News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Great to hear but I looked up the surrounding land uses and it's still surrounded by R-2 zoning and even R-1 across 16th. I don't understand why the city stops at R-2 in areas where there is a clear market for more varied uses. At a minimum it should be R-2M with no stupid minimum set back requirements.
 
Yes, saw this land use when it was submitted. With the City recommending refusal of Midtown though, I wonder if we will see them say no to this major density increase as well? If not, why not? There is a relatively recent ARP in place, and this application calls for way more than what was envisioned for this parcel. Why is suddenly a lot more density here acceptable, but not midtown? Is it simply the presence of the Max Orange bus stop? Would this increase in density not cannibalize the markets of East Village, Beltline, Westbrook, etc.... the way Midtown would have?

Not sure what the correct answer is, or outcome will be, but certainly raises an interesting question now with other applications going forward.
Urban Outdoorsman said:
Massive density boost proposed on 16th.


Seems quite ambitious, would love to see some renders
Click to expand...
 
MichaelS said:
Yes, saw this land use when it was submitted. With the City recommending refusal of Midtown though, I wonder if we will see them say no to this major density increase as well? If not, why not? There is a relatively recent ARP in place, and this application calls for way more than what was envisioned for this parcel. Why is suddenly a lot more density here acceptable, but not midtown? Is it simply the presence of the Max Orange bus stop? Would this increase in density not cannibalize the markets of East Village, Beltline, Westbrook, etc.... the way Midtown would have?

Not sure what the correct answer is, or outcome will be, but certainly raises an interesting question now with other applications going forward.
Click to expand...
This site is less than 10% of what's proposed at Midtown. Calling both "major density increases" is highly misleading -- this land use change is closer to someone building a garden shed than it is to the size proposed at Midtown.

Reasons this site makes more sense to approve than Midtown:
Midtown Station is 640,000 square metres; this is under 40,000 total.
The Midtown area is low-density industrial; this is already approved for over 20,000 sq m of development.
Midtown is in the middle of an industrial area with no retail or residential, so the site has to build its own critical mass; this one is near thriving commercial corridors, including a supermarket within walking distance
Midtown requires an LRT station to be built and operated; this site is within 500m of a planned and hopefully soon under construction Green Line station.
Midtown cannot be well serviced by bus; this site is within two blocks of both the east-west Orange Max and from the north-south 301 BRT.
Midtown is walled off on multiple sides by railroads, freeways and roads with few crossings; this site is not only in a gridded area and at a crossing of 16th Ave, it's a 30 minute walk into downtown.
Midtown proposes a lengthy 20 year project with an entire generation living in the first building before the area is completed; this is a single project.
Midtown would cannibalize development from potential TOD nodes where there is transit and the critical mass needed to support higher-density developments; this is a higher density development in a TOD node with transit, helping build that critical mass,


Reasons to approve Midtown but not this one:
Midtown has no rich or connected neighbours wringing their hands about their precious front yards having a shadow on them a little more often or whatever stupid excuse they feel like creating.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
This site is less than 10% of what's proposed at Midtown. Calling both "major density increases" is highly misleading -- this land use change is closer to someone building a garden shed than it is to the size proposed at Midtown.

Reasons this site makes more sense to approve than Midtown:
Midtown Station is 640,000 square metres; this is under 40,000 total.
The Midtown area is low-density industrial; this is already approved for over 20,000 sq m of development.
Midtown is in the middle of an industrial area with no retail or residential, so the site has to build its own critical mass; this one is near thriving commercial corridors, including a supermarket within walking distance
Midtown requires an LRT station to be built and operated; this site is within 500m of a planned and hopefully soon under construction Green Line station.
Midtown cannot be well serviced by bus; this site is within two blocks of both the east-west Orange Max and from the north-south 301 BRT.
Midtown is walled off on multiple sides by railroads, freeways and roads with few crossings; this site is not only in a gridded area and at a crossing of 16th Ave, it's a 30 minute walk into downtown.
Midtown proposes a lengthy 20 year project with an entire generation living in the first building before the area is completed; this is a single project.
Midtown would cannibalize development from potential TOD nodes where there is transit and the critical mass needed to support higher-density developments; this is a higher density development in a TOD node with transit, helping build that critical mass,


Reasons to approve Midtown but not this one:
Midtown has no rich or connected neighbours wringing their hands about their precious front yards having a shadow on them a little more often or whatever stupid excuse they feel like creating.
Click to expand...
So why didn't the area redevelopment plan, which was only approved on June 21st (so, not even full 3rd reading, as still waiting on regional board approval), call for this amount of density? The plan clearly showed much less than what is being proposed (about half). Yes, this is not the same scale as midtown, and there are are lot better aspects to this site than that one, but it is still a major increase in density for what the brand new plan called for in this exact location.

What is the point of doing policy planning if it is just going to be ignored? If I was the community (or anyone opposed to this), I would be pointing very strongly at the midtown rationale as applicable in this case as well.
engage.calgary.ca

North Hill Communities Local Growth Planning

Working together to plan for future growth and redevelopment in your area.
engage.calgary.ca engage.calgary.ca
The plan already allows for up to 6 stories onto 17th Ave NW, and 12 stories on 16th Ave. Do we need to double that along 2nd street? There is no BRT stop at 2nd.
 
Planning documents are not guarantees. The city wants most large projects like this to need a land use change it seems, and as a developer if youre going to go through the trouble ask for as much as you think you could build. Always. If they applied for what was approved in the LAP there would be nothing for them to trade away in face of opposition.
 
The problem is that rezoning is really expensive and inefficient for the city and developers. If the developer follows what's outlined in the planning bylaw, there isn't going to be a strong argument if someone appeals, at least baring some social issue such as affordable housing being demolished. Rezoning applications are a different story.

The city spends alot of money developing these planning guidelines but in most cases approves higher density developments during when requested. There is a disconnect between what the market and council wants and what's provided by the ARPs
 
I know this is suburban, but it's nice to see the areas around East Hills and the Purple MAX line beginning to build out in Belvedere:
20210905_171156.jpg
20210905_171452.jpg
20210905_160843.jpg
20210905_160854.jpg
 
Yes. Chestermere’s municipal plan calls for a population of 76,000 by 2050, with 17 Avenue SE as the retail and residential hub of the city.
 

There is a new DP application for the former Fram site in East Village next to the Simmons building. The city has been using the strange term 'dwelling unit' on their reports which usually means a multi-family project of some kind. This is mixed use but there is no mention of who the applicant is or the number of residential units.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top