Calgary SSP Development Listing

[Bunk]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...pers-1.2452426

The institute's CEO, Guy Huntingford, said Wednesday that Calgarians live where they're comfortable, not where they feel different.

"People go to specific areas, not just because of the actual built form but also because they feel comfortable. So the intent of that letter was to say it doesn't matter who you are, what you look like, who you are — you feel comfortable where you live."

In a statement issued Thursday afternoon, Huntingford apologized to anyone offended by the article.

"The article was intended to celebrate diversity rather than to offend. It was to encourage discussion about choices and why people choose a place to live based on a wide range of factors, one of which is because they feel comfortable there," he wrote.

"The article used examples in a goodwill effort to illustrate how some Calgarians might view themselves within the context of their neighbourhoods."


Except the actual article was saying the EXACT opposite. That it does matter who you are, what you look like, who you are in terms of your "comfort level" within certain types of communities.

The article celebrates homogeneity and segregation of different people, not diversity.

[burn_this_city]

It was so poorly written I'm surprised it was on their website for public consumption.

[CaptainYooh]

It was a complete disaster. Poorly written, poorly presented, poorly everything. I am at awe about how did it pass through Huntingford.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

It was a complete disaster. Poorly written, poorly presented, poorly everything. I am at awe about how did it pass through Huntingford.

Based on the style of the response letter, I wouldn't be surprised if Huntingford wrote it himself. According to the response, a guy with tattoos feeling on display in Safeway in a sign of good will. A gay couple feeling uncomfortable in a straight community is a sign of good will. A woman who doesn't know how to dress feeling uncomfortable in a neighborhood with clubs is a sign of good will.

[CaptainYooh]

I doubt it strongly. His writing style is quite a bit more refined.

[MarchHare]

From that stupid article:

Shoe-horning everyone into mandated, single-vision neighbourhoods won’t work.

Do people (both inside and outside of the development/homebuilding industry) honestly believe this is happening? Do they really think that Nenshi and Farrell and Pincott and their gang of ne'er-do-wells want to bulldoze the suburbs and replace every single-family home with a high-rise condo?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Do people (both inside and outside of the development/homebuilding industry) honestly believe this is that is happening? Do they really think that Nenshi and Farrell and Pincott and their gang of ne'er-do-wells want to bulldoze the suburbs and replace every single-family home with a high-rise condo?

Whether or not they believe it, it makes a good talking point.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

From that stupid article:
Do people (both inside and outside of the development/homebuilding industry) ...

Wouldn't that be ALL people?

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...Do they really think that Nenshi and Farrell and Pincott and their gang of ne'er-do-wells want to bulldoze the suburbs and replace every single-family home with a high-rise condo?

Seriously, do you believe "they" think that?

[Bunk]

^ There has been a lot of rhetoric in recent years dating back to the Plan It Calgary debates with statements like "why is City Hall trying to social engineer people and make everyone live in 600 sq ft boxes downtown?" etc, etc. Maybe it's hyperbole, but it's hard to know what some actually believe the City is aiming for based on this kind of talk.

[Muta]

Here's an ambitious project:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...town-1.2456998

.. although actually 'accumulating' the necessary capital would be an extremely long-term endeavor, for sure...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Muta

Here's an ambitious project:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...town-1.2456998

.. although actually 'accumulating' the necessary capital would be an extremely long-term endeavor, for sure...

Proposed location is the Info Centre block.

[browna]

At most I can see a theatre with the Banff Centre's name in small letters under a corporate sponsor. Splash some art in the lobby and promote what is up the mountain. The Banff Center, or at least what they are trying to promote doesn't need a new store front.

Even a theatre would bring a lot more traffic and parking and Parks Canada may not like that.

But 4 theatres, residences etc?

[browna]

At most I can see a theatre with the Banff Centre's name in small letters under a corporate sponsor. Splash some art in the lobby and promote what is up the mountain. The Banff Center, or at least what they are trying to promote doesn't need a new store front.

Even a theatre would bring a lot more traffic and parking and Parks Canada may not like that.

But 4 theatres, residences etc?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

From that stupid article:



Do people (both inside and outside of the development/homebuilding industry) honestly believe this is happening? Do they really think that Nenshi and Farrell and Pincott and their gang of ne'er-do-wells want to bulldoze the suburbs and replace every single-family home with a high-rise condo?

Not to defend the article, but just to reply to you.

On many occasions people have commented publically and on this forum how Calgary takes up more land than NYC. Ive never been to NYC before but from the pictures it doesnt seem to be alot of single family homes there.

I think if you ask them off the record they would like to see nothing but high density homes from crowchild to glenmore to john laurie to deerfoot. Of course they would never say that on the record.

I would like to know what kind of city that exists today they would want to copy. To look at NYC financials it doesnt appear that they are in any better financial position than Calgary. So to say that Calgary is unsustainable because of sprawling suburbia is to imply that there is a city out there that is sustainable, and if NYC isnt one then I wonder what city out there they are comparing Calgary against.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Not to defend the article, but just to reply to you.

On many occasions people have commented publically and on this forum how Calgary takes up more land than NYC. Ive never been to NYC before but from the pictures it doesnt seem to be alot of single family homes there.

I think if you ask them off the record they would like to see nothing but high density homes from crowchild to glenmore to john laurie to deerfoot. Of course they would never say that on the record.

I would like to know what kind of city that exists today they would want to copy. To look at NYC financials it doesnt appear that they are in any better financial position than Calgary. So to say that Calgary is unsustainable because of sprawling suburbia is to imply that there is a city out there that is sustainable, and if NYC isnt one then I wonder what city out there they are comparing Calgary against.

It's New York City, not Manhattan. Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island have a ton of single family residences and they're included in that footprint comparison.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Not to defend the article, but just to reply to you.

On many occasions people have commented publically and on this forum how Calgary takes up more land than NYC. Ive never been to NYC before but from the pictures it doesnt seem to be alot of single family homes there.

I think if you ask them off the record they would like to see nothing but high density homes from crowchild to glenmore to john laurie to deerfoot. Of course they would never say that on the record.

I would like to know what kind of city that exists today they would want to copy. To look at NYC financials it doesnt appear that they are in any better financial position than Calgary. So to say that Calgary is unsustainable because of sprawling suburbia is to imply that there is a city out there that is sustainable, and if NYC isnt one then I wonder what city out there they are comparing Calgary against.

I'm pretty sure you are 100% dead wrong on that part.

Folks like Nenshi, Farrell, Carra, and Pincott know there is more to development than just maximum density everywhere. They too believe in a mix of ALL housing types so that we can get communities that people can choose to live in through all the cycles of their lives.

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Do people (both inside and outside of the development/homebuilding industry) honestly believe this is happening? Do they really think that Nenshi and Farrell and Pincott and their gang of ne'er-do-wells want to bulldoze the suburbs and replace every single-family home with a high-rise condo?

no need. While the downtown core is dense, the beltline is not. It's still lined with single story developments, empty lots and small buildings ready to fall over. If you just stick to increasing density in the beltline and north of the river to 16th ave, you'll have 100 years of construction yet to be completed before you need to start bulldozing suburbs.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

no need. While the downtown core is dense, the beltline is not. It's still lined with single story developments, empty lots and small buildings ready to fall over. If you just stick to increasing density in the beltline and north of the river to 16th ave, you'll have 100 years of construction yet to be completed before you need to start bulldozing suburbs.

I'm going to take a guess you don't live in the beltline and/or you don't know what areas the beltline actually encompasses.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm pretty sure you are 100% dead wrong on that part.

Folks like Nenshi, Farrell, Carra, and Pincott know there is more to development than just maximum density everywhere. They too believe in a mix of ALL housing types so that we can get communities that people can choose to live in through all the cycles of their lives.

The only reason they would say that is the residents living in SFH in those districts wouldnt vote for them if they said they want nothing but multi family in Sunnside, Kensington, Mission, Inglewood etc. The residents of Sunnyside didnt want the CTrain when it was first built either. You have to go about an equal distance from the centre of Manhatten before you find anything more than rowhouse walkups in NYC. Theres no SFH with yards across the river from downtown.

If NYC is the City they are modelling after then the area I mentioned would only cover about 1/5 of Calgarys total area which still leaves alot of room for SFH or any other housing you would want - from what I can tell Manhaten covers about 1/5 of NYC area so its not like we are talking about a huge area.

The given reason for densification from the City and others is that Calgary is in an unsustainable debt spiral caused in most part from the low density suburbs. If thats the reason for limiting sprawl then it would seem logical that the way to increase revenue is to grow upwards not outwards. And if that is the goal then the area covered by Crowchild to Glenmore to John Laurie to Deerfoot seems like the most logical location to promote density as it would utilize existing city services.

I am not against building up. But to say (not saying you say but others) this argument has been presented in a non biased manner is ridiculous. In order to prove that Calgary has a problem you have to compare it to a City that doesnt have that problem, the only City ever mentioned is NYC which if you compare the two financial statements is in no better financial position than Calgary is in.

[Muta]

I hope people aren't confusing more density as having less space. Although I could see how people might initially make that assumption. Density is a good thing.

You theoretically could have a 10-storey building with a 10,000 square foot podium floorplate; the podium level exists for a coffee shop / market and other essential services and retail, while the remaining nine floors, each with a 3,000 - 4,000 square foot floorplate, are individual residential units for enough space to each accommodate one family (2 adults, 2 children) very comfortably. Put a garden / leisure area on the rooftop, and you're good to go.

The end result is a building that occupies only 10,000 SF in area, but houses nine families and essential retail. You can have your space building up, too. Of course, the economic feasibility of such a property would have to be discussed on a level that incorporates a massive shift in municipal urban development ideologies; this is for a separate discussion.

The point is to have people understand that density isn't necessarily bad; you can, indeed, have your desired space in higher density environments. Suburbs and SFH's aren't the only way to live comfortably with space. Smart density is just efficient planning.