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

Dārayavauš said:
I remember this and was surprised at how myopic the responses were. Anderson LRT is a great opportunity to actually try and showcase the potential of a TOD. There would still be parking, just in a parkade, but somehow this was purposely ignored by the public. I never understood what character they’re trying to protect, a massive ugly parking lot is not character.
Click to expand...
In the end wasn’t it rejected by the city due to upfront costs in the $30 million range and that it would compete with other city owned or directed TODs (or core) housing projects?

I’d imagine if it went forward these days it would be at a similar density to this:
1698517471906.png


Not an attempt at tower Vancouverism.
 
darwink said:
In the end wasn’t it rejected by the city due to upfront costs in the $30 million range and that it would compete with other city owned or directed TODs (or core) housing projects?

I’d imagine if it went forward these days it would be at a similar density to this:
View attachment 516239

Not an attempt at tower Vancouverism.
Click to expand...
Sad really. Luckily it’s on the back burner still so we can revisit in the future.
 
Anderson TOD wasn't necessary rejected by the city (the land use and outline plan were approved) but Council hindered it with the requirement to build a parkade to replace all of the surface parking. The city's real estate arm never had the budget to do this work, do it died.

It would just take the removal of that requirement to hopefully see it go forward.
 
MichaelS said:
Anderson TOD wasn't necessary rejected by the city (the land use and outline plan were approved) but Council hindered it with the requirement to build a parkade to replace all of the surface parking. The city's real estate arm never had the budget to do this work, do it died.

It would just take the removal of that requirement to hopefully see it go forward.
Click to expand...

That requirement for all park and rides is now gone as part of the recent RouteAhead update.

Expect a lot of TOD action at various locations.
 
There is a development sign up at 25th Ave & 15th Street in Bankview. Entire street of original brick homes soon to be knocked down for most likely a condo building. Very surprising choice for a developer to buy up an entire street like this as all are very well kept owner occupied (non-rentals) and several are renovated and have sold for >$900k in recent years. Many run down post war bungalows in nearby streets that Bankview residents would prefer to see be developed instead. Unfortunate to see these character houses go!
IMG-8766.jpg
IMG-8766.jpg
IMG-8765.jpg
IMG-8768.jpg
IMG-8769.jpg
IMG-8767.jpg
IMG-8764.jpg
IMG-8763.jpg
 
IanBray said:
There is a development sign up at 25th Ave & 15th Street in Bankview. Entire street of original brick homes soon to be knocked down for most likely a condo building. Very surprising choice for a developer to buy up an entire street like this as all are very well kept owner occupied (non-rentals) and several are renovated and have sold for >$900k in recent years. Many run down post war bungalows in nearby streets that Bankview residents would prefer to see be developed instead. Unfortunate to see these character houses go!View attachment 516496View attachment 516496View attachment 516497View attachment 516498View attachment 516499View attachment 516500View attachment 516501View attachment 516502
Click to expand...
Looking at the city’s development map and the notice board, seems like they aren’t redesignating current zoning (RC-2), only going for a direct control district which is more typical to add uses and other non conforming things not typically in the base zoning rules.

Doesn’t mean a big change is coming, might be minor or not noticeable (eg. Adding a new use)
 
CBBarnett said:
Looking at the city’s development map and the notice board, seems like they aren’t redesignating current zoning (RC-2), only going for a direct control district which is more typical to add uses and other non conforming things not typically in the base zoning rules.

Doesn’t mean a big change is coming, might be minor or not noticeable (eg. Adding a new use)
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly this might be the first example of a Heritage Direct Control area which is one of the heritage incentives put into place recently.
From DMAP:

1698687921232.png


I'm very curious about this as the description of what a heritage DC does has been rather vague:

While heritage areas have been established in other Canadian cities, this will be the first time that we create Direct Control Heritage Areas in Calgary. The first Direct Control Heritage Area is being developed through a pilot with participating property owners. We are working together to identify what land use and architectural elements they want to preserve on their block. Rules will then be created to protect these elements. As redevelopment occurs, new developments will include these heritage elements, respecting the heritage character of the block.

Which reads to me like some redevelopment could be done as long as all of the key heritage elements of the buildings on that block are preserved.

Anyway, essentially this block (minus the most westerly house) could end up being Calgary's first residential heritage district.
 
This is an odd one.

The old Molsen Canadian building in Bridgeland is being demolished and replaced with a single story, rather generic looking, commercial building. Pros are it is commercial onto 1st Ave, but not making such a large parcel a mixed-use building with residential above it seems like a really big missed opportunity.

From the DP drawings:
1698703513495.png

1698703537421.png

1698703578940.png

1698703598039.png

1698703621830.png

1698703646388.png


I'd normally create a thread for it, but for what amounts to a strip mall without the parking lot, it doesn't seem necessary.
 
MichaelS said:
This is an odd one.

The old Molsen Canadian building in Bridgeland is being demolished and replaced with a single story, rather generic looking, commercial building. Pros are it is commercial onto 1st Ave, but not making such a large parcel a mixed-use building with residential above it seems like a really big missed opportunity.

From the DP drawings:
View attachment 516651
View attachment 516652
View attachment 516653
View attachment 516654
View attachment 516655
View attachment 516656

I'd normally create a thread for it, but for what amounts to a strip mall without the parking lot, it doesn't seem necessary.
Click to expand...
Shoppers Drug Mart is coming for Luke's. Reminds me of when shoppers opened across the street from Telstar drugs in Kensington.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top