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 
This isn't the first I've heard about a lack on retail construction but there's also the fact that you hear so much about the death of retail. Biggest retail development on the near horizon is TAZA who actually seems well positioned to capitalize on the suburban retail construction slow down. I still can't believe there's that empty piece of land at Deerfoot Meadows, someone mentioned it was going to be a Canadian Tire, I think the land was even prep'd. Not sure why the developer didn't want to pivot to something else...

retail-insider.com

Stable retail vacancy, lack of new development define Calgary’s retail market: Cushman & Wakefield

Calgary witnessed a continuing move toward retail density à la mixed-use development, says Cushman & Wakefield.
retail-insider.com retail-insider.com
 
thecivilengineer said:
www.calgary.ca

Downtown Density Bonusing Offset Program

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca
Density bonusing lets developers build extra floors in exchange for giving back to the community. For example, they can give money to a community fund, create affordable housing, or add public art.
Click to expand...
I agreed with the funds for residential conversion, but with the new demolition program, the density bonusing offset program, we are spending too much tax dollars to subsidize development. I'd rather we spend the funds improving our downtown, such that people will want to live there, instead of funding direct subsidization of a few eligible buildings. With rent already showing a decline, I just don't see these as necessary spending that benefits a few.
 
If I'm reading the article correctly, it looks like the added incentives are more of a tradeoff for the developer, and maybe not any subsidies from the city, or maybe i missed something? If it's a case of a simple tradeoff I'm in support. If it's a case of more money used as incentives, then I'm on the fence. It would depends on the details.
 
Surrealplaces said:
If I'm reading the article correctly, it looks like the added incentives are more of a tradeoff for the developer, and maybe not any subsidies from the city, or maybe i missed something? If it's a case of a simple tradeoff I'm in support. If it's a case of more money used as incentives, then I'm on the fence. It would depends on the details.
Click to expand...
Very interesting re: density bonusing.

It's a tricky one to wrap your head around where there's clearly a bunch of competing objectives:
  1. We want to encourage more development so waiving the bonusing fees (more density for no additional costs),
  2. But we don't want to get rid of the bonusing requirements as a rule,
  3. and we also don't want to just pay for the amenities independent of the development.
Awkward - just build the amenity and skip all this?
 
CBBarnett said:
Very interesting re: density bonusing.

It's a tricky one to wrap your head around where there's clearly a bunch of competing objectives:
  1. We want to encourage more development so waiving the bonusing fees (more density for no additional costs),
  2. But we don't want to get rid of the bonusing requirements as a rule,
  3. and we also don't want to just pay for the amenities independent of the development.
Awkward - just build the amenity and skip all this?
Click to expand...
Yeah. Selling density and upping amenity contributions is what has ruined Vancouver's and Toronto's housing market over the past 20 years, moving them from challenging to failure.

An assumption is that somehow it doesn't increase the cost for development land, nor increase the cost for the housing that is produced. That somehow, the city just 'captures' that value.

Lets just say, an economist didn't theorize the programs like it.
 
CBBarnett said:
Very interesting re: density bonusing.

It's a tricky one to wrap your head around where there's clearly a bunch of competing objectives:
  1. We want to encourage more development so waiving the bonusing fees (more density for no additional costs),
  2. But we don't want to get rid of the bonusing requirements as a rule,
  3. and we also don't want to just pay for the amenities independent of the development.
Awkward - just build the amenity and skip all this?
Click to expand...
I think we should be updating zoning to reflect what is suitable for an area. If the zoning is suitable, and a developer wants more floors, I do think there should be a density bonusing payment to reflect that. To say all cost is passed on to the end consumer is a little midleading since additional floors give developers more value on the land they already paid for.
 
I was walking down 17th ave today and noticed a DP for the Ship and Anchor building/Run Down condo just east of it. Does anybody have any info on this? Would be a shame if the Ship had to close.
 
pharmer86 said:
I was walking down 17th ave today and noticed a DP for the Ship and Anchor building/Run Down condo just east of it. Does anybody have any info on this? Would be a shame if the Ship had to close.
Click to expand...

DMap

DMap
dmap.calgary.ca dmap.calgary.ca

Its a land use redesignation.
I could see the condo building getting redeveloped, its pretty rough and only occupies <50% of the lot. Strange that both lots are included in the application, maybe someone with some more knowledge on this could chime in
 
potatopizzafan said:

DMap

DMap
dmap.calgary.ca dmap.calgary.ca

Its a land use redesignation.
I could see the condo building getting redeveloped, its pretty rough and only occupies <50% of the lot. Strange that both lots are included in the application, maybe someone with some more knowledge on this could chime in
Click to expand...
Building with the ship, last change Jan, 2023, sold in November 2020 for $3.7 million of consideration. Apartment next door, sold $3.7 million, March 2025.

Bang on the property assessments.
1746659045898.png


With FAR at 3.0 in the Beltline ARP, treating the sites as one if they keep the Ship side, lets a fairly large development go on the over side, with the entire site applying for 4.5 FAR.

The entire site is
1746659654615.png

Existing buildings are 660 m2 * 4 and 293 m2 * 3. So 10268 square metres a 6 storeys, if you remove the ship, lets you build 1271 m2 of floor plate.

You wouldn't 'max out' the FAR without using part of the parking from the Ship building. So something has to happen with the building the ship is in, if the zoning was calculated for a specific project.
1746660090718.png
 

Attachments

  • 1746660062838.png
    1746660062838.png
    44.7 KB · Views: 51
Last edited:
Stephen Ave streetscape improvements kick off in July. Just like the businesses in this article, I too have mixed feelings about the decision to move the patios into the middle of the street.

calgaryherald.com

What's next for Stephen Avenue, downtown Calgary's historic main street?

Changes are in the works for downtown Calgary's original main street, as the city embarks on a long-term beautification of Stephen Avenue.
calgaryherald.com calgaryherald.com
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top