News   Apr 03, 2020
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.4K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

/\Totally agree. So disheartening to scan around downtown and beltline to find a bunch of applications for signs, change of use or the worst, parking lot renewals. A filter of sorts would seem to be a no-brainer, and not that hard to do.
 
My biggest gripe with the new infills happening is that none of them pay any respect towards context or aesthetic, they are all white/beige/grey/black stucco boxes that the designers don't make even a token effort to fit into our mostly WW2 era and post-war housing stock.
That's where the new Heritage Guideline Areas come into play, in those zones there are some architectural guidelines that reflect the original housing forms

1727887610787.png
1727887934537.png


Although recent developments have probably priced me out of upgrading to a new home, if I was to it would definitely be in one of these guidelines areas.
 
Last edited:
/\Totally agree. So disheartening to scan around downtown and beltline to find a bunch of applications for signs, change of use or the worst, parking lot renewals. A filter of sorts would seem to be a no-brainer, and not that hard to do.
After about a decade they finally got rid of the permanent "Click to here to never see this pop up again" popup. Let's not ask for too much.
 
I don't know a lot but I do know concrete costs money. Then why do we "widen" sidewalks to not actually make their usable space any bigger?

Between the boxes, trees and lamp posts could they not just make a green strip in that section?
Agreed. I have heard The City is moving away from grass boulevards due to maintenance costs, and I've noticed some of them in Beltline are now some form of fake grass (which looks terrible IMO). If maintenance costs are an issue (someone told me the reason is GHG emissions due to maintenance which seems rather over-the-top silly) could they not use low maintenance xeriscaping such as rocks and prairie grasses?
 
Agreed. I have heard The City is moving away from grass boulevards due to maintenance costs, and I've noticed some of them in Beltline are now some form of fake grass (which looks terrible IMO). If maintenance costs are an issue (someone told me the reason is GHG emissions due to maintenance which seems rather over-the-top silly) could they not use low maintenance xeriscaping such as rocks and prairie grasses?
You'd think they could spare some expense for the centre of the city with thousands of visitors each day.
 
Agreed. I have heard The City is moving away from grass boulevards due to maintenance costs, and I've noticed some of them in Beltline are now some form of fake grass (which looks terrible IMO). If maintenance costs are an issue (someone told me the reason is GHG emissions due to maintenance which seems rather over-the-top silly) could they not use low maintenance xeriscaping such as rocks and prairie grasses?
Speaking on maintenance, the snow needs somewhere to go, a green island of rocks and resilient native species would be a pretty good place to shovel the snow. As long as it isn't filled with salt from lazy snow clearing.
 
I don't know a lot but I do know concrete costs money. Then why do we "widen" sidewalks to not actually make their usable space any bigger?

Between the boxes, trees and lamp posts could they not just make a green strip in that section?
View attachment 601268
Not a planner...but would guess it's that balance of creating tree canopy over marquee streets and then safety by pushing people a bit further from the street??
 

How much power should a property owner have on what one property owner wants to build next door?

I can't imagine spending a bunch of time trying to stifle progress instead of sitting on your porch and enjoying a cocktail in your presently idyllic situation that you don't want to ever ever ever change. But to each their own.

"Frankly, my personal view is city council has kind of lost its way. They're focused on density for density's sake without thinking about density that can actually provide affordable homes and help solve the housing crisis," he said.

Lahodey said he was concerned the housing that will be built under the zoning bylaw passed in May will not result in affordable homes for Calgarians, but instead create smaller, equally unaffordable homes.
The lamest and laziest common argument against this without ever suggesting an alternative situation. If they want true affordability, then a government housing project next door is the answer!
 

Back
Top