East Hills Development

[CalgaryArchitecture]

http://www.cicadadesign.ca/images/portfolio/EastHill_001.jpg

http://www.cicadadesign.ca/images/portfolio/EastHill_002.jpg

http://www.cicadadesign.ca/images/portfolio/EastHill_003.jpg

http://www.cicadadesign.ca/images/portfolio/EastHill_004.jpg

http://www.cicadadesign.ca/images/portfolio/EastHill_005.jpg
Cited: http://www.cicadadesign.ca/portfolio/EastHill.html

[RicoLance21]

I almost thought the building in the first pic is a brown lunch bag lying on its side.

[Spring2008]

Is that downtown Red Deer lol.


No, looks decent considering the location. I want to see renderings for the mixed use development at C.O.P. have much higher expectations for that one.

[CalgaryArchitecture]

Nope this is along 17th Avenue SE and near Stoney Trail.

[lineman]

The amount of people walking around in these power centre renders is almost comical.

[DungHeap]

Not almost, it is comical !

[Chadillaccc]

It looks really bad. Not as bad as a regular power centre or strip mall, as it has sidewalks and seemingly semi attractive buildings... but it is still terrible. The last thing this city needs is more surface level parking lots and pedestrian unfriendly areas.

[TallBob]

Man it's so "sterile" looking..... Not my cup of tea for sure!

[Full Mountain]

http://www.cicadadesign.ca/images/portfolio/EastHill_003.jpg

http://www.cicadadesign.ca/images/portfolio/EastHill_004.jpg

Cited: http://www.cicadadesign.ca/portfolio/EastHill.html

So let me get this straight a huge 4-6 lane intersection that is suddenly pedestrian friendly by adding some colored brick? And then the next photo shows your typical car first shopping center. I really hope this thing gets killed ASAP. At very least move the parking to the back of the building and keep the area in front of the building for pedestrians.

[MichaelS]

A site plan of this development can be seen on page 26 of this pdf:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Documents/calgary_planning_commission/agenda/2013/dp2012-5280.pdf

There are a couple of "high streets" that have parallel parking off of them, with wider sidewalks and buildings fronting them.

[kw5150]

And dont even get me started on those STUPID little strips of green grass between the sidewalk and the road.......with no bollards or plants to demarcate the corners or edges, you will just have a giant mud bog in one year....or heaps of sand and gravel and cigarette butts. Who are we kidding?? no one will be walking around there!! Look at ikea, the landscape is nice, there are sidewalks, but nobody walks around there!

Grrrrrrr. This is why the city needs a fucking action plan! Just because a bunch of people move to calgary for jobs (and dont seem to care about anything else but getting to and from work, and buying the cheapest possible products) does not mean we all should have to live like that!! Give this thing 10 years and it will just be another shithole with empty retail bays waiting to get redeveloped into something like university city or westbrook. Why not just do it properly THE FIRST TIME.

[kw5150]

Calgary is starting to remind me of an oilfield camp.......put a bunch of temporary or cheap shacks up, reap the rewards and then abandon later.....walk away with your money.

Thank god we have a good chunk of citizens fighting for our fine city. I really like it here. The people are awesome and some parts of the city are starting to reflect that. They should seriously close the Sun Newspaper. Never has one establishment confused the masses on such a large scale to the point that people dont even know why they are angry or what they are even arguing anymore.

Get out and enjoy the city on a nice summer afternoon!

Double rant over.

[milomilo]

So let me get this straight a huge 4-6 lane intersection that is suddenly pedestrian friendly by adding some colored brick? And then the next photo shows your typical car first shopping center. I really hope this thing gets killed ASAP. At very least move the parking to the back of the building and keep the area in front of the building for pedestrians.

That was exactly what I thought straight away! It doesn't even show stop signs...

Calgary would do well to be start limiting the standard 4 lane roads and be more creative with it's road network, especially within pedestrian focused areas.

Although I do see a roundabout in the plans! Which I'm sure will be met with derision by a 'Disgusted, of Mckenzie Towne'.

[Spring2008]

I might be in the minority here, but I always enjoy ur rants, KW. :haha:

[RWin]

It looks really bad.

I agree. Why don't we build "downtowns" any more?

[O-tacular]

Calgary is starting to remind me of an oilfield camp.......put a bunch of temporary or cheap shacks up, reap the rewards and then abandon later.....walk away with your money.

Thank god we have a good chunk of citizens fighting for our fine city. I really like it here. The people are awesome and some parts of the city are starting to reflect that. They should seriously close the Sun Newspaper. Never has one establishment confused the masses on such a large scale to the point that people dont even know why they are angry or what they are even arguing anymore.

Get out and enjoy the city on a nice summer afternoon!

Double rant over.

Let me ask you something KW. Will you ever shop at East Hills? Would you have shopped there if the design was better? Let's be honest, this development is on the fringe of the city and will likely see many shoppers from outside the city from places like Strathmore and Chestermere. As much as the city should prioritize more pedestrian friendly designs, we need to acknowledge reality.

I work in an industrial area in the SE called Eastlake. Our building has bike racks in front which are mandated by the city. I have never even once seen a bike tied to one of them. The fringe of the city will never be the same as the inner city. To try and compare the two is a waste of time.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

I agree. Why don't we build "downtowns" any more?

You mean transit-oriented developments? :rolleyes:

[RWin]

You mean transit-oriented developments? :rolleyes:

No, I mean a place that looks more like Inglewood than Deerfoot Meadows.

[Full Mountain]

Let me ask you something KW. Will you ever shop at East Hills? Would you have shopped there if the design was better? Let's be honest, this development is on the fringe of the city and will likely see many shoppers from outside the city from places like Strathmore and Chestermere. As much as the city should prioritize more pedestrian friendly designs, we need to acknowledge reality.

I work in an industrial area in the SE called Eastlake. Our building has bike racks in front which are mandated by the city. I have never even once seen a bike tied to one of them. The fringe of the city will never be the same as the inner city. To try and compare the two is a waste of time.

True, but does that give them carte blanche to do what every they want?

As someone who might go there if I happen to be in the area (as much as I go to any other big box center) I'd like to see a more friendly environment for pedestrians. I hate (strong word I know but its true) having to move my car from one store to another because walking between them is so inhospitable. Whether it's 130th, Deerfoot Meadows or the Home Depot complex across from Chinook they all force you back to your vehicle to move from one store to another. Is this development going to be any different?

Also how do we deal with the externalities of a development like this? Parking = vehicles, are we expecting that the city is going to complete roadway improvements (now or in the future) to service this development? Ultimately people want to get there, let make sure that it's developed in a way that encourages efficient modes of transportation (transit, biking, walking). Granted not all trips can be accommodated through those modes but we could go from 0 to at least a portion.

The bike racks in front of your building that don't get used have more to do with not having infrastructure than people not wanting to use them. If we removed all the roads that lead to your work, wouldn't your parking lot be empty too?

If you had the option to walk, bike or take transit rather than drive would you? Wouldn't it be nice to ride/walk home on a sunny day? What's keeping you from doing that? Sidewalks? Bike path/cycle tracks?

[WaitWhat?]

I currently live in the western part of the city and so I look at Westhills and Aspen Landing as comparisons. Personally, I think Westhills is one of the worst retail developments in the city and probably compares well with Shaughnessy or 130th ave. I'm sure the concept of walking between stores didn't even enter the developers mindset. Although driving from one store to another is equally bad.

On the other hand, I actually don't mind the way Aspen Landing is laid out. Two larger parking lots on either end with a "street" of retail in between. It's fairly easy to walk between stores.

It's a little difficult to see whether East Hills is more of a Westhills or Aspen Landing. There are multiple parking lots but at least it looks more walkable than some other developments with two "streets" crossing in the middle.

[O-tacular]

True, but does that give them carte blanche to do what every they want?

As someone who might go there if I happen to be in the area (as much as I go to any other big box center) I'd like to see a more friendly environment for pedestrians. I hate (strong word I know but its true) having to move my car from one store to another because walking between them is so inhospitable. Whether it's 130th, Deerfoot Meadows or the Home Depot complex across from Chinook they all force you back to your vehicle to move from one store to another. Is this development going to be any different?

Also how do we deal with the externalities of a development like this? Parking = vehicles, are we expecting that the city is going to complete roadway improvements (now or in the future) to service this development? Ultimately people want to get there, let make sure that it's developed in a way that encourages efficient modes of transportation (transit, biking, walking). Granted not all trips can be accommodated through those modes but we could go from 0 to at least a portion.

The bike racks in front of your building that don't get used have more to do with not having infrastructure than people not wanting to use them. If we removed all the roads that lead to your work, wouldn't your parking lot be empty too?

If you had the option to walk, bike or take transit rather than drive would you? Wouldn't it be nice to ride/walk home on a sunny day? What's keeping you from doing that? Sidewalks? Bike path/cycle tracks?

Neither because I need to drive across the city multiple times per day for work. There are people I see walking, but usually from nearby bus stops.

[kw5150]

Aspen Landing is great. I give props to westhills for at least having copious amounts of maintained landscaping that is still alive 15 years later..... I have met with the developer of westhills (on newer developments of his) and he actually cares quite a bit about the look of a project and community. Westhills was developed a long time ago and his newer developments will have more pedestrian aspects to them. You will see one popping up soon enough. Clearing and grading have already begun.

I currently live in the western part of the city and so I look at Westhills and Aspen Landing as comparisons. Personally, I think Westhills is one of the worst retail developments in the city and probably compares well with Shaughnessy or 130th ave. I'm sure the concept of walking between stores didn't even enter the developers mindset. Although driving from one store to another is equally bad.

On the other hand, I actually don't mind the way Aspen Landing is laid out. Two larger parking lots on either end with a "street" of retail in between. It's fairly easy to walk between stores.

It's a little difficult to see whether East Hills is more of a Westhills or Aspen Landing. There are multiple parking lots but at least it looks more walkable than some other developments with two "streets" crossing in the middle.

[O-tacular]

Aspen Landing is great. I give props to westhills for at least having copious amounts of maintained landscaping that is still alive 15 years later..... I have met with the developer of westhills (on newer developments of his) and he actually cares quite a bit about the look of a project and community. Westhills was developed a long time ago and his newer developments will have more pedestrian aspects to them. You will see one popping up soon enough. Clearing and grading have already begun.

Which part of the city is it in?

[kw5150]

Yes, suburban people do not deserve good design.

No, I will probably wont make East Hills a frequent stop......though I suppose I am closer to it than westhills now, seeing as I relocated to Bridgeland......thankfully I have the clusterfuck sunridge area close to me ;).

The problem I see, is that many of these developments get swallowed up by the city and become derilect as they build new ones further out. There needs to be more thought into future capabilities of these sites and long term use.

A grand pedestrian boulevard/link in each of these developments could really go a long way to getting a few people out of their cars...... and enough soil to sustain trees would be great too.

I worked on some of the East Lake sites (the nice ones) and while the bike racks may be useless now, if we get a good bike network, they might become useful one day.

I cant count how many times I have rode a bike to a bit of light shopping or to pick up an auto part (yes I do it for the exercise) and there has been nowhere in sight to lock a bike.

Let me ask you something KW. Will you ever shop at East Hills? Would you have shopped there if the design was better? Let's be honest, this development is on the fringe of the city and will likely see many shoppers from outside the city from places like Strathmore and Chestermere. As much as the city should prioritize more pedestrian friendly designs, we need to acknowledge reality.

I work in an industrial area in the SE called Eastlake. Our building has bike racks in front which are mandated by the city. I have never even once seen a bike tied to one of them. The fringe of the city will never be the same as the inner city. To try and compare the two is a waste of time.

[sync]

No, I mean a place that looks more like Inglewood than Deerfoot Meadows.

because that wouldn't cater to cars or massive sized stores.

[Amsterdamned]

True, but does that give them carte blanche to do what every they want?

As someone who might go there if I happen to be in the area (as much as I go to any other big box center) I'd like to see a more friendly environment for pedestrians. I hate (strong word I know but its true) having to move my car from one store to another because walking between them is so inhospitable. Whether it's 130th, Deerfoot Meadows or the Home Depot complex across from Chinook they all force you back to your vehicle to move from one store to another. Is this development going to be any different?

Also how do we deal with the externalities of a development like this? Parking = vehicles, are we expecting that the city is going to complete roadway improvements (now or in the future) to service this development? Ultimately people want to get there, let make sure that it's developed in a way that encourages efficient modes of transportation (transit, biking, walking). Granted not all trips can be accommodated through those modes but we could go from 0 to at least a portion.

The bike racks in front of your building that don't get used have more to do with not having infrastructure than people not wanting to use them. If we removed all the roads that lead to your work, wouldn't your parking lot be empty too?

If you had the option to walk, bike or take transit rather than drive would you? Wouldn't it be nice to ride/walk home on a sunny day? What's keeping you from doing that? Sidewalks? Bike path/cycle tracks?

Fortunately, Developers are not given carte blanche to do what ever they like. I agree that there are certainly some developments as noted above that were planned poorly or their master planning simply failed or was non existent. Some forget that the City has a large hand in these developments as they review, comment, make suggestions, put their so-called architectural hat on and pretend to be designers when these projects circulate through the City and ultimately end up at CPC where eventually the project is given the green light.

I'm seeing some of the developments changing in terms of parking versus pedestrian friendly access and function. The reality is, cars are not going away though limiting the parking field can be made an option. The City pushes parking counts to meet the bylaw requirements and as of late some developers are meeting the bare minimum counts in an effort to enhance or improve the pedestrian functionality. In fact the City has granted relaxations on new proposed developments in order to further densify the retail components thereby reducing parking counts.

The challenge is where do you put all of those tenants individually? if they stood individually the City would say there is not enough parking. All I'm saying is its a two way street and between the City, the Community and the Developers there can be better solutions. A developer would love nothing more than to further densify a site and increase their leasable square footage but then they also need to sell that model to the potential lease.

To sum up, there are some horrible developments that the City uses as a bad example and there are some that are better providing a model example.

[kw5150]

Which part of the city is it in?

Its across from calaway park. I helped create the Master Site Development Plan, trail network, storm ponds, tree selection and overall vision.


See pages 25 - 30 for my contributions

http://www.binghamcrossing.com/assets/pdf/2013-02-26-Bingham-MSDP-DRAFT-V3.pdf

[Full Mountain]

Fortunately, Developers are not given carte blanche to do what ever they like. I agree that there are certainly some developments as noted above that were planned poorly or their master planning simply failed or was non existent. Some forget that the City has a large hand in these developments as they review, comment, make suggestions, put their so-called architectural hat on and pretend to be designers when these projects circulate through the City and ultimately end up at CPC where eventually the project is given the green light.

I'm seeing some of the developments changing in terms of parking versus pedestrian friendly access and function. The reality is, cars are not going away though limiting the parking field can be made an option. The City pushes parking counts to meet the bylaw requirements and as of late some developers are meeting the bare minimum counts in an effort to enhance or improve the pedestrian functionality. In fact the City has granted relaxations on new proposed developments in order to further densify the retail components thereby reducing parking counts.

The challenge is where do you put all of those tenants individually? if they stood individually the City would say there is not enough parking. All I'm saying is its a two way street and between the City, the Community and the Developers there can be better solutions. A developer would love nothing more than to further densify a site and increase their leasable square footage but then they also need to sell that model to the potential lease.

To sum up, there are some horrible developments that the City uses as a bad example and there are some that are better providing a model example.

I agree, it's not a cut and dry decision there needs to be balance between both. That said I seem to recall the city pushing the developer of this site to turn the properties in such a way as to orientate them better towards the bus stop/future LRT stop and the developer didn't really make a significant change.

[O-tacular]

I hate big box developments as much as anyone on here, my point was just that the city can only do so much to 'urbanize' a suburban project. Iirc the city did actually force the developer to make a few revisions like those pedestrian sidewalks and shop lined 'high streets'.

In any case, I hold out hope that the big box power centres will one day be redeveloped into better urban landscapes. West hills and 130th for instance actually both have some very nice elm tree lined boulevards and I could easily see more mixed uses swallowing the parking lots one day. Just look at Chinook Centre and University City as examples of this already happening.

Edit: btw KW what projects in Eastlake have you done? I'm just curious because I like the landscaping in some areas a lot.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Its across from calaway park. I helped create the Master Site Development Plan, trail network, storm ponds, tree selection and overall vision.


See pages 25 - 30 for my contributions

http://www.binghamcrossing.com/assets/pdf/2013-02-26-Bingham-MSDP-DRAFT-V3.pdf

Cool. I like that plan for the new on/off ramps to the RCH

[Amsterdamned]

I agree, it's not a cut and dry decision there needs to be balance between both. That said I seem to recall the city pushing the developer of this site to turn the properties in such a way as to orientate them better towards the bus stop/future LRT stop and the developer didn't really make a significant change.

Unfortunately, I missed that CPC meeting. The City is certainly pushing for store frontage along main pedestrian thoroughfares and transit routes. I like the idea though it presents challenges when the parking is at the back. Again parking....

[Amsterdamned]

I hate big box developments as much as anyone on here, my point was just that the city can only do so much to 'urbanize' a suburban project. Iirc the city did actually force the developer to make a few revisions like those pedestrian sidewalks and shop lined 'high streets'.

In any case, I hold out hope that the big box power centres will one day be redeveloped into better urban landscapes. West hills and 130th for instance actually both have some very nice elm tree lined boulevards and I could easily see more mixed uses swallowing the parking lots one day. Just look at Chinook Centre and University City as examples of this already happening.

Edit: btw KW what projects in Eastlake have you done? I'm just curious because I like the landscaping in some areas a lot.

The City is now requesting that developers show potential for future growth on their plans via high density commercial/residential similar to University City and such.

[CalgaryArchitecture]

The Wal-Mart is planned to open on March 28th.

[Spring2008]

The Wal-Mart is planned to open on March 28th.

Exciting!!!! :P

[Riise]

I hate big box developments as much as anyone on here, my point was just that the city can only do so much to 'urbanize' a suburban project.

Rubbish.

An area does not have to match the scale of Paris or New York to be urban. It is essential that an area replicates the high-quality urban design of dense places like Berlin and Barcelona because the intensity of the urban form can vary.

[Full Mountain]

Rubbish.

An area does not have to match the scale of Paris or New York to be urban. It is essential that an area replicates the high-quality urban design of dense places like Berlin and Barcelona because the intensity of the urban form can vary.

This...Urban design isn't a yes/no question, it's a sliding scale.

You can look at ever development and understand who the target audience is by looking at the scale it is developed at, how wide are the sidewalks? Is there separation between the sidewalk and the road way? How is the parking placed relative to the main entrance? Etc.

We need to move the scale towards the pedestrian, because at the beginning and the end of ever journey everyone no matter the mode of transport is on their feet (for how ever short of a distance). I think we all understand that most people are likely to arrive at this development in a private vehicle, but why build it in a way that forces those people back into their vehicles to move from store to store?

Edit to add: It doesn't have to be dramatic, if you went from Store|Sidewalk|Access Road|Parking (Home Depot by Chinook) to Store|Sidewalk|Parking|Access Road (Sears Home Store at Brentwood) you would immediately make it more pedestrian friendly, you could also add centralized loading areas for those uses that need them (hardware stores, furniture stores, etc.) and drop off zones for each store.

[lineman]

Of course having big box tenents buying into layouts that deviate from the norm is a whole other story. I would like to think that the designers and planners of these places would like to innovate, but developers and tenants want to stick to formulas most beneficial to them.

[Deepstar]

It's much what you would expect for a location out on the fringes. That said, it's better than clusterfucks like West Hills or Crowfoot.

[Amsterdamned]

Of course having big box tenents buying into layouts that deviate from the norm is a whole other story. I would like to think that the designers and planners of these places would like to innovate, but developers and tenants want to stick to formulas most beneficial to them.

Seton might be a good example of some innovation? Its not all built but appears to be headed in the right direction. Thoughts?

[lineman]

Seton is definitely somewhat deviating from the norm. Although, I wonder if it's because of it being a destination area due to the health centre. We'll have to wait and see how the rest of the retail (especially when big box tenants get introduced) pans out. As it stands, only neighbourhood retail exists ATM.

[Amsterdamned]

Could be, though it was all part of the master planning. The solar panels are a nice touch.

[kw5150]

The one with curvy lines, and tall ornamental grasses....mixed with a curvy line of river stone. Haha. They spent a bit more money, so it looks good, but basically it was done on a tight budget as usual.... Panatonni was the name of the building or client. I think I only did one there....and part of the SMED stuff. Worked on it in 2006....so a very long time ago.

I hate big box developments as much as anyone on here, my point was just that the city can only do so much to 'urbanize' a suburban project. Iirc the city did actually force the developer to make a few revisions like those pedestrian sidewalks and shop lined 'high streets'.

In any case, I hold out hope that the big box power centres will one day be redeveloped into better urban landscapes. West hills and 130th for instance actually both have some very nice elm tree lined boulevards and I could easily see more mixed uses swallowing the parking lots one day. Just look at Chinook Centre and University City as examples of this already happening.

Edit: btw KW what projects in Eastlake have you done? I'm just curious because I like the landscaping in some areas a lot.

[Tropics]

That said, it's better than clusterfucks like West Hills or Crowfoot.

I agree that Crowfoot is terribly designed and has gigantic seas of bland parking lots as far as the eye can see but I wonder how many people on here could have actually designed something for that area that would not only look heaps better, but actually "function".

Those huge parking lots are as often as not brimming with cars, there is very little near enough residential to support a pedestrian driven traffic and people living in Ranchlands, Hawkwood, Edgemont, Silver Springs, Royal Oak, ect... were always going to demand it be driving friendly. If they built it without at least as much parking the place would be unusable as already it is near capacity on a week night or weekend.

The city could have pushed for underground parking and maybe they should have, they could have pushed for a small indoor mall to center the other developments around so that the area is centered around an actual building and not a parking lot circled by the retail, which looks like crap from the road because now everyone is driving past the backs of the buildings and loading docks...

But, as much as I hate Crowfoot, it is so freaking busy and used by such a huge number of communities in the surrounding area I am not sure how you could "fix" it or develop it to be much different from what it is and still actually function with the amount of traffic it gets.

[kw5150]

I can think of a few ways to fix it........

1. Create areas where people can easily walk through the development
2. Focus on a better mix of amenities in area, rather than the highest traffic stores all lumped into one big parking lot.
3. Locate the movie theatre away from the retail area and connect it to retail with a short part. The movie theatre is usually the source of late night congestion.
4. Add some residential to the mix so there could actually be a handful of people that could live and shop there!!
5. Make it urban format and locate it in my area (with good amounts of cheaper retail bays for small businesses.
6. Make the layout more like the IKEA area and install more pleasant landscaping.
7. Put the restaurants in one central street and give that a town centre feeling.
8. I could go on and on and on.............



I agree that Crowfoot is terribly designed and has gigantic seas of bland parking lots as far as the eye can see but I wonder how many people on here could have actually designed something for that area that would not only look heaps better, but actually "function".

Those huge parking lots are as often as not brimming with cars, there is very little near enough residential to support a pedestrian driven traffic and people living in Ranchlands, Hawkwood, Edgemont, Silver Springs, Royal Oak, ect... were always going to demand it be driving friendly. If they built it without at least as much parking the place would be unusable as already it is near capacity on a week night or weekend.

The city could have pushed for underground parking and maybe they should have, they could have pushed for a small indoor mall to center the other developments around so that the area is centered around an actual building and not a parking lot circled by the retail, which looks like crap from the road because now everyone is driving past the backs of the buildings and loading docks...

But, as much as I hate Crowfoot, it is so freaking busy and used by such a huge number of communities in the surrounding area I am not sure how you could "fix" it or develop it to be much different from what it is and still actually function with the amount of traffic it gets.

[O-tacular]

The one with curvy lines, and tall ornamental grasses....mixed with a curvy line of river stone. Haha. They spent a bit more money, so it looks good, but basically it was done on a tight budget as usual.... Panatonni was the name of the building or client. I think I only did one there....and part of the SMED stuff. Worked on it in 2006....so a very long time ago.

Not sure which curvy building you mean. Also SMED is really far from Eastlake.

[CalgaryArchitecture]

http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fPDA%2fDBA%2fDocuments%2fcalgary_planning_commission%2fagenda%2f2013%2fdp2012-5280.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

http://i.gyazo.com/446212c34ff5a4f77c1a9f7a350c9096.png

http://i.gyazo.com/f3c1fc465b8021c7fdcfb1b7056d0992.png

http://i.gyazo.com/0c7ed627c8167a81cd5f7d09a8f7f13a.png

http://i.gyazo.com/17678679fb373d961782124644e47d79.png

http://i.gyazo.com/93700d9539cb5ec41707dd88945e74ae.png

http://i.gyazo.com/b5814e1de08de06fadf478973d8db837.png

[lineman]

Could be, though it was all part of the master planning. The solar panels are a nice touch.

Master plans can change dramatically. McKenzie Towne is much different than originally envisioned where only a third of the master plan was actually realized. The rest became New Brighton and Copperfield.

[suburbia]

Where are the hills in East Hills?

[O-tacular]

Where are the hills in East Hills?

Wait for a snow clearing day in that massive parking lot.

[speedog]

Where are the hills in East Hills?
Good question - maybe it's like the town of Picture Butte (just north of Lethbridge) which was named after a butte that disappeared in the late 40's, re-used for other improvements in the area.

[CalgaryArchitecture]

https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/t31.0-8/10714584_10152284392046846_7640115626587104343_o.jpg
Looks like there's going to be Costco here.
Source:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ilovechestermere/search/?query=east%20hills

[yyc_engineer]

Oh no! is the movie theater gone?

East side desperately needs another theater!

[RyLucky]

You never know, it could be a nice place... ONCE IT'S REDEVELOPED IN 2050.

[MasterG]

Oh no! is the movie theater gone?

East side desperately needs another theater!

theatre = correct . theater = 'Merica!

Being a grammar-nazi aside, Yes the east side does need another theatre. But the centre city needs another one for the neighbourhoods down there. I would favour this theatre endeavour if they applied a bit more vigour to the design; as it stands now I take great offence to it.

Any other development rumours for the area?

[UofC.engineer]

Looks like there's going to be Costco here.
Source:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ilovechestermere/search/?query=east%20hills

Thanks for the info.

I don't like the layout of this site one bit. If 17th ave is suppose to be a transit corridor then the smaller stores should be grouped closer to the south for easier transit access.

[mykalberta]

I think from the Citys perspective its a good development. Please remember its on the SW corner of 17Ave (the SE one not the one eveyone likes) and Stony Trail.

It creates revenue from an area likely not to get anything better than what it has right now and it maximizes use of current transportation corridors of 17Ave. If they include good pedestrian access from across 17th Ave its great for those lowrise condos in the area.

It might reduce the income from the from the current "dumps" along that stretch of road that can be later re-deveopled into something better. CPS has already uppped their street presence in the area and in 20-50 years we might be talking about 17th Ave SE as the next great re-development area.

From a future-proofing stand point, it provides a good "end-point" for transit development along 17th Ave SE. Maybe dedicated bus along a future urban boulevard and then maybe surface rail along 17th Ave traversing downtown and then down to MRU.

I agree from the pics they look a bit ridiculous but if it didnt go here it would have gone somewhere in Rockyview county and that land probably sits empty and the residences near travel by car elsewhere.

[mykalberta]

Oops, didnt see the above pic of the location.

Its too bad its diagonal from where I thought it was on the other side of Stoney, definately car dominant with no chance of pedestrian access across Stoney.

Does anyone know what the lakes are for on either corner, are they stormwater ponds, protected? Seems unusual the developer wouldnt have drained it for better access.

[MasterG]

Oops, didnt see the above pic of the location.

Its too bad its diagonal from where I thought it was on the other side of Stoney, definately car dominant with no chance of pedestrian access across Stoney.


It is too bad that the design-standard is so rigid for stoney trail interactions. While crossing under a horrible, high-speed expressway is unpleasant it is more so because of the mega-size of the 17th Ave / Stoney interchange. A simple diamond interchange would reduce the footprint by 2/3 of the intersection and make it a bit more reasonable to one-day expect the pedestrian corridor to extend on 17th Ave.

If there is one street that this should be considered in the East, you would think 17th Ave is it.

[speedog]

theatre = correct . theater = 'Merica!

Being a grammar-nazi aside, Yes the east side does need another theatre. But the centre city needs another one for the neighbourhoods down there. I would favour this theatre endeavour if they applied a bit more vigour to the design; as it stands now I take great offence to it.

Any other development rumours for the area?

Kind of like the "stadia" versus "stadium" verbage - link (http://grammarist.com/usage/stadiums-stadia/). I've seen stadia used incorrectly in these forums as it is a Latin plural of stadium and I don't believe Calgary is going to be building more than one stadium any time soon. If one wishes to use a plural form of stadium, stadiums will work just fine and besides that, the Latin word stadia does have other definitions.

[speedog]

Oops, didn't see the above pic of the location.

It's too bad it's diagonal from where I thought it was on the other side of Stoney, definitely car dominant with no chance of pedestrian access across Stoney.

Does anyone know what the lakes are for on either corner, are they storm water ponds, protected? Seems unusual the developer wouldn't have drained it for better access.

They may be storm water ponds but at the same time, the water table on the east side of Calgary is quite high and getting higher as more land is developed and as such, these ponds will probably always have water in them. If one goes back 30 years ago, there certainly wasn't the amount of surface water laying about on the east side of Calgary like there is now - just last year, high water tables and ground water created problems in and around Conrich just to the northeast of Calgary. Problem is as developers fill in and raise land parcels, the displaced water that was there naturally before has to go somewhere - take a drive along 84th Street SE north of Glenmore Trail and see how much water sits around, never disappearing. 84th Street never used to be wet like this 30 years ago.

[CalgaryArchitecture]

Any other development rumours for the area?

There is going to be the new development of the neighbourhood "Belverdere" that is supposedly to connect Calgary and Chestermere.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Current-studies-and-ongoing-activities/Belvedere-Area-Structure-Plan.aspx

[CalgaryArchitecture]

EAST HILLS | CONFIRMED STORES - many more to come!

Big-Box Stores:
- Walmart
- Costco w/ liquor store and gas bar
- Marshals
- Bed Bath and Beyond
- Sportcheck
- Pet Smart
- Pier 1 Imports
- London Drugs
- Sleep Country
- LA Fitness
- Dollarama
- Michaels

RESTURAUNT AND EATERIES
- Milestones
- Starbucks
- Tim Hortons
- Mcdonalds
- South Street
- Pink Berry
- Opa
- Subway
- Booster Juice
- Marble Slab
- Liquor Depot
- Costco Liquor

RETAIL
- Arden
- Osh Kosh
- Show Company
- Ricks
- Boot Legger

HAIR AND SALON
- Tommy Gun
- Chatters
- Sally Beauty
- Great Clips

BANKS
- CIBC
- TD CANADA

OTHER
- Bulk Barn
- Dentist

[O-tacular]

Is every big box centre anchored by the same tenants? Just looking at that list I know that every single one of those is currently at 130th Ave and or Deerfoot Meadows.

[Govertical]

^^^My thoughts exactly. Like we need another power center!

[CalgaryAlex]

^^^My thoughts exactly. Like we need another power center!

This development is super disappointing. Not only is it so redundant, but they decided to take a lazy, fast cash route with big box stores instead of trying something new and exciting.

What is being done in Currie Barracks, the Stadium Center redevelopment and University District is what should be the new norm. Not these tired old (in my mind shelf-life-expired) concepts which help the city out nada.

It would have been great to have a smartly-designed district at the end of 17th Ave SE to serve as an anchor for the area in the east and promote some much-needed revitalization.

[lineman]

I'm sorry, but plopping a "smartly designed district" where East Hills sits would do nothing for revitalizing the rest of 17th Ave SE. East Hills is as disjointed from Forest Lawn as Inglewood is to the West.

[YYCguys]

I thought that a theatre was going to be located there. I don't remember which one, but it was one of the early tenants to sign on.

[Doug_Cgy]

It's kind of cool they're getting a Pinkberry

[mersar]

I thought that a theatre was going to be located there. I don't remember which one, but it was one of the early tenants to sign on.

Cineplex. They pulled out a couple years ago now though from my recollection.

[Policy Wonk]

Cineplex is worried about being forced into further divestitures.

[Spring2008]

This looks terrible. No effort at all to incorporate mixed-use. In and out drive through. Guess all the good stuff might never hit the far East.

[CalgaryArchitecture]

Updates - June 17 2015 - Sorry for Bad Quality, raining plus some blurry shots

http://i.gyazo.com/9c18b123196e4c33b4d998112a2dbf16.png

http://gyazo.com/2748bbe69c1713c76ea6c0935e365241

http://i.gyazo.com/9dbda37870474dc91fbe88c2d7f30dec.png

http://i.gyazo.com/4c055069e319dcefb227f43f8124f6cb.png

http://i.gyazo.com/ee459f9f8646bfc6eaf3c90afd37460a.png

http://i.gyazo.com/88b18ce05472206b5ce8afd88d1ea52b.png

http://i.gyazo.com/fabe70b6a836dc9ffe0e38cecb4e1423.png

http://i.gyazo.com/2404c64f1b15960ad93c72b125d9830d.png

http://gyazo.com/7d88e46242bdf4e4b732d97ad88c2d6e

http://i.gyazo.com/ccebac43297e1cbfb11b7a1b38912430.png

http://i.gyazo.com/fb08496e11bdc900965fa90dc10228f6.png

http://i.gyazo.com/1a87bd08b2cb04d9a9cb2f58793ca1cd.png

http://i.gyazo.com/7fe21b46ed0d467f2000ce3deef329b8.png