HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Buildings & Architecture, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 2:47 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radley77 View Post
I had come across these some time ago in the Sunalta ARP on the West LRT website and believe it is speaking to the same lands as the newly coined "West Village":

Bing Thom Architects, Sunalta 2035: Community Planning and Urban Design Study - Final Report July 2009

Part 1: Pages 1-23 (2.5MB)

Part 2: Pages 24-39 (6MB)

Part 3: Pages 40-61 (2.2MB)

Part 4: Pages 62-93 (3MB)

Part 5: Pages 94-164 (5.2MB)

I like the concept of using a CRL to spur revitalization. Hopefully, the East Village land sales go through in early 2010, when the LRT is completed in December 2012, likely East Village will already have some plans underway and starting execution. Once the SunAlta LRT station is built, it'll be a lot easier to increase the walkability and density from it's current low-rise commercial use. I think the city should make sure there is going to be ample inventory and land supply for increasing density as proposed in Plan It. I view increasing the location choices available for urban developers to go at larger scale developments as a good thing (increases creativity of designs, and affordability as developers can execute projects that they believe will deliver the best returns instead of being limited by smaller land supply).

More information located here:

http://www.westlrt.ca/stationareas/sunalta_arp.cfm
Yeah, I like the Bing Thom Concept, although I am on the fence as to whether Bow trail should be realigned north or south. I kinda feel like if there is going to be separation between Sunalta and the new development anyways, probably better to push bow trail to the south, freeing up all the land north of it adjacent to the river. Connect with a land bridge.

The news stories seem to indicate the land bridge idea and Bow trail realinged to the south, which is different from the preferred option in the Bing Thom plan.

It it is to be redeveloped through a Community Revitalization Levy, I wonder if CMLC will also be responsible for these lands too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 3:13 PM
YYCguys YYCguys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,520
We need some more imaginitive, but not contrived, place names instead of the East Village and West Village being used thus far. Anybody have any ideas for replacement names?

Last edited by YYCguys; Nov 3, 2009 at 3:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 3:32 PM
CorporateWhore's Avatar
CorporateWhore CorporateWhore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 4,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by YYCguys View Post
We need some more imaginitive, but not contrived, place names instead of the East Village and West Village being used thus far. Anybody have any ideas for replacement names?
Sunalta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 3:40 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by YYCguys View Post
We need some more imaginitive, but not contrived, place names instead of the East Village and West Village being used thus far. Anybody have any ideas for replacement names?
Delta City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 4:47 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
ooh ooh, how about "THE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION DISTRICT"

or "CrappyGreyhoundandCarDealershipBrownfieldRemediationSite Meadows at Sunalta Glen".

We can combine this with the community naming thread.

EDIT: ooh, even better, how about we use New York naming conventions and call it "Sobowedo" South of the Bow River, West of Downtown. Doesn't roll off the tongue like Tribeca, but it will do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 4:51 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riise View Post
I believe that brown and greyfield development on larger and open plots like the EV and WV are more appealing to developers; they are much easier and less risky to develop. The way I see it is that this is how the City is selling infill development to developers. It may be more expensive than piecemeal development in the Beltline but if this is how we are going to get developers buy into the 'it doesn't have to be all about greenfield development' mentality, so be it. I think we can all admit that any high-quality brownfield development is better than no brownfield development.
The risk comes from not knowing if there is a market there in the first place. Also there is a huge risk of being the first in to any development like this. Who knows if others will follow? At least with the Beltline, you know you have tons of amenities around already and a critical population base and existing market to judge what flies and what won't. I guess what I am saying is that I am not against using CRLs for things like East Village and "West Village," but am advocating for more infrastructure money to go to inner-city communities like Beltline, Mission, Sunalta etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 5:09 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 5,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime View Post
Delta City.
I think Atlanta might be more suited to that one.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 5:17 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateWhore View Post
Sunalta.
Bowalta

or


Sunaltae
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 7:08 PM
Frenzy Frenzy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 228
Concepts looks really promising! They should call it "New West Calgary". haha

yet, imo I hope this doesn't turn out to be 'too master planned' >.<
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 7:16 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
This bonanza of new urban villages is starting to remind me of the over-extended condo boom.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 7:18 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post
This bonanza of new urban villages is starting to remind me of the over-extended condo boom.
That ties right into what my concern was, about Calgary not being able to support all of these "villages" right away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 7:22 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
Why can't we just focus our efforts on making one really good urban village, then once that's done move onto the next. Same applies to the condo towers. Fewer, better projects rather than a plethora of sub-par crap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 7:29 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
Was this whole West Village announcement nothing more than putting a positive spin on deciding to drop our bid for the 2017 Worlds Fair?

On the news reports last night it was all sound bites of Bronco talking about how this way the city will make money, but they would have lost $350M-$1 billion with the Worlds Fair part of the project.

I'm sorry but the skeptic in me thinks this announcement right now is nothing more than Bronco appearing in the media and NOT costing the taxpayers money.

It's all spin right now. There is no way they would have announced this project now had it not had that Worlds Fair tie in, the focus should be the East Village.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 7:30 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post
Why can't we just focus our efforts on making one really good urban village, then once that's done move onto the next. Same applies to the condo towers. Fewer, better projects rather than a plethora of sub-par crap.
Actually, I am not too concerned if we have a bunch of "sub-par" condos. Not everyone can afford to live in a luxury condo. We need things like Vantage Pointe (yes I said it). To me, the style of the condos is nowhere near as important as the public realm: streetscapes, parks, plazas, etc and achieving the critical mass of people in an area to support a dynamic urban environment. Living an urban lifestyle, and all that it encompasses, is far more important to me than the design of the tower I live in. So, if creating the critical mass for a really vibrant street life means lots of bland towers, so be it. It is the experience on the street that matters, not the design of the buildings.

And I think the market should decided how many "urban villages" (which term I loathe) can be made, not our desire to create "ideal communities." I think great urban communities are great because they are not planned. They are spontaneous, authentic, organic and chaotic. Great retail streets happen spontaneously, not because of some grand scheme. Artist communities, cultural districts etc, are all the product of thousands of individual choices by the people living in those neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 7:47 PM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime View Post
That ties right into what my concern was, about Calgary not being able to support all of these "villages" right away.
The problem with this type of development is if it isn't done relatively rapidly it is easy to lose focus and the original vision can be lost as the desire becomes "just build anything" - at the same time it can be difficult for the market to absorb the new development on a suitable timeline.

Atleast in the west the project won't have to struggle to the same degree with taking back the city block by block from vagrants and vagrants alienating people from the new development.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 8:03 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
The problem with this type of development is if it isn't done relatively rapidly it is easy to lose focus and the original vision can be lost as the desire becomes "just build anything" - at the same time it can be difficult for the market to absorb the new development on a suitable timeline.

Atleast in the west the project won't have to struggle to the same degree with taking back the city block by block from vagrants and vagrants alienating people from the new development.
There's no doubt that large scale urban redevelopment isn't easy. The fact that it is public land is a big benefit. It should probably follow a similar process to The Bridges, which although has been slow to launch its second phase due to the recession is widely considered an implementation success (infrastructure built up front including parks, thorughtfully phased, rigourous urban design standards, competitive sale of individual land parcels to developers - all managed by a public agency).

One thing for sure though is that redevelopment of this scale always takes longer than people think whether it's Battery Park City in New York, West Donlands in Toronto, Bridges or East Village in Calgary, Mission Bay in San francisco, etc, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 8:08 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
The risk comes from not knowing if there is a market there in the first place. Also there is a huge risk of being the first in to any development like this. Who knows if others will follow? At least with the Beltline, you know you have tons of amenities around already and a critical population base and existing market to judge what flies and what won't. I guess what I am saying is that I am not against using CRLs for things like East Village and "West Village," but am advocating for more infrastructure money to go to inner-city communities like Beltline, Mission, Sunalta etc.
With respects to this, I think it is fair to say that developers prefer a blank canvas where they have complete control. However, to address your main point I have stepped back to take a look and have to admit that the City should be devoting more funds into inducing development in the areas you mentioned. Although I believe there is a larger pool of developers that might bite at opportunities like the EV, we cannot neglect the pool interested in the Beltline et cetera.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 9:09 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Creosote Banks
Crowbow
Moonalta
Weste Ende
ACADia
Expoville
M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village"
Pumphouse Meadows
Lower Lower Scarboro
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 9:29 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Fair-ly smart
Calgary praised for dropping Expo bid against Edmonton and avoiding huge debt

By MICHAEL PLATT

CALGARY -- Expo 2017 is dead -- long live the West Village.

And so Calgary's city council can hold its collective head high for avoiding a massive public debt, while retaining the renewal and redevelopment that is the expected legacy of a major event like the world's fair.

It's a rare double bow for the mayor and aldermen, but well deserved.

Killing off the Expo bid, which pitted Calgary against Edmonton for the right to host the world, saved Calgarians something in excess of a billion dollars in debt.

Love Expo or loathe it, the idea was a money-losing proposition, and it had to die. Council correctly killed it.

"You had to look at it and say, 'I don't believe from a Calgary perspective that's being responsible' ," said Mayor Dave Bronconnier.

"We're not prepared to ask taxpayers to cover a potential $1-billion shortfall."

Calgary council was told that hosting Expo west of downtown, on the land currently occupied by car dealerships and a bus station, would have cost Calgarians too much, more than the fair would have paid back.

There was too little financial support from the province and federal government, and a best-case scenario, said Bronconnier, was a billion-dollar deficit.

Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a group that routinely slams Calgary city council for its wasteful spending habits, had nothing but praise for this decision.

"The City of Calgary seems to understand what the City of Edmonton does not, that hosting Expo 2017 could cost taxpayers of that city billions of dollars," said Scott Hennig, Alberta director of the federation.

"Kudos to the City of Calgary for getting out of the bidding before it wasted another cent."

And so, Edmonton can have its Expo bid. Calgary is out.

It could have ended there, Calgary $300,000 in the hole after investing in plans, research and blueprints for the failed Expo site, but council then played an unexpected ace.

Instead of letting development plans for the land west of downtown wither on the vine, city council agreed to push on with redevelopment, paying for the project with a special tax levy as it did in the East Village area.

The city will borrow the cash to buy out the remaining land owners and develop the site's infrastructure, and then pay the loan back through property taxes raised through new tenants. Just like the East Village, in fact.

Indeed, the plan is so similar in financing and direction to the project on the east end of downtown, that they've even echoed the name, calling it the West Village.

It's a long-term plan, obviously. But two decades from now, it's anticipated 12,000 people will be living in the 45-hectare site, north of the CPR tracks to the Bow River.

If this scheme works, Calgary will finally have a riverfront worth visiting. That alone makes the decision to proceed with the West Village worthy of Calgary's praise.

MICHAEL.PLATT@SUNMEDIA.CA

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/albe...14706-sun.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 9:32 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riise View Post
With respects to this, I think it is fair to say that developers prefer a blank canvas where they have complete control. However, to address your main point I have stepped back to take a look and have to admit that the City should be devoting more funds into inducing development in the areas you mentioned. Although I believe there is a larger pool of developers that might bite at opportunities like the EV, we cannot neglect the pool interested in the Beltline et cetera.
I actually think it would be a good idea to have a partial "Centre City" Community Revitalization Levy to pay for the necessary improvements to downtown and Beltline (sans Rivers District).

Perhaps borrow the money for infrastructure (probably something in the order ot $200 million) and funnel say 50% of the property tax into paying off the debt and the other 50% into general revenues.

That would be 3 CRLs for the the Central Area. Beyond that, perhaps a couple of selected other ones at priority TOD growth areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Buildings & Architecture, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.