News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.8K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Looks like they'll be going with a new design for the new court building. CTV Toronto: Calgary's new Court of Appeal building to incorporate original historic structure.
 
They already have the ramp on 6th, going into the Harley Hotchkiss Parkade under the park, so that won't change. Thankfully they're going with a new design rather than the original.
 
The City is closing their affordable housing tower in Bridgeland (Bridgeland Place):

Give the size of the parcel of land, and the recent success of the Bridges, I wonder if they will refurbish the building, or tear it down to allow for more significant redevelopment and intensification of this site.
 
The City is closing their affordable housing tower in Bridgeland (Bridgeland Place):

Give the size of the parcel of land, and the recent success of the Bridges, I wonder if they will refurbish the building, or tear it down to allow for more significant redevelopment and intensification of this site.
Probably better to tear down and reconfigure the land into a grid layout and build multiple highrises. Right now the surface parking lot and the placement of the building don't allow for much to be built on the land. Never liked the look of the building but sad to see some affordable housing units lost.
 
Probably better to tear down and reconfigure the land into a grid layout and build multiple highrises. Right now the surface parking lot and the placement of the building don't allow for much to be built on the land. Never liked the look of the building but sad to see some affordable housing units lost.
I agree, it's sad to see but probably the most necessary action. From the article, residents would have been exposed to "asbestos and potentially lead paint in the process, and there are issues with the ventilation and water systems."

Happy to see that they're going to "work with each tenant individually to provide new housing." Specifically, Nenshi said, "“I’ll tell you now that I will not support any plan that doesn’t involve the replacement, unit for unit — if not the increase — of affordable housing supply.

Good stuff, in theory at least.
 
I agree, it's sad to see but probably the most necessary action. From the article, residents would have been exposed to "asbestos and potentially lead paint in the process, and there are issues with the ventilation and water systems."

Happy to see that they're going to "work with each tenant individually to provide new housing." Specifically, Nenshi said, "“I’ll tell you now that I will not support any plan that doesn’t involve the replacement, unit for unit — if not the increase — of affordable housing supply.

Good stuff, in theory at least.
Midfield park anyone.
 
It should be replaced by other centrally located, rapid transit accessible affordable housing. Midfield Park, while technically inner city, is quite a bit less accessible, and 2 km farther out.
 
Midfield hasn't had trailers in it for at least a couple years now. There is already a proposal for several high rises and several other mid rises, pretty sure that's what Rollerstud was referring to.
 
The difference is that the city shouldn't be subsidizing trailer parks, they are one of the least efficient methods of providing affordable housing, especially in the inner city. Apartments and townhouses are the way to go.
It depends. Trailer parks can be denser than you'd think. What we should do is allow the tremendous relaxation in land use regs that applies to trailer parks and allow the same to row houses, skinny houses, and low rise apartment complexes.

Chateau Estates is 16.8 Hectares, all in. It has 300 units by my count. 17.85 units per hectare (7.25 per acre), including parkland, roads, and a common centre. This is a nearly brand new one, needing to comply with all sorts of fire regs which reduces density, yet it is still rather dense. You might scoff at the density numbers, but remember this is an entire community, not just a develop-able parcel.
1617120945418.png


From a quick google, here are some neighbourhood densities:
NeighbourhoodDensity Unit per Hectare
Chateau Estates17.85
Cougar Ridge14.2
Alpine Park 5315-146 Ave SW (a full quarter section with 1130 units)17.5
Garrison Woods25.2
Hillhurst/Sunnyside (2014)8-10
MDP Minimum Density Target Greenfield (source Tuscany Community Association)19.76
Tuscany (source Tuscany Community Association)14.8

Sure they aren't paneceas, but they aren't a blight either. If we were more consistent with approvals so that there is typically available supply, they're also a great form of land banking.

And most definetly, they are a very efficient money wise way of providing affordable housing. Without being such a bad land use.
 
Last edited:
Or that the city offered to replace every unit lost in midfield, then didn't. Don't disagree with the city on this one, but it was a bit disingenuous to the people that lived there.
The city should have never made that offer. TBH they shouldn't have owned the park for so long. They should have flipped it as soon as they could in the 70s, 80s, after they had stabilized the finances following a takeover from the failed owner/operator.
 

Back
Top