CrossIron Mills Shopping Centre

[Eddie Bronze]

Right now in terms of residential building I don't seem to hear too much about Balzac. Builders have chosen to do a lot out in Airdrie and that town is getting pretty big now. I'm not familiar with Balzac though so maybe someone else would be able to answer this question better but is this that town's idea of a way to get in on the residential boom? No question it has slowed in Calgary and Airdrie so they may have missed out on the best years but it's still predicted to be steady and likely leading the country in residential construction in this area. Does anyone think that may be a reason why Balzac is doing this?

[fredr123]

I'm not sure Manhattan is a fair model to strive for. The type of growth there was dictated, at least to some extent, by the fact that it's an island, wasn't it? Without significant intervention from the government limiting the supply of land around Calgary, we don't face those same kinds of pressures here. I would suggest it's a lot easier to convince people to build up when building out would require you to develop gills.

Speaking purely from my own personal experience, I don't think living in a condominium or apartment is a long term solution for me. Every apartment I've lived in - and granted these were while I was going to university so the quality of the accommodations reflected my nonexistent income at the time - were not the kind of place I could stay at for long periods. There were all kinds of weird smells, I had no back yard and you could hear everything your neighbours above/below/beside you were saying. For me and my family, a house is an absolute necessity. As a result, we moved to the 'burbs and I have an hour-long commute by transit every morning.

At the same time, we can't keep growing further and further. I'm not sure what the solution will be. Suffice to say it will require incredibly strong political will. I've worked with developers in established communities that were trying to remove old houses that were out of repair and to replace them with stylish new infills. Part of the communities' objection to their plans was that these infills would increase the density of the neighbourhood. Infills are encouraged by the City of Calgary but it's incredibly difficult for a developer to go ahead with such developments when the community doesn't want them.

[chummer]

So when is Stoney Trail going to open to the QEII?

It looks like it's been ready for paving for a year now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Eddie Bronze

Right now in terms of residential building I don't seem to hear too much about Balzac. Builders have chosen to do a lot out in Airdrie and that town is getting pretty big now. I'm not familiar with Balzac though so maybe someone else would be able to answer this question better but is this that town's idea of a way to get in on the residential boom? No question it has slowed in Calgary and Airdrie so they may have missed out on the best years but it's still predicted to be steady and likely leading the country in residential construction in this area. Does anyone think that may be a reason why Balzac is doing this?

There is no residential component as part of this development, but that may well be unnecessary. Airdrie is building large new communities on the south end - Kings Heights on the east side of Hwy 2, and Cooper's Crossing on the west side. Calgary is still growing northward as well. East of Balzac is the Sharp Hill subdivision, and I don't really see the people there selling to allow their acreages to be developed into a higher density community.

As I said above, I think the MD's goal is to take advantage of the tax potential of the corridor before Airdrie and Calgary annex the entire area. Ivanhoe Cambridge and the UHA are likely betting big on the high traffic flow down Hwy 2 leading to a lot of visitors to the mall, and the desire for good industrial zones near the airport.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by chummer

So when is Stoney Trail going to open to the QEII?

It looks like it's been ready for paving for a year now.

Fall 2008, iirc, though given nothing's been raised for the interchange yet, I think that might be optimistic.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by jammies

I, for one, can't wait until it's one solid mass of suburban sprawl all the way from Calgary to Edmonton, with traffic crawling along a 16 lane QE2 in a haze of hydrocarbons. That'll be swell!

-------

The city is getting more dense downtown with all the new condos going in and opening up in the next few years, but it still hasn't hit critical mass. When it does, Eau Claire might do a little better, but what they really need is to redevelop the Scotia Centre/TD Square area - that could really do well with the bigger population if it wasn't just a sad imitation of a suburban mall.

As far as sustainability goes, I agree that there is a big need to stop sprawling out and start infilling - especially downtown. There is no reason why there couldn't be 200 000-250 000 people directly downtown. They just need to pattern it on the idea of Manhattan, instead of trying to be a Dallas or Los Angeles - it might take 20-30 even 40 years, but it can be done.

First, though, they need to find some way to expropriate the railway between 9th and 10th Ave and develop it - downtown right now is split up by that line and will never integrate properly until it goes away. It should be one organic area from the Bow, down to 17th Avenue, and from Ft. Calgary to 14 Street W. Once that happens, then they can knock down a lot of the old low-rise apartments in south downtown and rebuild that side as mostly residential high-rises - along with getting the provincial gov't to pony up incentives to get low-cost subsidized senior housing (like there is just west of Ft. Calgary) throughout the area, as there is going to be huge demand for that with the aging of the population.

PS - in an small size high-rise (19 floors including 1 ground floor with foyer/commercial space, 1 floor parking, so 17 inhabited floors) like the one I live in, there are 170 suites, so around 300-400 people. You could put 8 such high-rises into one city block if you wanted, but we'll say around half that amount to allow for some green space and commercial use, so 1500-2000 people on each block; here are 78 such blocks between 10th Ave X 17th Ave, and 14th St W to 1st St SE, so that's 117 000 to 156 000 people you could put there IF the political will was there to encourage inner-city growth and severely discourage more sprawl.

Add another 80-120 000 people seeded through the rest of downtown, and in Victoria Park, and you can see that a quarter million people is doable. Again, it is POSSIBLE to do it, but I expect that it won't be done, or will be done poorly, as the city talks a good game but lacks the cojones to tell the suburbanites that the free ride is coming to an end.

Who wants to raise a family in a high rise?

[Smyth's Skate]

I snapped a few pictures of the Bass Pro Shops site last evening. Talk has it that BPS will be opening in July or August, well ahead of the rest of the development.

[mykalberta]

Nothing cries more for a City of Calgary toll road than some cheap a$$ developer using cheap county land in an attempt to leach consumers from buisnesses that actually help to progress this city forward.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Who wants to raise a family in a high rise?

What percentage of the population do you think is in a "raising a family" situation so that this is an issue?

Well if you look here you'll see that in Alberta in '96 (2006 census data probably isn't tabulated yet) it looks like around 40% of familes are in the category couples "without never-married children at home", StatsCan's way of saying they have either no children or divorced "children" at home. Add to that the 15% of families that are single-parent - a large proportion of which can't afford anything other than an apartment/condo style residence - plus all the single people who don't yet have a family (many of whom aren't looking for one), and it's pretty clear that a MAJORITY of people are not in that situation.

Putting a quarter million people downtown by, say, 2030, when the population of the city will probably be at least 1.2 or 1.3 million, means around 80% of the population will still live outside it. So, really, what exactly are you driving at?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'm not sure Manhattan is a fair model to strive for. The type of growth there was dictated, at least to some extent, by the fact that it's an island, wasn't it? Without significant intervention from the government limiting the supply of land around Calgary, we don't face those same kinds of pressures here. I would suggest it's a lot easier to convince people to build up when building out would require you to develop gills.

Well, that is why the gov't should be intervening to a large extent, as otherwise we are headed for endless sprawl, which is not sustainable long-term, and destroys quality of life besides. One way to do it would be to only grant development permits where there is a commitment to build inner-city, high-density housing on a 1:1 or other locked ratio basis (ie, you build part of a subdivision with 200 houses, you must build - or subcontract to build - the equivalent number of apartments in or around downtown).

Again, the specifics of how it is done are not as important as the political will to get it done, which is lacking and is unlikely to occur spontaneously. Long-term, a dense population downtown saves huge amounts of infrastructure cost, relieves pressure on the roads, and provides cheaper housing overall for everyone, but the problem is always getting long-term thinking from short-term city councils and provincial governments, who aren't interested in the votes of people in 2030 or 2040: they need votes NOW.


It's like public transit - it's a good idea for everyone else, but not for me...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by jammies

What percentage of the population do you think is in a "raising a family" situation so that this is an issue?

Well if you look here you'll see that in Alberta in '96 (2006 census data probably isn't tabulated yet) it looks like around 40% of familes are in the category couples "without never-married children at home", StatsCan's way of saying they have either no children or divorced "children" at home. Add to that the 15% of families that are single-parent - a large proportion of which can't afford anything other than an apartment/condo style residence - plus all the single people who don't yet have a family (many of whom aren't looking for one), and it's pretty clear that a MAJORITY of people are not in that situation.

Putting a quarter million people downtown by, say, 2030, when the population of the city will probably be at least 1.2 or 1.3 million, means around 80% of the population will still live outside it. So, really, what exactly are you driving at?

I am saying, a lot of people, including myself do not want to live in a crowed steel building in a crowed downtown core. I want to have pets, room for visitors, a garden, lawn and peace and quiet. You don't get that living in a condo tower.

And it doesn't matter of you have children, are single or old. People want there space and privacy.

[nickerjones]

how far north is this mall?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I am saying, a lot of people, including myself do not want to live in a crowed steel building in a crowed downtown core. I want to have pets, room for visitors, a garden, lawn and peace and quiet. You don't get that living in a condo tower.

And it doesn't matter of you have children, are single or old. People want there space and privacy.

I think a lot of people don't get that simple truth. Many people want/need their living space. That doesn't mean sprawling yards and bad community configurations, simply a place for pets, a garden and a liveable home that has a buffer between the next home... in a place like Calgary, that shouldn't be tough to do. We aren't exactly pressed for land like Vancouver or Manhattan.

For those who want inner city condo living, all the power to you... I'm glad that its happening... but don't assume "good planning" is forcing everyone into 500-1200 sq.ft. condos stacked against each other.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Fall 2008, iirc, though given nothing's been raised for the interchange yet, I think that might be optimistic.

The ring road sections between Country Hills and Beddington, as well as heading north after Beddington, have street lights now. It looks funny considering there's no paving yet.

It's sooooo tempting to try the drive up from Country Hills to Beddington as a short cut home one evening...how bumpy could it be

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think a lot of people don't get that simple truth. Many people want/need their living space. That doesn't mean sprawling yards and bad community configurations, simply a place for pets, a garden and a liveable home that has a buffer between the next home... in a place like Calgary, that shouldn't be tough to do. We aren't exactly pressed for land like Vancouver or Manhattan.

For those who want inner city condo living, all the power to you... I'm glad that its happening... but don't assume "good planning" is forcing everyone into 500-1200 sq.ft. condos stacked against each other.

I think row houses are a pretty good compromise and something Calgary really lacks compared to older cities. You still get your yard, energy consumption is reduced, density is increased, and you still have a desireable neighbourhood to raise a family.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I think row houses are a pretty good compromise and something Calgary really lacks compared to older cities. You still get your yard, energy consumption is reduced, density is increased, and you still have a desireable neighbourhood to raise a family.

Exactly... rowhouses can still be about 2000sq.ft. which is enough for most families... preference would probably be to the ones that aren't connected and have a metre or so in between at least.

[Resolute 14]

And that is something we are starting to see a lot more of in the suburbs. Seems every new community has a very nice selection of four-storey condo complexes, row/townhouses and duplexes. They are all certainly much, much higher density than neighborhoods built in the 70s-90s. If nothing else, it shows planners are moving in the right direction.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Addick

Undoubtedly they have some chains but not the same ones that can be seen in malls like Chinook or Market. You aren't going to see Mexx, HMV, La Senza, etc.

Assuming the tenant list unfolds like Vaughn Mills does (and so far everything seems to be a carbon copy of of it), we'll indeed see all three of those stores:

http://vaughanmills.shopping.ca/camb.../Directory.pdf

The big question will be if it can attract stores to that location that will survive long term. Doubt the luxury good stores like Prada and what not would go there (ie the ill fated luxury row in Deerfoot Meadows) as I'm not sure it would attract that demographic given it's surrounding area.

I suspect the plan will be to go with your standard lineup of tenants, with a couple mid market unique stores (ie an Abercrombie), make the mall really big, and have acres of parking. Nothing unique, but for some, this is Valhalla.

I'd be really curious to know who moves into the newly revamped Eatons Center and Chinook. Now that should have some blockbuster openings...

[Addick]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'm not sure Manhattan is a fair model to strive for. The type of growth there was dictated, at least to some extent, by the fact that it's an island, wasn't it? Without significant intervention from the government limiting the supply of land around Calgary...

While I don't think that Calgary should implement a physical urban growth boundary (UGB) to slow down sprawl, I do believe that we should implement a fiscal UGB by demand that all developments pay the full costs of their impact, both environmental and economically. There should be higher development levies that are determined according to how sustainable new developments are, i.e. the smaller a new development's ecological footprint and strain on the municipal budget the smaller its levies. This would lead to a more intense usage of brown/grey/greenfield land in the form of compact, mixed-use, and transit-oriented developments.

Originally Posted by fredr123

Speaking purely from my own personal experience, I don't think living in a condominium or apartment is a long term solution for me... For me and my family, a house is an absolute necessity. As a result, we moved to the 'burbs and I have an hour-long commute by transit every morning.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Who wants to raise a family in a high rise?

I am saying, a lot of people, including myself do not want to live in a crowed steel building in a crowed downtown core. I want to have pets, room for visitors, a garden, lawn and peace and quiet. You don't get that living in a condo tower.

And it doesn't matter of you have children, are single or old. People want there space and privacy.

As others have already pointed out, increased density does not have to take the form of high-rise condominiums and apartment towers. Calgary doesn’t have to go with the density models seen in cities such as Tokyo, Hong Kong, or Manhattan, and could instead follow the urban village model, which is discussed in SmartGrowth and can be seen in Scandanavian cities such as Stockholm and Copenhagen. In the towncentre of these urban villages there are medium to high-rise residential and/or commercial buildings oriented around a rapid transit station. Moving away from the towncentre the density would taper down, like a wedding cake, to medium-rise buildings and then low-rise buildings. Here in the low-rise buildings families who require the amenities you describe above, rather than simply space as there are often mislead to believe, can find them in rowed townhouses and a limited number (a couple of blocks) of compact and small lot detached houses.

Although these low-rise dwelling units provide the amenities families so desire in a similar and almost exact fashion as the typical sprawling Post WWII housing stock, medium and high-rise residential buildings can also offer people these amenities albeit in a different and sometime familiar form. In low and medium-rise multifamily buildings (not townhouses), the buildings can be arranged so that they circle a private green-space that can be used as a shared courtyard where children can play with each other under the watchful eyes of the local complex. The design of all types of buildings, low to high, is very important in regards to space. When they are designed innovatively using space-maximizing methods, as they do very well in places like Tokyo and more locally Vancouver, 1200sq/ft condominium and apartment units can feel as spacious as a typical suburban, except with much less waste.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

TAs I said above, I think the MD's goal is to take advantage of the tax potential of the corridor before Airdrie and Calgary annex the entire area.

I’m not opposed to rural areas developing but I am opposed to unsustainable development especially when it will impact other municipalities.

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

I suspect the plan will be to go with your standard lineup of tenants, with a couple mid market unique stores (ie an Abercrombie), make the mall really big, and have acres of parking. Nothing unique, but for some, this is Valhalla.

From personal travelling experiences in the States, I don't see these sorts of brands opening up regular version stores when they are already available in more central locations. For example, why didn't H&M wait to open up at Crossiron Mills rather than open a new store in Sunridge Mall this coming Thursday. If these sorts of brands do open set up shop in Crossiron Mills I have to believe that they will be outlet stores rather than regular stores.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think a lot of people don't get that simple truth. Many people want/need their living space. That doesn't mean sprawling yards and bad community configurations, simply a place for pets, a garden and a liveable home that has a buffer between the next home... in a place like Calgary, that shouldn't be tough to do. We aren't exactly pressed for land like Vancouver or Manhattan.

For those who want inner city condo living, all the power to you... I'm glad that its happening... but don't assume "good planning" is forcing everyone into 500-1200 sq.ft. condos stacked against each other.

So having 20% of the population downtown is "forcing everyone into 500-1200 ft condos"? I think your definition of "everyone" is different than the one in the dictionary.

I understand very well that there are plenty of people that want to live in the suburbs (although I laugh at the idea there is a "buffer" between houses - not in any new neighbourhood, where the 8 foot minimum is all you ever get, down to the inch), however there are also plenty of people - like me - that see the advantages of living downtown or near the core. The assumption that because you wouldn't want to live downtown, that therefore increased density would never work, is not a particularly compelling argument.

Obviously Calgary would never really be like Manhattan no matter what the city did to encourage it; but even now there are high-rises going up at good pace and someone must be buying the condos in them or they would stop. Once there is enough people downtown, it becomes a place where any amenity you want (due to the commercial opportunities) is within walking distance, and living there becomes more and more attractive to people who are tired of 40-60 minute commutes to neighborhoods where you have to drive another 20-30 minutes anytime you want to do something other than sit in your backyard.