Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[MichaelS]

Not sure how much I like the expanse of future greenfield developments, though I'm probably preaching to the choir here. Anyone know what the ratio of infill to fringe developments is in Calgary?

Well, it was SUPPOSED to be 50-50 for the 60 years (1 million people) following 2009, the passage of the MDP/CTP. However, it has not been that ratio (not sure what it has been), so theoretically, after 500,000 people have moved into the Greenfield area post 2009, there should be a freeze on any new suburban development. I doubt that will happen though.

 

[Alex_YYC]

You're probably right about the freeze. In paper it sounds good but I doubt it will happen when push comes to shove. As much as I don't want to see too much Greenfield expansion, if there's a demand for housing, I think it will trump Any plans to freeze.

Well, it was SUPPOSED to be 50-50 for the 60 years (1 million people) following 2009, the passage of the MDP/CTP. However, it has not been that ratio (not sure what it has been), so theoretically, after 500,000 people have moved into the Greenfield area post 2009, there should be a freeze on any new suburban development. I doubt that will happen though.

 

[Silence&Motion]

This is complete malarkey. Putting higher densities along High Street is sound planning. The high average cost of housing is exactly what is making redevelopment unfeasible for larger assemblages of single family homes. Single lots are forever being divided into two smaller lots. The concern and rightfully so is the form of redevelopment that fits the character more of a 905 suburbs (a garage for a front facade) than a prewar streetcar one.

I don't follow this. What is malarkey? That single-detached neighbourhoods should be protected or that they should be allowed to be redeveloped? I don't think we can assume that allowing large 1960s/70s single-detached homes to be redeveloped into townhouses is mutually exclusive from encouraging high/mid density development along main streets. The fact that Toronto is so interested in protecting 1970s subdivisions seems more about NIMBYism than sound urban planning.

 

[Operater]

Hi Group,

Wonder if Anyone has taken so Called "Urban Sprawl" into consideration. Have to Wonder at Times. East Calgary is NOW Bumping into Chestermere. When does the South run into Okotoks? Can't B far Off at this Rate. North? There is Cross Iron Mills! 5 Minutes Later so It Seems is Airdrie. Talk About Growth! 40 years Ago When I got here these Towns were Way Out. Not Now. Have to Wonder When Calgary will Annex These Towns. Just Like L.A. Can't B far off.

Tnx,
Operater.

 

[maestro]

I'm saying its complete nonsense that Toronto

I don't follow this. What is malarkey? That single-detached neighbourhoods should be protected or that they should be allowed to be redeveloped? I don't think we can assume that allowing large 1960s/70s single-detached homes to be redeveloped into townhouses is mutually exclusive from encouraging high/mid density development along main streets. The fact that Toronto is so interested in protecting 1970s subdivisions seems more about NIMBYism than sound urban planning.

It's complete nonsense. Toronto isn't trying to preserve 1970s single family subdivisions. They are trying to preserve the character of neighbourhoods knowing that large scale redevelopment of single family homes is never going to happen. There's just too may owners for developers. Toronto's classic porch lined streets have seen a influx of small unidriveway redevelopments over the years that look completely out of place, leave no room for the future of the treed canopy and, also take away from the needed street parking.

 

[Silence&Motion]

It's complete nonsense. Toronto isn't trying to preserve 1970s single family subdivisions.

I'm not sure how else you interpret the mass categorization of almost all the post-war subdivisions as "stable neighbourhoods", where any redevelopment is required to maintain existing lot sizes, setbacks, building type etc. I'm not talking about the mass redevelopment of entire subdivisions. I'm talking about the piecemeal redevelopment of single-detached lots into townhouses. I'm basically in agreement with Shawn Micallef on this point.

 

[maestro]

There are design guidelines to preserve the character of neighbourhood's urban/built form such as the exterior cladding and how the homes meet the streets for new subdivisions and those are to be extended to small infill. There is nothing in the way of zoning preventing someone from tearing down a couple single family homes, subdivided the lots and, building a 4 unit townhouse block in its place. It just isn't close to being as profitable as a "renovation" by adding a second/third storey to the single family homes and flipping them. Again, Shawn Micallef is playing alarmist which he often does through misinformation.

 

[Surrealplaces]

So the residence is now definitely going ahead, that is freaking awesome. Another massive rental tower on the rise. Insanity. Once this, The Hat, and West Village are done, how many rental units will downtown/beltline have built in the 2010 decade? It's gotta be at least 3000 or so?

This is what I can think of for rental purposed buildings built or u/c this decade. West Village Towers may or may not be all three, but I've included all three towers. 3K is right on the mark.

Versus 444
Aura 312
Portfolio 218
Metropolitan 430
1404 units

The Hat 221
Marriott Residential 300
Underwood 192
West village Towers 575
Telus Sky 326
1614 units

3,018 units.

 

[Always_Biking]

Ventus, is also rental, same for 1414 and 1215.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Thanks! I forgot about those three. So rental purposed built towers built or u/c in the core, this decade.

Versus 444
Aura 312
Portfolio 218
Metropolitan 430
1215 137
fifteen15 148
1689 units

The Hat 221
Marriott Residential 300
Underwood 192
West village Towers 575
Telus Sky 326
Ventus 68
1682 units

3,371 units.

 

[MichaelS]

I wonder if any of the Eau Claire B Lands, and their 1100 units, will break ground at all. I get the sense that project is dead, but I also thought that about West Village Towers, so who knows.

 

[Beltline_B]

I really hope that project happens in one form or another. As long as it's not another office tower complex on those blocks I'll be happy.
If the project was planned as condominiums, you're probably right about it being dead.

I wonder if any of the Eau Claire B Lands, and their 1100 units, will break ground at all. I get the sense that project is dead, but I also thought that about West Village Towers, so who knows.

 

[BKha]

Not to mention that just about every condo tower that has been recently built has units for rent. The rental stock for downtown units has to be going up, which is a good thing.

Thanks! I forgot about those three. So rental purposed built towers built or u/c in the core, this decade.

Versus 444
Aura 312
Portfolio 218
Metropolitan 430
1215 137
fifteen15 148
1689 units

The Hat 221
Marriott Residential 300
Underwood 192
West village Towers 575
Telus Sky 326
Ventus 68
1682 units

3,371 units.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Thanks! I forgot about those three. So rental purposed built towers built or u/c in the core, this decade.

Versus 444
Aura 312
Portfolio 218
Metropolitan 430
1215 137
fifteen15 148
1689 units

The Hat 221
Marriott Residential 300
Underwood 192
West village Towers 575
Telus Sky 326
Ventus 68
1682 units

3,371 units.

That's incredible.

 

[MichaelS]

I really hope that project happens in one form or another. As long as it's not another office tower complex on those blocks I'll be happy.
If the project was planned as condominiums, you're probably right about it being dead.

In its current iteration, it is definitely a rental complex for the BC teachers pension fund I think. GWL was managing the development for them. Not sure what the latest is with it. It has a building permit applied for according to the "my property" map, going back to 2015. Not sure how long you can drag that application out before it goes stale. West Village Towers did something similar and eventually started up, let's hope for the same scenario here.