News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.9K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

IceCreamMan said:
100%. I'll add to this; I have submitted on many government contracts, and a large chunk of them are pervasively set up in a way that in order to win them, you need the experience; but in order to get that experience, you need to win them. This creates a limited ecosystem where only few firms that have that experience are able to actually win them. A good example of this is with fire stations in Calgary; only a few designers have the resume for them, and therefore those studios win all that specific work. I can tell you straight up that if given the chance, other firms and startups can competitively design these if given the chance, and they try - but they usually never make it deep into the bidding process. Governments have backed themselves into a corner with this type of bidding structure, and it limits competition. I will say there are cases that do buck that trend, but they are very rare and few/far between.
Click to expand...
There has been a little talk about it (I recall a G&M article not long ago) but really it's a HUGE problem that no one thinks about. Procurement in Canada is absolutely beyond broken and it severely stifles innovation, creates monopolies, and drives up costs. It's unbelievable. The architecture firm I work at is doing all their competitions in other countries because there's no hope in hell we would ever win anything in Canada with the way things are setup. That's true for 99% of offices in the country
 
Yes, the $584 mill for the Bellechasse bus depot is a lot, I'm not even saying something exactly like that is right for Calgary but I do think there are a couple important lessons there

If you're going to be spending $2-300 mill on a bus barn anyway you can look at justifying the additional cost as premium public/park space. I don't know how much has been invested into stage 2 of Riverwalk in the entertainment district, but the Vic Park bus garage is a key node along the water and the location is gonna be key strategically for north-south pedestrian movement along the river. If you're going to bring a lot more residents to the area in the future it makes sense to make a plan for great public spaces

keep in mind the price also includes a lot of mechanical and repair equipment, as well as an administrative/office building as well, it's not just simply a garage

the savings on operational costs if busses don't have to dive as far to park every day is not nothing, and it adds up in the long run ...but I suppose something like that would have to be studied for Calgary

I can personally attest that putting it underground means its pretty non-invasive and not noisy at all (although I don't think I've seen it operating in at full capacity yet)


Ultimately I don't know what's right for the Vic Park Garage location, but I will say putting another basic above-ground garage in its place would be a waste of a key strategic location.


If not a bus garage, it could be something else (Pumphouse? Underground public parking?) we need think about doubling or tripling the functionality of key infrastructure sites so they can be shared and help grow the appeal of the Entertainment District
 
outoftheice said:
Will be curious to see if there is a list of projects that accompany this plan. Spending up to $250 million a year on rec facilities for the next 25 years seems like it would build a crap ton of new things. How much was the Y in Seton?

calgaryherald.com

What is GamePLAN? Council to consider 25-year spending plan to fund rec facilities

When it comes to recreational facilities, should the City of Calgary be making waves, going under, or staying afloat?
calgaryherald.com calgaryherald.com
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this, I hadn't seen anything about it but this is very important to me. I wonder if staying afloat is at our current population or is it the status quo as the city grows. making waves mentions service increases to match population growth so to me staying afloat doesn't guarantee matching population growth.

1738772430194.png


From the Herald article... Consistent funding is important but I hope that funding can wind up and down as required over the years. Granted I think our recreation deficit could probably use $250M a year for at least a decade.
1738772590964.png


With a Making Waves investment, it isn't a stretch to see us being a Summer Olympic city.
 
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger said:
Thank you for posting this, I hadn't seen anything about it but this is very important to me. I wonder if staying afloat is at our current population or is it the status quo as the city grows. making waves mentions service increases to match population growth so to me staying afloat doesn't guarantee matching population growth.

View attachment 629806

From the Herald article... Consistent funding is important but I hope that funding can wind up and down as required over the years. Granted I think our recreation deficit could probably use $250M a year for at least a decade.
View attachment 629807

With a Making Waves investment, it isn't a stretch to see us being a Summer Olympic city.
Click to expand...
Similar sentiments that this is important but often not discussed. The scenarios are quite confusing, is this in addition to the city's current budget? For context, the 2025 budget plan has us spending $110M on recreation opportunities, so are we currently "staying afloat" in their view? For something that is so long term, why is this not tied to % of budget or dollar per person? Surely $200M in 2025 is very different from $200M in 2050?

I'd be curious to see the definition of each of those goals. 2.5x more fieldhouse bookable hours, is that on a per capita basis? And what does it mean by "equitable" facility distribution? Is this by area? capita? children count? Perhaps selfishly but I think we should have a round of investment for inner city facilities. Those are the oldest facilities in the city and while we are approving towers in the Beltline, we're closing down pools and fitness facilities. If we want people to live in the inner city and the downtown to be vibrant, it can't only be office towers. Many communities already have the land with community centres. A pot of money to expand those facilities and provide programming would go a long way. That's the model Vancouver has, and I was always surprised Calgary's Parks board doesn't run similar programs in community centres.
 
trtcttc said:
Similar sentiments that this is important but often not discussed. The scenarios are quite confusing, is this in addition to the city's current budget? For context, the 2025 budget plan has us spending $110M on recreation opportunities, so are we currently "staying afloat" in their view? For something that is so long term, why is this not tied to % of budget or dollar per person? Surely $200M in 2025 is very different from $200M in 2050?

I'd be curious to see the definition of each of those goals. 2.5x more fieldhouse bookable hours, is that on a per capita basis? And what does it mean by "equitable" facility distribution? Is this by area? capita? children count? Perhaps selfishly but I think we should have a round of investment for inner city facilities. Those are the oldest facilities in the city and while we are approving towers in the Beltline, we're closing down pools and fitness facilities. If we want people to live in the inner city and the downtown to be vibrant, it can't only be office towers. Many communities already have the land with community centres. A pot of money to expand those facilities and provide programming would go a long way. That's the model Vancouver has, and I was always surprised Calgary's Parks board doesn't run similar programs in community centres.
Click to expand...
The metrics are quite unclear. If you've been working on them for months you get it, but no one else does.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
The metrics are quite unclear. If you've been working on them for months you get it, but no one else does.
Click to expand...
And which services count? Is this only for swim lessons offered by the city? Or is the YMCAs, MNP, etc. all included? The community association in my area has an ice rink, is that considered part of the arena bookable hours? I assume there will be a more detailed presentation, including a look at how these metrics have changed. How has the arena bookable hours based on their criteria changed in the last 10 years, so we can see if the service is declining (anecdotally yes) or has it remained the same and we're investing to make it even better.
 
It looks very... 1980s? And not in a good way. I guess it'll do. Hopefully it's affordable housing, that'll excuse the design.
 
UrbanWarrior said:
It looks very... 1980s? And not in a good way. I guess it'll do. Hopefully it's affordable housing, that'll excuse the design.
Click to expand...

You could put a 100ft mural of me getting punched in the face by my ex wife's new boyfriend on the front of the building and I'd still take it over a downtown parking lot.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top