News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
I don't really have a problem with new subdivisions being built, as long as we do it as smart as we can. When a city is growing by 30k-100k er year, we don't have much of a choice. Increasing the density has been fairly successful in recent years, as the new neighborhoods of today are more densely populated than just about any neighborhood built before 2010. Many are being in built in areas where the LRT can be extended (North of Saddletowne, south of Shawnessy, Around Seton, Springbank Hill , and where the Green Line will eventually go. and there's been more thought put into main streets, instead of a few strip malls scattered here and there. Not perfect, but an improvement over previous decades.

As long as the new developments pay a decent share of the newly added cost I'm okay with it. My compliant was always that the city wasn't incentivizing inner city builds, but with blanket zoning a lot of that has changed. The issue now seems to be those neighborhoods from 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. They're low density and not set up in a way that's conducive to the increased zoning builds we see in places like Capital Hill, Killarney, etc..

A while back there was discussion of having a hybrid of property value and property frontage for property tax instead of straight property value. I think kt's one way to allow people to have their single family homes in new neighborhoods, or in older less dense neighborhoods, if they don't mind paying a bit extra.
 
badc0ffee said:
Why wouldn't we push for suburban communities? They allow us to build a lot of units quickly, something that can't happen in a redevelopment. They're often denser than what can be built as a redevelopment, too.
Click to expand...
CalgaryTiger said:
For me, it isn't a "we should build up not out".
Click to expand...
Despite rhetoric often put forward by the suburban development lobbyists, I don't think the city's position has ever been anti-suburban growth in any meaningful way.

"Both up and out" has been in vogue for at least 20 years. Calgary has never entertained any sense of "hard" boundary like a greenbelt to curtail suburban growth, nor has ever materially favoured redevelopment over suburban growth through restricting the suburban side. If we really didn't want suburban communities we'd have killed them like other cities did with a far more draconian approach decades ago (likely triggering the leap-frogging to surrounding municipalities). Never be fooled by anti-suburban claims in Calgary, the proof is in the physical form of the city - obviously we didn't limit suburban growth here.

What's changed in the past few decades is the more sophisticated approach to trying to land a more balanced cost-sharing approach to suburban growth. This is both an input and output of becoming a larger city: at greater scales and distances suburban growth infrastructure starts to not scale well, land gets more expensive. Costs keep increasing and the scale of new development hits more threshold problems that trigger yet more costs. The older models that were more generous (i.e. more public subsidy of growth infrastructure) become unsustainable, necessitating change. All this happened in the last 20 years.

At the same time, there's far more recognition on the barriers to redevelopment and much more effective approaches to remove these barriers. The citywide rezoning efforts, incrementally improving infill products, and the many big and small rule changes to help infill growth are part of this. The scale and pace of redevelopment is evidence that this too is working.

The result, IMO, is that Calgary has found a reasonable balance between infill and greenfield development, given our size and political opportunities/constraints. Nothing is perfect and there's plenty of pain points, but overall it's a positive balance. Things will keep changing as the city does - no system is static.

Next for us is being a bigger metro-region, where the increasing distance and commute times thanks to continued suburban growth really start boosting the business case for more large-scale redevelopment opportunities at places like Chinook, North Hill, University etc. Secondary centres within the city will start forming with a critical mass of interesting stuff going on (one day, the Beltline may not be the only place with a real nightlife!) Some of that has started already, but will continue as the size of the overall city increases.
 
Last edited:
IMG_8767.jpeg
IMG_8768.jpeg
 
thecivilengineer said:
sapl.ucalgary.ca

Our New Home

sapl.ucalgary.ca sapl.ucalgary.ca
Click to expand...
Our new home features nine tower floors dedicated to innovative design education and research, a main floor community-facing Design Justice Lab, and a Digital Fabrication Workshop in an adjacent three-story annex.

This annex looks to be across 7th Ave. Interesting. Wonder is this it or if this is just the beginning.

1744386988948.png
 
Surrealplaces said:
I'm really liking this conversion of floors to Education space. It's going to be a nice addition to that part of downtown.
Click to expand...
And the 8th Street public realm upgrade starting construction this year. With all the conversions - on top of what was already the densest area of the city - it's awesome to see so much activity in one place.
 
Great news about the UofC. Hopefully the City finds a way to finally purchase the part of Centennial Gardens where the grass and basketball court is. With all those students headed to the area, it would be a shame to lose a good chunk of activity and green space to another development
 
Dang! Does anyone have a link to the 8th Street upgrade plans? There is a lot happening downtown that will increase the public realm, vibrancy, and overall appeal of downtown.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top