News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.9K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     5 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 5K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Not adding much to the convo here, but I'll say, at least Seton and Quarry Park rec centre's were built at future LRT station locations.
 
Giant rec centres or schools are par for the course everywhere. The advantages are fewer but larger facilities can house more specialized options and amenities than multiple smaller venues for the same costs. The disadvantages are accessibility. They're not within walking distance for the majority of users.

A planned lrt station isn't of any use to users now. As obvious as it sounds, it's still worth noting when a future lrt station is inferred as the master plan being developed in the right order. Of course, much has to do with planned transit capital projects are still not 100% reliable in being built and in a timely fashion.
 
CBBarnett said:
I am curious what this plan will actually propose and how that plan will manifest into actual facilities. Much of the issues with distribution and cost of recreation facilities isn't really a byproduct of public demands for stuff, but more interpretation of those demands combined with deliberate funding, operating and facility design assumptions IMO.

The bloated, mega-rec centres of the past 25 years were a byproduct of these factors. A generous take - they are huge capacity, attractive and modern, some of the best facilities in the country for mixed recreation opportunities. Many people asked for them and they got what they asked for. Less generously - and more accurately to me - we only could afford to build 4 of them because they are huge. It's not an inherent good thing we have the "1st and 2nd largest recreation YMCAs in the world!" as it was celebrated repeatedly.

The third-party operating model dictates what services can be offered, while design assumptions result in a facility so large it can't fit anywhere but a greenfield plot of land with low land costs. Despite every plan and policy talking about equitable access and public recreation being a critical service - we created $500M of recreation facilities scattered in inaccessible areas, at high costs to average users to access. We then tried to address this criticism with subsidized user passes - nice gesture, but never enough to overcome nearly impossible transportation barriers to access any of the new facilities. If you don't have a car, these recreation centres are not built for you.

Meanwhile, commitment to this facility design and operating model undercut investment in established facilities during the same era. Not only was all capital tied up on the major new facilities, smaller facilities with fewer amenities start looking deficient in comparison. Recreation starts seeing huge attendance growth in the new facilities and slower declines in older ones - not surprising, as anyone who didn't mind the drive to a fancier facility could do that, or if you a youth sport organization would go to the new large facilities instead of the old ones where the capacity exists.

Old facilities can't expand because the whole model favours new development, not retrofits, and land costs are too high to have some of the space-consuming amenities now considered standard. The result is a chain of decisions that close all the inner city pools in an awkward, staggered fashion to awkwardly glom them onto MNP Lindsay Park as the inner city's only facility that conforms to the mega-facility model.

TL/DR:
It really matters what this recreation plan optimizes for - not just about what sports and amenities are on offer as a "standard", but also what the plan says about "acceptable" levels of proximity, cost, amenity design, distribution and operating model. Our current model creates attractive, giant facilities but makes many of these other factors worse - worse access, worse affordability, worse distribution.
Click to expand...
For the massive rec centres, they fill a need specific to these growing areas. Going down by Seton, the density is way beyond what would be considered "suburban", there's many condos, townhouses, and estate homes. The streetscape is problematic but a facility that big is probably necessary to serve these new areas.

I do agree as someone that lives inner city that more investments need to be made, especially after the contentious hearings on rezoning. Most people on this forum favour development, but for those living inner city, there's definitely a mismatch between the rhetoric of "more density = less taxes and better services" which in reality has been "more density = higher taxes and more crowded services". There's this rhetoric that inner city is losing population and that there's too much services for the number of people. This is simply not true, when you look at recreational amenities, schools, etc., where demand is clearly much higher than a decade ago. Beltline having no schools, pools, Inglewood pool closing, and no city recreation in Bridgeland/Kensington.
 
maestro said:
Boom was the wrong choice of word. The purchase prices are so heavily devalued For FCC and BVS that a modest recovery with vacancies dropping to the mid to high teens would positively affect valuation. Armoyan is the majority stakeholder in Slate which is teetering on insolvency so he needs a recovery in commercial property valuations in any case.

This real estate investment fund buys low and sells high. They make minimal improvements to increase property values. They don't develop and they have never built anything as big and costly as a 65 storey tower. They will seek approval from the federal housing initiatives if there is any seriousness.
Click to expand...
Even still,they can't flip it as a great spot to build office, as any buyer would only pay residential prices.
 
badc0ffee said:
It does have Connaught school, which they renovated probably 10 years ago.

As for pools, does anyone know what the plans are for the old Beltline Gym? I think it's just sitting vacant right now.
Click to expand...
There is also Western Canada and St Mary's high schools just across 17th in Cliff Bungalow and Mission. Sunalta School is also close.
 
A couple months back, at the start of the school year, there were news stories about how over capacity inner-city schools are in Calgary. There is dire need for more schools and public fitness facilities. MNP really isn't that convenient unless you own a car. If you live in the beltline, it would be nice to walk to a facility.

Inglewood pool is a drain on the city but people have fought for it. I don't recall, I could be wrong, much of a stink over the closure of the Eau Claire YMCA or Beltline Gym.

Large catalyst facilities have a all-in-one thing going for them but do lack convenience of smaller facilities spread around an area.
 
badc0ffee said:
It does have Connaught school, which they renovated probably 10 years ago.

As for pools, does anyone know what the plans are for the old Beltline Gym? I think it's just sitting vacant right now.
Click to expand...
And Connaught school has been overfull for a while now, with overflow previously going to a couple of other inner city schools, Earl Grey and Ramsay school - which are now full, so Wildwood is now the overflow school.

With even more developments on the horizon for DT/Beltline the board might want to look at building an annex to Connaught.
 
Has the CBE ever discussed working with developers to work schools into developments? I see the Trico plan in the East Village has a day care center in the plan for the land. I would think the land use for a school with commercial and residential built into it, or on the same area would be a great idea. Especially with so much play space or sports courts being built on top of buildings instead of needing large lots of grass to never be used.
 
In an ideal world, it'd be nice to see Connaught expanded into a larger K-6 school, and have a junior high school developed nearby in conjunction with a mixed use development on one of these empty lots.
1732816964050.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top