News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.1K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 6.9K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Since New HiRise construction has nearly ground to a hault in Calgary and talking about 5-1’s is quite dull. What HiRise priject do you folks think will be the next one to start?
 
whatchyyc said:
We'll see. I don't think they'll need to use the plaza as they'll have the entire site of Eau Claire mall and maybe the river run townhomes to use for laydown
Click to expand...
Depends on the size of the excavation for the station I guess. Do we have any idea when we will see the final design? I think what we have seen is just conceptual so far.
 
Now that all the utility/infrastructure work is done, the city is gong to start selling parcels at Midfield

1717553902997.png
 
jianxia15 said:
View attachment 569730
West Elbow Community engagement. It seems that City may want to demolish the Richmond Road Diagnostic and Treatment Centre to develop buildings higher than 12 storey there. There are also bold plans to develop the area around the Sunalta station.
Click to expand...

As far as I understand the LAP process, its not quite that certain.

It's not rezoning (although it essentially is). It's replacing existing community development plans with a joint community higher density agreement, and leaving the future developers to deal with the land use re-designation applications.

So the Richmond Diagnosticians Center won't be pushed by the "City" to be demolished, it will just be in a community plan that will designate it as the 'community' would like to see it as 12 story + growth. If the developer wanted to build 12+ growth, they would still need a land use re-designation application approved by council.

However, the developer would point to this LAP and say "look, it matches the area development plan" and council may approve it.

Oh, and the City will claim the community wants this. In my experience, they are ignoring communicant feedback.

I am all for more density, but this process is anti transparent and dishonest. If the City wants to ignore community feedback and jam density with a sledge hammer without actual looking at streets, just be open about it. None of this fake engagement or pretending to understand the communities. In the Chinook area plan we are in phase 3, the darn map shading for increased development doesn't even follow property lines, they just use an offset shading. Its not that huge of an area, and its obvious they didn't take the time to understand the communities.

Which again may be fine depending on your vision for the City, but the City and the workers are being straight up dishonest and should just be transparent that this isn't a plan the community wants, but the City is going to dictate it and that is life. The City lying about how engagement matters is horrible for our society.

Side note, what is interesting about the "Richmond Diagnostic Facility" being 'zoned' as 12 story plus.. isn't it industrial? We received major push back in the Chinook plan when we wanted to shade the area east of Macleoud for high growth -the City barley shaded any as inner city industrial is deemed needed to offset the tax base. That Calgary parking lot on 39th isn't being even shaded as high density (which is what the community wants) and its a disgrace.
 
Last edited:
Mull said:
As far as I understand the LAP process, its not quite that certain.

It's not rezoning (although it essentially is). It's replacing existing community development plans with a joint community higher density agreement, and leaving the future developers to deal with the land use re-designation applications.

So the Richmond Diagnosticians Center won't be pushed by the "City" to be demolished, it will just be in a community plan that will designate it as the 'community' would like to see it as 12 story + growth. If the developer wanted to build 12+ growth, they would still need a land use re-designation application approved by council.

However, the developer would point to this LAP and say "look, it matches the area development plan" and council may approve it.

Oh, and the City will claim the community wants this. In my experience, they are ignoring communicant feedback.

I am all for more density, but this process is anti transparent and dishonest. If the City wants to ignore community feedback and jam density with a sledge hammer without actual looking at streets, just be open about it. None of this fake engagement or pretending to understand the communities. In the Chinook area plan we are in phase 3, the darn map shading for increased development doesn't even follow property lines, they just use an offset shading. Its not that huge of an area, and its obvious they didn't take the time to understand the communities.

Which again may be fine, but the City and the workers are being straight up dishonest and should just be transparent.

Side note, what is interesting about the "Richmond Diagnostic Facility" being 'zoned' as 12 story plus.. isn't it industrial? We received major push back in the Chinook plan when we wanted to shade the area east of Macleoud for high growth -the City barley shaded any as inner city industrial is deemed needed to offset the tax base. That Calgary parking lot on 39th isn't being even shaded as high density (which is what the community wants) and its a disgrace.
Click to expand...
Agreed with most of what you said. We also had a recent LAP, and while I have no issues necessarily with the plan, the entire process was pretty pointless. The city staff had a plan in place and we had a bunch of “engagement” which with most low rise communities the feedback is no parking, too many people, etc. (which I don’t usually agree with) then the city cherry picks the comments to support the plan they drew up at the beginning.

The plan is also not ambitious. It’s not really a plan or vision of the community in x years. More just, we see the zoning maps, let’s rezone the main streets up a level, add some transit and bike lanes, done.

Really don’t see the point of it other than give developers something to point to when they apply for rezoning and residents something to argue against development it god forbid a townhouse is proposed where it’s shaded RC-2
 
Golfing guy said:
Since New HiRise construction has nearly ground to a hault in Calgary and talking about 5-1’s is quite dull. What HiRise priject do you folks think will be the next one to start?
Click to expand...
Sovereign, Imperia, West Village III, or Inglewood Firehall?
 
trtcttc said:
Really don’t see the point of it other than give developers something to point to when they apply for rezoning and residents something to argue against development it god forbid a townhouse is proposed where it’s shaded RC-2
Click to expand...
Parts of the city had 3, 4, 5 intersecting plans, often conflicting, and lots of the city had no modern planning. This process is trying to get the entire city aligned with city wide goals, since redevelopment is touching more places, and very often the first call is for either compliance with the original plans, viewing it as a sacrosanct contract, or for a new plan to be developed, delaying proponents by years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top