlier point against the outdated suburban RW commentary that blanketly assumes "everyone wants a new house, in a new suburbs are they are the only affordable places for new families". This statement was never really true, of course. But the more I look at home prices in the burbs today and the regional bedroom communities, I'd go further and say it's increasingly not clear at all they are the affordable option in an increasing amount of cases, even before factoring the indirect stuff (commute time, multi-car ownership etc.)

EDIT: 85 Street SW is definitely an example on the high side, but Airdrie, Chestermere, outer NE and deep SE are hardly cheap either.
 
Last edited:
CBBarnett said:
I think he reads this forum and generates articles to get us to click on them and disagree:

The case against a farmers' market in downtown Calgary​

Seasonal stalls may be worth a try, but what works in other cities may be bad fit here​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/downtown-calgary-farmers-market-1.6565868?__vfz=medium=sharebar
Click to expand...
Next article will call for a lot more drive-thrus. Although I do like his idea of using platform for a temp farmers market
 
Last edited:
Where he loses me is when he talks about people loading up their cars with items from the farmers market. A downtown farmers market would likely not be a destination for people outside of downtown but serve those who already live there. Sure Crossroads will be on the Green Line but I still think it will primarily serve people going there in their car.

People downtown would either walk, bike, and yes some would drive. But you can't think of a downtown farmer's market in a suburban context. Sure downtown has grocery stores but so do the suburbs, farmers markets are different.

Finally, Eau Claire was a market, never a farmer's market. It failed for the same reason that thing out by Cross Iron has failed; people shop at market style places on occasion or seasonally, not daily or even weekly. Speaking for myself I've been to themed (Christmas) markets, they work because they're special and local. No offense but there's a reason people who run those business at those markets don't exactly strike it rich. Its mostly a hobby.
 
Last edited:
Mountain Man said:
I don't actually disagree with him this time, Eau Claire failed miserably and Crossroads is close enough to work quite well.
Click to expand...
Over the long haul Eau Claire failed miserably, but I thought it was doing alright in the first few years. I could be remembering it wrong also.
 
Mountain Man said:
I don't actually disagree with him this time, Eau Claire failed miserably and Crossroads is close enough to work quite well.
Click to expand...
He's not always wrong, it's just he writes too reductively and with constant status quo biases. The effect is a repeated conclusion that Calgary is the way it is, and there's little we can do (or even want to do) about it - forgetting that we make policies, investments, individual and collective choices everyday that are examples of what we can literally do about it.

In this case, the article's central problem is a reductive definition what a farmers market even is and how it works. This definition waffles between some sort of place-making tool only and a normal grocery store throughout the article, flexible to the needs of the argument paragraph by paragraph. The definition also includes an assumption that everyone drives to a farmers market. Farmers markets can function as those things, sure, but that's not really the whole story of why a city would want one and why downtown/inner city residents and victors should be satisfied with a few big chain supermarkets.

Here's the arguments and my rebuttals/missing context. According to the article, Calgary doesn't need a downtown farmers market because:
  • We already have an "inner-city" one at Crossroads
    • famously in an industrial area, 3km from any population density and inaccessible by quality transit, walking or cycling until 2028+.
  • "Vancouver's Granville Island Market is about the same distance from the centre of Vancouver's downtown as Crossroads is from Calgary's"
    • maybe this is true? but that's an irrelevant measure - Granville is within a walking distance to 100,000 people's homes and charming ferry ride that attracts locals and tourists alike by the thousands.
  • Calgary had a farmers market "downtown" already and it burned down in the 1950s, and also didn't compete to suburban groceries
    • true-ish but are we talking about downtown from 70 years ago. A few things have changed including tens of thousands of more inner city residents and appreciation for local produce and food security.
    • The article is now saying "downtown" doesn't need one, where previously argument is that "inner city" doesn't need another one. Which geography are we working at? I may agree the Downtown Commercial Core is not a great location, but the river front? The Beltline? Fix your geographies so I can agree or disagree accurately.
    • Also, shouldn't all the grocery stores in the inner city mean we don't need Crossroads Market either?
  • "Eau Claire Market, which opened in 1993, never really operated as a farmers' market"
    • Exactly - Eau Claire didn't even try to be a farmers market, how is this evidence we shouldn't have a farmers market?
  • "The biggest barrier to a year-round downtown farmers' market in downtown today is the plethora of existing grocery stores in and around our the downtown core"
    • So there's proven demand for groceries, but they are only available from major grocery chains, got it.
    • Why isn't this an argument against suburban farmers market too? We have like 3 Costcos with a 15 minute drive, why do we need Calgary Farmer's Market West?
  • "let's not forget, over the past 10 years, there has been a proliferation of seasonal community farmers' markets across Calgary — 28 in total — including Bridgeland, Hillhurst and Marda Loop. Many of the local producers are maxed out working these markets."
    • How is this not evidence that the demand for local produce and farmer's market in the inner city is outstripping supply? Why do so many people keep going to these pop-ups if we have all these grocery stores we just talked about?
    • Also are local producers maxed out and would be opposed to a central, major farmers market to sell their products? How do we know any of this?
  • "One of the keys to a successful farmers' market in Calgary is access to free surface parking. Shoppers love to load up their vehicles when they are at the market"
    • Because none of the current ones exist within a reasonable walking, bicycle or transit distance from any population density. Why would an inner city farmers market function the same way where 2/3 local residents never have to drive for their daily needs?
    • The article even mentions many other successful farmers markets elsewhere in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. What do they all have in common? Great central access where the majority of their shoppers/tourists don't drive to them.
  • One of the fundamental lessons of city building is, 'what works in one city, doesn't always work in another city'. Just because other cities have year-round downtown farmers' markets, some more successful than others, doesn't mean Calgary needs or would support one"
    • There is it - Calgary should be wary of examples that work in other places because it might not work here. Made in Calgary solutions only - like sprawl and car-dependence (famously not invented here either btw)
    • We are a suburban city in all ways, in all areas and will remain that way always - don't try to change or be more nuances that different areas of the city might actually be "urban".
    • And if after reading all these arguments, and we still want to do this whole urban farmers market thing, just do a cheap pop-up in a parking garage downtown so we can all drive and get our fresh local produce in an ugly multi-storey parkade. That will be a good way to test if an urban, inner city farmers market would be attractive right?
I just did that on my lunch break and I know nothing about farmer markets. But I like to think I have a very minor understanding in structuring arguments, how urban life works, and an opinion that status quo bias in car-dependent cities is a bad thing. It would be great if urban discourse in the local media had more of these things and less of the boring reductive status quo stuff.
 
Last edited:
Surrealplaces said:
Over the long haul Eau Claire failed miserably, but I thought it was doing alright in the first few years. I could be remembering it wrong also.
Click to expand...
It leased out. Originally it had 50 different food vendors. 50! In addition to 10 restaurants, 60 additional stores, IMAX, and the Cineplex.

Here is an observation from a Herald article when it opened "They feel confident their products are comparable, but fear there is too much emphasis on upscale gift shops and not enough on the food market."

The IMAX and theatre were the anchors, and they just weren't strong enough. Then by the time of lease renewals both places were closing and the operator wanted to recoup more money after the initial establishment phase.

The two combined and killed the market. By 2004, the market itself was sold, then the land was sold by the city. When it was sold, the new owner didn't buy the IMAX license, which made sense but in hindsight was stupid.
 
I do think that an urban farmer's market would need to be located in the heart of an already dense and active community that is quickly accessible on foot. Instead of Platform, i think that High Park/City Centre Parkade would be the best place for a pop-up Farmer's Market. It is easily accessible for Beltline residents, easy walk from Downtown LRT, not far from protected cycle lanes, and there is a metric f*** ton of surface parking on 10th ave and 9th ave to court the Richard's of the world.

Give me pop-up stalls like the Chatuchak Market and a rooftop patio and park space that could have a beer garden section in the warmer months at City Centre Parkade please and thank you.
 
Yes, let's do compare Calgary and Vancouver when it comes to urban grocery availability, Richard:

grocery stores.png


Just to be clear, these maps are at the same scale. Also, what isn't quite obvious is that almost all of the red markers (and some of the blue) on the Vancouver map are actual grocery stores. In the Calgary map the only actual grocery stores are Safeway and Superstore (located at the very edges of the map). The rest of the markers in Calgary are convenience stores.
 
Last edited:
Calgcouver said:
Next article will call for a lot more drive-thrus. Although I do like his idea of using platform for a temp farmers market
Click to expand...
Haha that’s not even his idea. It was mentioned by someone on here like a month ago!! 🤣🤣
 
MissingMiddle said:
I just find it ironic that the "urban realist" doesn't understand that there's anything in between a suburban SFH, and a 500sqft condo in the sky.
Click to expand...
That is because he is "Missing the Middle" 😉
 
Question for those policy experts on the forum. The new Truman development on 10th Ave and the Triovest Stephen Ave proposal has sparked some conversation along the lines of 'why are developers choosing to redevelop heritage buildings instead of a surface parking lot?' It got me thinking, is there a policy option the City of Calgary could explore that could help shift that trend?

From what I can gather, surface parking lots require minimal investment and parking prices in Calgary are high enough that they generate decent revenue. I also believe the land value is not as high as something zoned for high-rise development. Heritage buildings can qualify a developer for certain heritage density bonuses that can be transferred to a different lot but they also are expensive to upkeep and the tenants probably don't generate the same level of revenues as surface parking. So given this assessment is there a way we can tip the scales?

For example, what if Council brought in a special tax category for surface lots in the downtown where property taxes where jacked up higher than they would be if the lot was developed? This might create an incentive to build or sell to someone who might build instead of just holding the land and collecting parking revenues. The increase would probably be passed on to users but Calgary Parking can influence the market by keeping their rates low and parkade users would be exempt as well. With 30% office vacancy, the surface parking lots aren't really needed and so users could shift to lots with lower rates. By the same token, could a property tax discount be given to downtown lots with designated heritage buildings on them so that developers aren't pressured into up zoning and building in order to justify their tax bills?

I really don't have any expertise in this area but I do think that if we're serious about revitalizing downtown, eliminating surface parking and saving heritage buildings and finding financial incentives to accomplish both goals should easily be part of any plan.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top