Issuu

DEVELOPMENT GUIDEBOOK FOR THE NORTH HAVEN AND THORNCLIFFE-GREENVIEW COMMUNITIES Kakiu Chan, Craig Delean, Noa Friedman, Aja Sayers Horizon

PLAN 630: ADVANCED PROFESSIONAL PLANNING STUDIO | WINTER 2026

Edge Consulting

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TEAM KAKIU CHAN, CRAIG DELEAN, NOA FRIEDMAN, AJA SAYERS

INSTRUCTOR PROF. FRANCISCO ALANIZ URIBE | UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS THORNCLIFFE-GREENVIEW COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: ALISON ABBOTT, PATRICK SAUNDERS, STACEY MCDADE NORTH HAVEN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: CELINA BAHARALLY, MERITT KULARATNE, KAREN BOUDEWYN CITY OF CALGARY: SCOTT THOMSON CIVICWORKS: NATAN STELFOX FEDERATION OF CALGARY COMMUNITIES: AFRAH REYES

COMMUNITIES NORTH HAVEN

THORNCLIFFE-GREENVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

TEAM SITE CONTEXT BACKGROUND LEGAL FRAMEWORK INTERESTED PARTIES KEY COMMUNITY ISSUES METHODOLOGY SCHEDULE BUDGET

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS

URBAN MORPHOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

17 22

BUILT FORM INFRASTRUCTURE

28 36

ENGAGEMENT

COMMUNITY WALKABOUT COMMUNITY WORKSHOP

46 48

DESIGN CONCEPTS AND POLICIES

LANDUSE

51 55 62 68 83

RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE MOBILITY

OPEN HOUSE

103

REFERENCES

105

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project was undertaken as part of the Winter 2026 PLAN 630: Advanced Professional Planning Studio from the Master of Planning program at the University of Calgary. As an academic project, it is intended to simulate the planning process and should not be interpreted as an official City of Calgary document. The purpose of this studio project was to explore the process of community planning through

real-world application in collaboration

with the community associations of North Haven and ThorncliffeGreenview. As established communities with no recently updated local area

plan,

North

Haven

and

Thorncliffe-Greenview

present

opportunity to envision their development in the coming decades through the creation of a neighbourhood development and design guidebook that can inspire future interventions. This document can also serve as a basis for creation of an eventual local area plan. The development guidebook was informed by site visits, research, data analysis, and community engagement through a workshop and formal presentations to a steering committee. Feedback from the engagement and studio critiques was integrated into the final urban designs and interventions. The interventions and guidelines responded directly to identified issues and opportunities in the community, which addressed topics related to land use, open space, and mobility.

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

OUR TEAM Horizon Edge Consulting is a multidisciplinary urban design firm dedicated to future-focused city building approaches that emphasize sustainability, innovation, and health. We aim to bring together our passion for environmental stewardship with community well-being through strategic design approaches that address the built and social environment.

Horizon Edge Consulting

Aja Sayers

Craig DeLean

Noa Friedman

Kakiu Chan

Senior Planner

Lead Designer

Planner 1

Craig is an Urban Designer

With a background in health

Kakiu has a background in

science and experience in

Urban Studies and he is

the non-profit sector, Noa

passionate about sustainable

focuses on community-

development and

based initiatives and

transportation planning, with a

placemaking. Her work

strong ambition to shape more

integrates evidence-based

livable, connected, and

research with an

inclusive communities. Kakiu

understanding of social and

combines academic knowledge

health outcomes to support

with practical insights to explore

inclusive, people-centered

innovative solutions that

neighbourhood planning.

balance growth, accessibility,

Aja approach's urban planning through creative problem-solving, guided by a strong passion for sustainability and climate resilience in an increasingly dense world. At the heart of her work is a deep love for green spaces and creating places where people remain connected to nature.

with a background in Fine art and Visual Studies. With experience in material research, tactical urbanism, and public engagement, he aims to create solutions to complex communication barriers through considered and practical design principles.

and environmental

sustainability.

SITE CONTEXT

HUNTINGTON HILLS

CALGARY INTERNATIONAL 64 Ave NE

AIRPORT

NOSE HILL PARK

DEERFOOT BUSINESS CENTRE

Thorncliffe

Dee

rfoo t Tr NE

SKYLINE

North Haven

WEST

Upper

Centre St N

4 St NW

HIGHWOOD

GREENVIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK

McKnight Blvd NE

HIGHLAND PARK Greenview North Haven

Major Road

0.5

1Km

This project involved four adjacent established communities situated on the border

The community sits near several important destinations. One of these is Nose Hill

of the northeast and northwest quadrants of Calgary. The study area is bounded by

Park, a major naturalized area, and one of the largest urban natural parks in North

several major roadways, including 14 St NW to the west, John Laurie Blvd NW and

America. It is also adjacent to several nearby employment hubs including Skyline

McKnight Blvd NE to the south, and 64 Ave NE to the north. Two main streets, 4 St NW

West and Greenview Industrial Park, and the Calgary International Airport.

and Centre St N bisect the community from the north and south. Deerfoot Tr NE, another major city arterial road, lies not far to the east.

BACKGROUND Horizon Edge Consulting will focus on developing a comprehensive

North Haven emerged in the early 1960s as a residential community closely

guidebook which highlights planning frameworks that responds directly to

tied to the natural landscape at the base of Nose Hill Park. Today, residents

the priorities expressed by the community members of North Haven and

seek to accommodate Calgary’s continued expansion in a way that respects

Thorncliffe-Greenview

their strong sense of place and connection to nature, with support for gentle density alongside priorities for enhanced cycling and pedestrian safety and mature

improved access points to the park. The community is looking for solutions

landscapes, and a deep sense of community pride that must be thoughtfully

that allow for change while reinforcing the natural and social assets that

considered as the city continues to grow and change. Together, they present

define North Haven.

These

established

neighbourhoods

possess

strong

identities,

meaningful opportunities for context-sensitive planning that balances growth with the preservation of neighbourhood character and quality of life,

Both communities benefit from walking-distance access to Nose Hill Park,

with a focus on land use and development concepts, open space systems,

one of Calgary’s largest and most significant urban natural areas. This

and mobility and transportation.

proximity provides important recreational, environmental, and social benefits by supporting active transportation, outdoor recreation, and community

Early correspondence with community association members reveals unique

well-being; protecting and enhancing access to this regional green space

priorities for each community, shaped by their distinct histories and

remains a key consideration for long-term planning in both Thorncliffe-

established identities. Thorncliffe-Greenview, developed during Calgary’s

Greenview and North Haven.

post-war growth of the 1950s, has expressed a strong desire to maintain the character of their neighbourhood while thoughtfully addressing where and how future growth should occur. The community also includes parks in need of

reinvestment,

underutilized

industrial

area,

and

several

OUR STRATEGY

small

commercial districts that present opportunities for strategic improvement and revitalization.

Horizon Edge Consulting’s approach is grounded in collaboration, clarity, and long-term thinking. By balancing growth with preservation and aligning strategic planning with community values, this project aims to deliver a clear, implementable vision that supports Thorncliffe-Greenview and North Haven as complete, resilient, and thriving communities, now and into the future.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK Because Thorncliffe-Greenview and North Haven currently do not have Area Redevelopment Plans (ARPs) or Local Area Plans (LAPs), drawing on multiple strategies and policy documents is essential. Using these regional and municipal frameworks together allows us to create a new, locally grounded guidebook that addresses the challenges identified in the next section.

STATUTORY PLANS

NON-STATUTORY PLANS

The planning and redevelopment of Thorncliffe-Greenview and North Haven will

Non-statutory plans and strategies also provide guidance to ensure that

be guided by the established legal and policy framework of the City of Calgary.

community development is sustainable, resilient, and responsive to evolving city

This ensures that any recommendations and proposed strategies are aligned

priorities. These include:

with municipal objectives, statutory requirements, and best practices for sustainable community development.

Calgary Climate Strategy Pathways to 2050:

Key statutory documents that provide direction for planning in these

climate-resilient communities.

Outlines the city’s goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building

communities include:

Complete Streets Guidelines: Informs mobility planning to enhance pedestrian, cycling, and transit networks.

The Municipal Development Plan (MDP): Establishes city-wide policies for land use, growth management, and urban form.

Parks and Open Space Strategies:

The Calgary Plan:

including access to regional amenities such as Nose Hill Park.

Guides the protection, enhancement, and connectivity of public green spaces,

Outlines long-term strategies for complete communities, sustainable growth, and infrastructure investment.

Community Sustainability and Urban Design Guidelines:

Land Use Bylaw:

integrating gentle density, and fostering quality public realm improvements.

Provide best-practice guidance for maintaining neighbourhood character,

Regulates zoning, permitted uses, density, and building form, providing the legal foundation for development approvals.

INTERESTED PARTIES The project is committed to working collaboratively with residents, community associations, and city administration to ensure diverse perspectives are heard and reflected in a shared, community driven vision for the area.

COMMUNITY MEMBERS Residents and community association representatives with a direct stake in neighbourhood change and development. North Haven Community Association Board and Development Review Committee Thorncliffe-Greenview Community Association Board Residents including homeowners, renters, seniors, families, and newcomers

PROJECT AND ACADEMIC PARTNERS Supporting the project through research, facilitation, and academic expertise to inform planning and engagement. University of Calgary School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Federation of Calgary Communities as a facilitating organization

ADJACENT AND INTERESTED GROUPS Representing nearby communities, organizations, and businesses affected by or engaged in changes within the project area. Neighboring communities including Thorncliffe-Greenview, Cambrian Heights, Highwood, and Highland Park Nose Hill Park advocates and community garden volunteers Local businesses along Edmonton Trail, Centre Street, 4 Street, and nearby commercial and light industrial areas

KEY COMMUNITY ISSUES This project is committed to addressing key community issues by grounding decisions in local priorities, evidence, and equity, and by translating identified challenges into clear, actionable planning directions.

GROWTH AND HOUSING CHANGE

PUBLIC REALM AND OPEN SPACE

Both communities are responding to new forms of

Both communities see value in enhancing public

development and increased density.

spaces.

North Haven is interested in housing diversity such as

North Haven is interested in pocket parks,

accessory suites and small scale infill that supports

placemaking, tactical urbanism, and public art to

aging in place and young families while maintaining

strengthen community life.

neighbourhood character.

Thorncliffe-Greenview has a range of parks and

Thorncliffe-Greenview is seeing development types it

greenspaces that require better coordination and

has not historically experienced and is seeking clarity

long term vision.

on where increased density is appropriate.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY Improving safety and access is a priority, particularly

Environmental considerations are also a growing

for vulnerable users.

priority across North Haven/Throncliffe-Greenview

North Haven highlights pedestrian and cycling safety

North Haven explicitly raises concerns about climate

near schools, community facilities, Nose Hill Park

resilience, drainage, tree canopy, and native

access points, and major barriers such as 14 Street

landscaping, reflecting its strong relationship to Nose

NW and John Laurie Boulevard, with interest in

Hill Park and natural systems.

improved connections to transit and Nose Creek

These themes are likely relevant across the broader

pathways.

study area, particularly where redevelopment

Thorncliffe-Greenview’s main streets and mixed use

pressure meets existing green infrastructure.

corridors also raise issues around traffic, walkability, and transit integration.

METHODOLOGY This section outlines our methodology to develop the requested urban

PHASE 2: ANALYSIS

development framework. It highlights our development approaches, procedures, important meetings, projected milestones, and deliverables that are to be

Building upon our initial research deliverables, Phase 2 aims to do extensive analysis of the open space,

achieved within 4 phases:

land use, and mobility factors that affect everyday living for residents. We will break up this phase into

Initial Research

Analysis

Design Draft

Final Design

Jan 12: Team Formation Jan 13: First Site Visit Jan 22: Walking Tour

Feb 26: Steering Committee Presentation

Feb 5: Model Building Plan Meeting

March 6: Model Completion March 7: Community Workshop

Map Preparation

Site Analysis

Data Collection

Community Profiling

Walking Tour with community Leaders

Gap Assessment Model Building Plan

Opportunity and Gap Assessment to guide our design drafting phase. 2.1: Spatial Analysis

Apr 14: Dry Run Presentation Apr 17: Steering Committee Presentation Apr 18: Open House

A comprehensive analysis of the physical site will consider:

Apr 22: Final Report Submission

Design Conceptualization

Guidebook Completion

Model Building

Open House Preparation

Community Enagagement

three sections to analyze the physical space, the lived experience of the community, and an

Open space, green space, and pathway connections. Traffic, pedestrian scale safety, and walk-ability. Environmental analysis (topography, urban forest, ecological corridors, water systems, etc), The history and evolution of the community. Land use breakdown of current spatial community functions.

Project Report

Built form of both housing and critical infrastructure (roads, parks, lighting, solar panels, etc) A curated breakdown of relevant policies or recommendations from urban framework documents

PHASE 1: INITIAL RESEARCH

2.2: Community Profiling

Phase 1 is concerned with the development of a shared understanding of the project and its scope. This

A socio-demographic breakdown of the people and lived experience within the site will include:

can be achieved through creating a foundational toolbox to guide our project trajectory and build a comprehensive understanding of the area. This is to ensure deliverables that are representative of all parties and organizations involved.

Relevant community statistics such as census numbers, housing tenure, community incomes, etc. Social or cultural data such as spoken languages, protected groups, or immigration status. Housing mobility and living affordability.

1.1: Map Preparation and Data Collection

Food security and social programming,

To reach this understanding, we will create a foundational repository of the site’s qualities and existing data to operate from going forward. This phase’s task-list will include:

Healthcare and educational opportunities. Meeting of everyday needs such groceries and other services. 2.3: Opportunity and Gap Assessment (Completion by Feb 20th)

Base map creation.

An assessment that synthesizes all of our collected information, data, and understandings into an

Site photo inventory and curation of relevant landmarks and places. A collection of foundational urban statutory and non-statutory framework documents. This includes municipal scale plans, neighbourhood guides, reports, and interested party statements.

articulate report will identify the assets, opportunity, and gaps in urban quality of the communities. This will become a foundational guiding assessment for our design interventions as we strive to better meet the needs of those who call North Haven and Thorncliffe-Greenview home.

1.2: Community Walking Tour (Jan 22)

2.4: Model Building Plan (Feb 5)

To aid in our understating, we will attend a walking tour with community leaders. Their knowledge

Based on our community understanding and analysis, this is the best time to formulate a plan for our

regarding the area’s qualities and lived experience will inform our project’s outcome by directly

community model. As our primary community engagement tool, the model’s scale, material properties,

highlighting the area’s assets and areas of improvement.

timeline, and pricing to assure it is an effective communication device.

METHODOLOGY PHASE 3: DESIGN DRAFTING

PHASE 4: FINAL DESIGN

Prioritizing our Opportunity and Gap Assessment from Phase 2, we will initiate the process of

After meeting with the community and our Steering Committee, our final phase will be focused on

conceptualizing design solutions tailored for the community, paying particular attention to

finalizing and presenting a comprehensive urban development guidebook that offers actionable and

implementation scale and community context. This will take the form of either Master Plans, node

context-based solutions. This should be an evidence-based document grounded in precedent and

plans, best and highest use recommendations, and other visual maps and aids that prioritize the

community feedback, written in plain language as to be actionable and concise so developers and

topics of open space, land use, and mobility. The design process will be guided and refined through

community members can envision a shared path forward.

Steering Committee suggestions and a public engagement workshops.

4.1: Guidebook Completion (Originally set for April 13, was completed April 17)

3.1: Design Conceptualization

The completion of a guidebook to communicate our design solutions will be achieved. This guide will

Based on feedback from our interested party meetings, we will begin focusing our design interventions and urban recommendations. The design drafting process will consider:

expand on and refine the topics outlined in section 3.1, designing actionable interventions for our three main topics delivered in concise and easily legible maps, policies, and other visual aids. The final guidebook will include:

Guidance on open space connectivity and place-making measures, improving accessibility to

Land use alterations or revisions to create more functional community spaces.

increase resident usage of the natural and urban landscape for recreation, leisure, and active

Housing typology, gentle density, desired place-types, and street scale specifications.

living. This will include environmental stewardship implementations, sustaining a functional and

Commercial integration, proximity, and access.

healthy urban and natural landscape for future generations to enjoy.

Special consideration of alternative uses for the local industrial land uses.

Mobility enhancements that empowers multiple traversal options, encouraging connected

Community-building interventions to underutilized land parcels or areas.

pedestrian systems that increase transit use and create safer and healthier daily routines.

Open space connections, accessibility, and neighbourhood walk-ability. Place-making interventions and community building opportunities such as public art and tactical urbanism interventions

Land use adjustments to diversify and integrate different building types and uses, creating more compact communities that diminish car dependency, reduce GHG emissions, and encourage growth with more affordable housing options for new and existing residents.

Pedestrian scale safety measures and traffic calming solutions. Ecological urban design practices that preserves and respects the area’s connection to Nosehill Park and other natural systems or ecological corridors.

4.2: Open House (Originally set for April 14, was held on April 18) The open house provides us an opportunity to proudly present our work to the public and gauge

3.2: Model Building (Completed by March 7)

community reception. We hope to present a well-considered and impactful final product using this

The Model Building Plan created in Phase 2 will be implemented starting mid February. The model will

outlined Methodology.

be a key communication device in our Community Workshop and Public Engagement sessions on March 7th. It is integral to represent the community in a tangible and legible way.

4.3: Project Concluding Report (April 22)

3.3: Community Workshop (March 7)

We will submit a summary report that outlines the entire project’s design process. This will include

We will host a community workshop to better engage with residents and understand the area’s current

well as problems encountered in order to improve future outcomes.

resident reception and steering committee feedback, chronicling both our successes to celebrate as

functionality. This Workshop will be critical to refine our understanding of the community through inperson conversations. The model will function as a visual aid and conversation starter to encourage residents to tell stories about their everyday lives to inform our final design solutions before our Steering Committee presentation.

PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT STAGE

JANUARY W1

19 20 22 23 26 27 29 30 2

FEBRUARY W3 3

5 6

MARCH

9 10 12 13 16 17 19 20 23 24 26 27 2

Base Map Preparation Phase 1: Initial Research

Data and Site Photo Collection Legal Framework Review Community Walkabout Community Profiling Spatial Analysis

Phase 2: Community Analysis

Gap Assessment Model Planning Steering Committee Presentation Model Building

Phase 3: Design Draft

Analysis Community Workshop Design Conceptualization Steering Committee Presentation Concept Design Finalization

Phase 4: Final Design

Steering Committee Presentation Open House Final Report Preparation

Community Engagement Deliverable Deadline

W7 3

W8 6

APRIL W9

W10

W11

9 10 12 13 16 17 19 20 23 24 26 27 30 31 2

W12 3

W13

W14

9 10 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 22

BUDGET AJA

CRAIG

NOA

KAKIU

SENIOR PLANNER

LEAD DESIGNER

JUNIOR PLANNER

$250

$175

$120

Base Map Preparation

Data and Site Photo Collection

Legal Framework Review

Community Walkabout

TOTAL HOURS

Community Profiling

Spatial Analysis

Gap Assessment

Model Planning

Steering Committee Presentation

TOTAL HOURS

Model Building

Analysis Community Workshop

Design Conceptualization

Steering Committee Presentation

TOTAL HOURS

Concept Design Finalization

Steering Committee Presentation

Open House

Final Report Preparation

TOTAL HOURS

158

172

175

TEAM HOURS

SUBTOTAL

GST

DISBURSEMENTS

TOTAL COST

680

$111,600

$5,580

$7,812

$124,992

HOURLY FEE

TOTAL FEES

$10,455

$34,940

$26,890

$39,315

PART 2: COMMUNITY ANALYSIS

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: SITE HISTORY & URBAN MORPHOLOGY Aerial Photos from of the City of Calgary, 2026

Prior to ~1600

1953

1957

1962

Nose Hill North Look Out

Deer, Elk, and Bison Hunting

Indigenous Pre-Contact

TIMELINE

Time Immemorial

European Contact

Treaty 7 Signing

~350-150 years ago

Thorncliffe Heights Established

Post-WW2 Oil Boom Late 1940s

1877 The land was used as Elk and Deer Hunting for Indigenous settlers on the Nose Hill

European Settlement, farming, and Colonization

1956

1954 Land Agreement between the Blackfoot First Nations and the Crown

CPA Alberta, 2026

Significant urban growth by early 1950s fueled by returning veterans, European immigration, and Turner Valley

Thorncliffe begins Construction

Through land annexation Parade of Homes on Thornton Road

Greenview Established 1959

Lower Thorncliffe is built after a huge burst of development Colonel Sanders Elementary School opens

Glenbow Archives NA 56600-7784 and NA 560076259d. Accessed from Saunders, 2026.

Glenbow Archives NA-2335-2

City of Calgary, 2019

1967

1963 Opens as employment center Thorncliffe and Corpus Christi Elementary Schools open

Thorncliffe-Greenview Association Merged

North Haven Established Lower North Haven starts construction in 1962

Greenview residents joined the Thorncliffe Community Association

Calgary herald, 1956. Accessed from Saunders, 2026

As a brief history, we start our timeline with the reminder that our site rests on what is known as Treaty 7

In 1954, Thorncliffe Heights hosted a Parade of Homes in collaboration with the Calgary House builders

Land, but has always existed since time immemorial as a hunting ground for Indigenous nomads who

Association on Thornton Road as a showcase of what the future of Calgary could look like. The

would settle on the Nose Hill North Point (United Way of Canada, 2019). It is significant to note that the

Thorncliffe Heights subdivision was crucial in that it was the first to be covered by a written

Treaty 7 Land agreement between the Blackfoot First Nations and the Crown was forged through

understanding that transferred the costs of street and sidewalk construction and utilities installations

weaponizing land ownership misunderstandings. This colonization tool of owning and parceling land is

from the City to the developer. (Foran, 2009). As a new development in the peak of the modern era,

one that urban planning still uses, and it is important to acknowledge that it is part of the Genocidal

Thorncliffe Heights was pushing to position itself as a family-oriented suburban community close to

history of Canada in order to reconcile and find a way to become stewards of the land, not owners of it.

downtown without the congestion and noise, with two schools opening soon after the Parade of Homes and Greenview opening as an adjacent employment center just 3 years later.

After European contact, settlers like the Laycock Family farmed the land until the post-war oil boom caused the land to be annexed in 1954 as the city grew from the south east. This boom was caused

The second Development burst is categorized by Nose Hill. The city’s freeze development on the Nose

primarily by returning veterans, European immigration, and the upstart of Turner Valley (Saunders,

Hill following strong resident movements to preserve the land (Saunders, 2026). This paved the way for

2026).

the preservation of the landscape through a land exchange with Thorncliffe in which private developers acquired 180 acres of West Thorncliffe land from the city in exchange for 1,052 acres of Nose Hill. This

Thorncliffe, originally Thorncliffe Heights, was established in an initial burst of central development, and

culminated in 1980 with Nose Hill Municipal park and Egert’s park being formally created. This land

by the early 1960s, Greenview and North Haven were being constructed quickly at Thorncliffe’s edges.

exchange allowed for the remainder of the large undeveloped parcels on the site to be filled. These

This is when the Thorncliffe-Greenview association was established, creating the precedent of

development burst contributes to the aging housing stock today, as more than 90% of all Thorncliffe

community lines being blurry and shared as one.

homes were built prior to 1980 (City of Calgary, 2021).

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: SITE HISTORY & URBAN MORPHOLOGY

Nose Hill-Thorncliffe Land Exchange

Nose Hill Urban Development Freeze

Upper North Haven begins Construction

1974

1972

City passed first resolution for urban development freezes as they look into the park’s creation

1979 1984

1975

Land Exchange

14th Street is created (Huge Barrier today)

1975

Upper North Haven Established

Nose Hill and Egert’s Park Creation

1977

Developer acquires 180 acres of West Thorncliffe land from the city in exchange for 1052 acres of Nose Hill

1984

Government of Alberta, 1985

Egert’s Park

Nose Hill Park is established after Archaeological Surveying and push from residents Egert’s Park Established

Thorncliffe/Greenview separated into 3 communities

City study to capture how residents feel about their community conducted for Thorncliffe-Greenview

2021

Former Quality Inn turned into mixed market housing in collaboration with the Drop-inn Center

Calgary Drop-in Center, 2023

Nose Hill Park City of Calgary, 2017

Thorncliffe Inclusive Play Park

Nose Hill Tunnel Mural Inclusive Thorncliffe Playpark

Nose Hill tunnel Murals

A driver of this preservation was survey’s done for the planned development of the Nose Hill which

Notable projects include the participation of Thorncliffe-Greenview in the City of Calgary’s “This is My

required the removal of pre-historic and historic resources. A study was conducted to determine and

Neighborhood” project in which the city executed a study asking residents how they feel about their

inventory sites of historical significance through the 1979 Historical Resources Impact Assessment and

community. Residents’ primary associations with the community were keywords of “safe”, “active”,

Archaeological Survey. This survey was responsible for first documenting what would later be known in

“clean”, and a “strong sense of community” (City of Calgary, 2017). Another project is the Rise apartment

1984 as the Hawkwood Archaeological Site: a multi-component per-historic campsite that showed tipi

in which the former Quality Inn was turned into mixed market housing in collaboration with the Drop-inn

rings in the ground alluding to Indigenous settlement (Government of Alberta, 1985).

Center. The community has recently experienced residential infill and community investments such as the Nose Hill Tunnel Murals, play park development, and bus traps fillings.

It is in this time that the area North Haven now known as Upper North Haven is developed as part of Thorncliffe. Upper North Haven is officially established approximately 14 years later in 1991 when Thorncliffe-Greenview is officially separated into 3 communities: Upper North Haven, Thorncliffe, and Greenview. The community experienced very little development or change from early 1990s to the early 2020s, with 0-2% of all housing units on the site today being made after 2016 (City of Calgary, 2021).

2005

Community Investments

Rise Apartment Project 2019

2017

Central shopping center expanded

1975

“This is my Neighborhood” City Project Participation

Safeway Growth 2003

1991

1980

Though Upper North hill is not established until 1991, the neighbourhood begins construction Archaeological Assessments begin at Nose Hill sites, including the Hawkwood Site (EgPm-179)

1995

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: SITE HISTORY & URBAN MORPHOLOGY 1975

2005

2025

THE SITE TODAY 0

0.5

1979 12 min

HUNTINGTON HILLS

Drive

1Km

CALGARY INTERNATIONAL 64 Ave NE

AIRPORT

NOSE HILL PARK

DEERFOOT BUSINESS CENTRE St

Dee

rfoo

WEST

Centre St N

vd Bl ie ur hn

HIGHWOOD

4 St NW

McKnight Blvd NE NW

New Egert’s Play Park Residential infill

Bus Traps filled Residential infill

NEW DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

t Tr

Today

2025

2024

SKYLINE

GREENVIEW INDUSTRIAL

PARK HIGHLAND PARK

Bus Trap Filled

Egert’s Play Park

Major Road

School

Place of Worship

Community/ Recreation Center

Grocery

Employment

Senior Living

Center

Facility

What we see today is a community build in bursts, one that’s rooted in responding to and respecting the natural surroundings, and a community that treats borders as suggestion, taking pride in seeing each other thrive. This creates challenges with aging infrastructure, but it also resulted in a community rich in green open spaces for active living, and a desire to grow under the recognition that the community and residents are aging. This is the foundation of Horizon Edge’s understanding of the site’s history and urban morphology, and has grounded our development framework.

BUILT IN BURSTS

ROOTED IN NATURE

Impacts infrastructure age and housing stock

Growth respected and recognized the natural systems

DESIRE TO GROW TOGETHER The Communities are like family and take pride in seeing each other thrive

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: DEMOGRAPHICS COMMUNITY ANALYSIS POPULATION

POPULATION #

LOW INCOME BY AGE

AGE GROUPS

Represents 21% of Site Total

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Calgary Median

w/ Kids

w/o Kids

34%

35%

-10%

Calgary #

Calgary: $1,720 $1,330 $1,350

+7%

Calgary #s

HOUSING TENURE

-1%

Calgary #s

-0.2

HOUSING TYPE

Own

Rented

86% SingleDetached

-$31,000

HOUSING AGE 1% 7% 15%

Apartment in building less than 5 Storeys Row House Semi-Detached

86% Single-Detached

0% 5+ Storey Apartments

0-19

85% 1980 or before

w/ Kids

w/o Kids

29%

26% -2%

Calgary #s

HOUSING TENURE

Calgary: $1,720 GV: $1,320

22% +7%

Calgary #s

GV: +8% 2025

65+

Avg. household size

GV: 28%

-0.7

Calgary: 23%

Calgary size

Rented

47% Apartment under 5 storeys

2042

% OF HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING 30% OR MORE OF INCOME ON SHELTER

HOUSING TYPE

Rent

Owned

11%

18-64

45% Own

$1,330 $1,350

+58% ary: Calg

22%

1.9

55%

3% made after 2001

POP. PROJECTION

MARRIED COUPLES SINGLE PARENTS

Calgary #

MONTHLY SHELTER COSTS 4% 1960 or before 81% 1961-1980 8% 1981-1990 2% 1991-2001 1% 2001-2010 0% 2011-2015 1% 2015-2021

14%

0-17

-15%

Calgary Median

Calgary size

Calgary: 11%

Smallest

GV: $67,000

Calgary: 23%

GV: 10%

30-44

Represents 14% of Site Total

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

NH+NHU: 12%

LOW INCOME BY AGE

Biggest

2042

% OF HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING 30% OR MORE OF INCOME ON SHELTER

23% Rent

77%

NH+NHU: $975

2.4

Avg. household size

14%

2025

AGE GROUPS

2,100

NH+UNH: +1%

65+

MARRIED COUPLES SINGLE PARENTS

MONTHLY SHELTER COSTS

Owned

18-64

0-17

NH: $102,000 NHU: $120,000

+$8,000 approx.

HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY

11%

Smallest

15-29

HOUSEHOLD MAKE-UP

POPULATION #

+58% ary: Calg

Calgary: 11%

65+ 30-44

GREENVIEW

POP. PROJECTION

GV: 14%

Biggest

2,995

NORTH HAVEN + NH UPPER

2021 CENSUS

HOUSING AGE

47% 28% 1% 16% 8%

Apartment in building less than 5 Storeys Row House Semi-Detached Single-Detached Duplex

+31% Calgary’s Apartment under 5 Storey #s

80% 1961-1990

8% 1960 or before 48% 1961-1980 32% 1981-1990 8% 1991-2001 3% 2001-2010 0% 2011-2015 0% 2016-2021

0% made after 2011

City of Calgary, 2021

As for demographics, North Haven and North Haven Upper (NHU) are comprised in part of financially

And Finally, Thorncliffe continues the demographic trend of having a high percentage of seniors while

comfortable seniors. With a well-above average median household incomes and majority home

having a smaller younger population. Though the median household income is quite lower than

owners, a community comprised of 86% low density single detached units made prior to 1980 might

Calgary’s average, the larger household size, higher housing diversity, and lower percent of residents

indicate a difficult barrier to entry for younger adults and families under 30, reflected in the plateauing

spending 30% more of income on shelter indicate less financial instability while high low-income in

population projections and low rental tenure.

youth and an aging housing stock and population indicate lack of opportunities for new families and professionals to settle.

In Greenview, with well above average low-income rates and median incomes, we see 1-2 people households of young professionals and seniors struggle with monthly costs with 28% spending 30% or

Over-all trends for these communities indicate a declining population and plateauing dwelling

more of their income on shelter. With more diversity in housing types including a majority share in

occupancy and school enrollments (City of Calgary, 2026). This indicates that schools receiving an

apartment units occupants, this suggests that additional housing supports and programs are needed

increase in enrollment since 2022 , mainly the nearby high-school of John G., are busing students into

to maintain younger demographics.

the community and are not living within the community.

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: DEMOGRAPHICS COMMUNITY ANALYSIS POPULATION

POPULATION #

AGE GROUPS

LOW INCOME BY AGE

TC: 20%

Biggest

8,695

60+

Represents 65% of Site Total

11%

Smallest

12%

19-24

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

27%

-11%

Calgary Median

-1%

Calgary #

Calgary #s

24% +9%

Calgary #s

POPULATION AND DWELLING OCCUPATION

2025

1978: Upper North Haven and Thorncliffe construction boom

2042

-0.2

Calgary: 23%

Calgary size

City of Calgary, 2026

2000

Calgary: $1,720 TC: $1,320

$1,330 $1,350

42% Rent

58% Own

Owned

Rented

51% SingleDetached

WORK COMMUTE TIMES

John G.

1500

HOUSING TYPE

HOUSING AGE

4% 9% 9% 51% 6% 4%

Apartment in building less than 5 Storeys Row House Semi-Detached Single-Detached Duplex Apartment in building more than 5 storeys

91% 1980 or before

Most Diverse Built form

34% 1960 or before 57% 1961-1980 5% 1981-1990 3% 1991-2001 1% 2001-2010 1% 2011-2015 0% 2016-2021

0% made after 2016

13% Other 2% Bicycle 4% Walk 9% Transit 7% Car (Passenger) 74% Car (Driver)

2018

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT SINCE 2014

Plateaued Enrollment 80,000+ new Alberta students since 2022.

Sir. John A

500

St. Helena Col. Sanders Thorncliffe North Haven

20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23

HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY

HOUSING TENURE

81% Drive

1000

MONTHLY SHELTER COSTS

Car-Reliance

Occupied Dwellings Plateau

% OF HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING 30% OR MORE OF INCOME ON SHELTER

GV: 24%

9% Transit

Population Decline

TC: +9%

65+

Avg. household size

TRANSPORTATION SPLIT

City of Calgary, 2026

+58% ary: Calg

12% 11%

2.4

w/o Kids

33%

-24,500

POP. PROJECTION

MARRIED COUPLES SINGLE PARENTS w/ Kids

TC: $73,500

18-64

0-17

HOUSEHOLD MAKE-UP

OVERALL TRENDS ALL COMMUNITIES

THORNCLIFFE

2021 CENSUS

HOUSING CONTINUUM GAPS

Increased numbers (John G.) are likely due to busing high school students in from other communities

74% of all residents commute <30 mins Quality of life outcome from close employment centers

ALL: 51% 47% Calgary 25% 21%

22% 18% 5% 5% 5% 5%

LESS THAN 15 MINS

15 - 29 MINS

30-44 MINS

45-59 MINS

60+ MINS

City of Hamilton, 2025.

As for the housing continuum, the communities have an overabundance of low density market housing while rental options are present but lacking overall housing-type diversity. While being offered through organizations such as the Drop-in Centre, Alberta Health, and Home Space, We see gaps in supportive and non-market housing and no emergency shelter options within the community itself. Overall, we see a community of established empty-nesters in which an aging housing stock and little significant new developments over 25 years struggle to maintain population growth. The whole site’s social hubs feel fragmented despite the communities’ desire to join together, and the community risks acting out end-of-neighbourhood life-cycle trends without new investment to leverage Calgary’s anticipated population growth.

SUMMARY

Not offered in Communities

Offered, but limited

Food Box and service connections are offered, but shelter options are not currently offered.

2 Home Space Buildings for health and disability services, Rise Greenview mixed market, and 2 senior care facilities are offered as supportive housing

LONGTIME ESTABLISHED RESIDENTS

YOUNG FAMILIES & PROFESSIONALS

AGING HOUSING STOCK, LOW DENSITY, AND LOW HOUSING DIVERSITY

Has Invested in the community’s local amenities and charm

Want to invest their futures into this community too

Drives away public and private desired investments into the community

Creates barriers to new residential growth and declines service and infrastructure quality

Gentle Density

Offered

42% Rent

58% Own

Enhance Connections to Nature

USING CALGARY’S GROWTH TO INVITE LOCAL INVESTMENT Targeted density and new development would entice investment into the community to achieve the communities’ service and amenity goals

Maintain Community Character

Enhance Pedestrian Connections

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL Climate & Wildlife Chinook winds (warm, dry winds from the Rockies) can raise temperatures 10 to 20°C in hours

CLIMATE FACTS Hottest Month July (17 °C avg)

Black-billed Magpie

Beavers

Barred Owl

Bobcat

Coyote

Malllard Duck

Mountain air movement directly reshapes the prairie climate.

Big seasonal mood swings: cold winters, warm summers

One of Canada’s sunniest major cities Around 2,300+ hours of sunshine per year

Coldest Month January (-7 °C avg)

Wettest Month June (98.6 mm avg) Windiest Month May (28 km/h avg)

Annual precipitation 409.8 mm (per year)

Calgary’s climate is defined by its variability and seasonal extremes, with cold winters, warm summers, low annual precipitation, and over 2,300 hours of annual sunshine. A defining characteristic is the Chinook wind, a warm, dry downslope wind that can rapidly increase temperatures during winter months, often melting snow within hours. In communities such as Thorncliffe and North Haven, where open spaces and topographic exposure are prominent, these conditions influence how parks and pathways are experienced, extending winter usability while also introducing freeze-thaw cycles that affect surface conditions and accessibility.

Source: Canada West Foundation Source: Calgary Journal

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL

ENVIORNMENTAL ANALYSIS: SUMMARY

BROKEN CONNECTIONS

SLOPE ISSUES OPEN SPACE OPPORTUNITY

0.5

1Km

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: BUILT FORM FIGURE GROUND

YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION

17.1% AREA BUILT

Void Built Area

Pre-1955 1955-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980

0.5

1Km

Diagramming the figure ground of the community provides an understanding of the void and fill relationship. The extensive network of open spaces and dominance of low density single-detached homes results in only 17.1% of the area being built.

1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2024

0.5

1Km

The community first started to be developed in the early 1950's in Thorncliffe. This informed the warped-grid block structure we see today. Throughout the 1960's and 1970's Thorncliffe, North Haven, and Greenview continued to expand. From the 80's and 90's more multifamily housing types were added such as rowhouses and multiplexes. By the 2000's most of the community as we know it today had been built, with scattered infill developments continuing throughout.

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: BUILT FORM EXISTING BUILDING TYPES The community has predominantly single-detached family homes as its primary residential building type. The other existing multifamily home types are duplexes, multiplexes, townhomes, and lowrise apartments under four storeys. For non-residential uses, there are localized neighbourhood commercial strips, and several institutional building types including schools, seniors homes, and places of worship. Overall, the relative lack of housing diversity and concentration of localized commercial presents an opportunity to introduce new building types to create a more complete community.

SHADOW STUDY

Shadow Study

JUNE 21

MAR 21

NOV 21

9 AM 12 PM Single Detached Duplex Multi-plex Townhouse Lowrise Apartment (4 Storeys)

Single Detached

Commercial Religious Institution School Retirement Community Centre

3 PM

0.5

1Km

Lowrise Apartment Duplex

Multi-plex

Townhouse

RESIDENTIAL

Neighbourhood Commercial Strip

COMMERCIAL 29

Local Commercial Strip

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: BUILT FORM CURRENT LANDUSE

Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Commercial Institutional Open Space DC Direct Control Industrial

CURRENT ZONING

19.3% Open Space

0.5

R-CG Grade Oriented Infill H-GO Housing Grade-Oriented M-CG Multi-Residential Contextual Ground Oriented M-C1 & 2 Multi-Residential Contextual Medium/Low Profile M-X2 Multi-Residential - Medium Profile Support Commercial

1Km

C-N2 Commercial Neighbourhood 2 C-C1 Community Commercial

2.6% Commercial

C-COR2 Commercial Corridor 2 S-SPR Special Purpose - School, Park and Community Reserve S-CS Special Purpose - Community Service S-UN Special Purpose - Urban Nature S-CI Special Purpose - Community Institution DC Direct Control S-FUD Future Urban Development

1.0% Institutional 65.7% Residential Low

10.4% Residential Medium

0.5

1Km

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: BUILT FORM CURRENT BUILDING SCALE POTENTIAL The building scale potential map, shows the maximum building heights permitted by the current zoning. Due to the majority of the community being designated for groundoriented low density residential uses, most of the building scale potential allows for limited height below 12m. While there are some parcels allowing the low-modified building scale including multifamily townhomes and low-rise apartments up to 4 storeys, these are concentrated mostly along the outer edges of the community.

46 m

The 3 parcels zoned C-COR2 and DC contain height modifiers allowing for a maximum of 46m and 26m, respectively. While currently these parcels either contain low density commercial strips or are undeveloped, their zoning indicates potential to increase density in the future. Overall, with increasing demand for housing and the expected Greenline LRT along Centre St, there presents an opportunity for future development to strategically increase the building scale potential in the community to accommodate more density.

26 m

46 m

Limited <12m (3 Storeys) Low-Modified 12-16m (3-4 Storeys) Mid-Rise Over 16m Future Urban Development Open Space

0.5

1Km

46 m 26 m 16 m

12m

LIMITED

LOW-RISE

MID-RISE 31

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: BUILT FORM PARCEL OWNERSHIP

PARCEL SIZE

17.7% PUBLICLY OWNED

City-Owned Park School Sites Private Ownership

<500 sqm 500-1000 sqm 1000-5000 sqm 5000-10,000 sqm 10,000+ sqm Open Space

0.5

1Km

0.5

1Km

Analysis of parcel size and location allows determination of future development potential. Larger parcels allow for more flexible and broader scale development opportunities, while smaller parcels may be more limited and require strategic consolidation.

The City of Calgary manages a large number of parks and greenspaces throughout the community. Since these parcels are designated as public land, they present opportunities for integration of publicly funded interventions.

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: BUILT FORM CITY ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES

HOME VALUES OVER TIME Greenview

North Haven

Thorncliffe

Calgary

700,000

AVERAGE INCREASE +161.46%

Average Home Value ($)

600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0

2,005

2,010

2,015

2,020

2,025 (City of Calgary, 2026)

$ Value per sqm <500 <1000 <2500 <5000 5000+

0.5

CURRENT MARKET LISTINGS (AVG):

1Km

Single/Duplex $675,759

AVERAGE PROPERTY VALUE: $669,048.69

Townhouse $340,737

Condo $209,966

$1792.22 per m sq (all parcels) $1152.81 per m sq (residential) (Remax, 2026)

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: BUILT FORM NEW DEVELOPMENTS FROM LAST 25 YEARS

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES MISSING TYPOLOGIES MIXED-USE

LANEWAY SUITE

MARDA APARTMENTS, NORR ARCHITECTS, MARDA LOOP, CALGARY

BOWLING LANEWAY, STUDIO NORTH, CRESCENT HEIGHTS, CALGARY

MID-RISE APARTMENT

LIVE-WORK UNIT

RADIUS, BUCCI DEVELOPMENTS, BRIDGELAND, CALGARY

LIVE-WORK 4PLEX GRAVITY ARCHITECTURE, SHAGANAPPI, CALGARY

SUPERMARKET

SINGLE DETACHED

0.5

1Km

DUPLEX LOWRISE APARTMENT Over the last 25 years there has been some infill development particularly concentrated around the central Thorncliffe area with the oldest housing stock. Most completed developments have continued to be existing housing types. As housing demand continues to rise, this highlights an opportunity for future development to introduce missing or limited building types to provide further diversity and accommodate a wider range of housing needs.

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: BUILT FORM SUMMARY

MAJORITY LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

AGING HOUSING STOCK SCATTERED INFILL DEVELOPMENTS

LIMITED COMMERCIAL & MIXED-USE N

Single Family Detached

Commercial

Duplex

Religious Institution

Multi-plex

School

Townhouse

Retirement Home

Built Prior to 1960

Lowrise Apartment (3-4 Storey)

Community Centre

Infill Development

0.5

1Km

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: STREET NETWORK & MOBILITY ROAD HIERARCHY 64TH AVE NW

64TH AVE NE

4TH ST NW

CENTRE ST

URBAN BOULEVARD

ARTERIAL STREET

COLLECTOR STREET MCKNIGHT BLVD NE

JO HN

LA UR IE BL VD

CENTRE ST

L TON TR EDMON

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

Urban Boulevard Pathway

Arterial Street Walkway

Alley

Collector Street

RESIDENTIAL STREET

Residential Street N

0.5

1 Km

PATHWAY

This map shows that the major roads in the study area are mainly arterial roads, which form the primary traffic network. This is because the site is bounded and structured by major city corridors that are designed to carry higher traffic volumes and connect the area to the wider urban network. In comparison, the internal roads are mostly lower-order streets that serve local neighbourhood access.

WALKWAY

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: STREET NETWORK & MOBILITY BIKE LANES AND WALKWAYS

MULTI-USE PATHWAY

SIDEWALK

Multi-Use Pathway

Sidewalk

On-Street BIKE LANE

0.5

1 Km

This map shows that the bike lanes and walkways in the study area are somewhat disconnected, with limited continuous links between the left and right sides of the neighbourhood. Most of the pathways and sidewalks are concentrated in separate sections, while the on-street bike lanes are limited and do not form a strong east–west connection across the area. As a result, the overall active mobility network appears fragmented and may reduce convenient movement between different parts of the community.

ON-STREET BIKE LANE

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: STREET NETWORK & MOBILITY TRAFFIC INCIDENTS (2016-PRESENT) INVOLVED PEDESTRIANS

VEHICLES ONLY

64TH AVE NE/4 TH ST NW

64TH AVE NE/CENTRE ST

Traffic Incident High-Risk Intersection Traffic Volume Low<->High

0.5

1 Km

INVOLVED CYCLISTS

0.5

1 Km

Incidents Occurrence Low<->High

HIGH-RISK INTERSECTIONS

64TH AVE NE/EDMONTON TR

INCIDENTS INVOLVED PEDESTRIANS: 45 N

0.5

1 Km

0.5

1 Km

INCIDENTS INVOLVED VEHICLES ONLY: 312

Based on the traffic incident patterns shown on the maps, five high-risk intersections were highlighted for further attention. These intersections appear to have a higher frequency of recorded incidents and are mainly located along major traffic corridors.

MCKNIGHT BLVD NE/CENTRE ST

INCIDENT INVOLVED CYCLISTS: 7

MCKNIGHT BLVD NE/EDMONTON TR

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: PUBLIC TRANSPORT & ACCESSIBILITY BUS ROUTES AND FREQUENCY

5908 CENTRE ST N

GOOD BUS STOP 4832 NORQUAY DR NW , CALGARY

Bus Stop

Max Green & Core Bus Route

Primary Bus Routes

301

ON AVG: EVERY 16-25 MINS

ON AVG: EVERY 10-15 MINS

300

0.5

1 Km

Minor Bus Routes 4

414

ON AVG: EVERY 25-60 MINS

This map shows the distribution of bus routes, stops, and service frequency within and around the study area. Higher-frequency routes are mainly located along Centre Street and 4th Street NW, while lower-frequency minor routes serve the surrounding residential areas. Some existing bus stops have limited shelter, seating, or other amenities, indicating opportunities for improvement to provide a better waiting environment for transit users.

BAD BUS STOP

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: PUBLIC TRANSPORT & ACCESSIBILITY SERVICE WALKSHED ANALYSIS

0.5

1Km

0.5

1Km

0.5

1Km

SCHOOLS

SUPERMARKETS

Pedestrian Access to Schools (400m)

Pedestrian Access to Supermarkets (400m)

Pedestrian Access to Healthcare Facilities (400m)

Pedestrian Access to Schools (650m)

Pedestrian Access to Supermarkets (650m)

Pedestrian Access to Healthcare Facilities (650m)

0.5

1 Km

Based on the 450m and 650m walking sheds, the western part and the top of the study area appear to be somewhat left out compared with the more central areas. This suggests that residents in these locations may have poorer walking access to schools, supermarkets, and healthcare facilities within the communities.

HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT CURRENT PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE

B’

BUS TRAPS

CITY OF CALGARY

A’

BUS TRAP

POOR INTERSECTION DESIGN

N 0

0.5

1 Km

CROSS SECTION A’ (MCKNIGHT BLVD NE & CENTRE ST)

2.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 2.3m

Scale 1:150

CROSS SECTION B’ (64TH AVE NE & CENTRE ST)

4.2m 3.9m 4.4m

4.1m

4.3m 41

4.3m

4.3m 4.0m 4.0m 1.8m

Scale 1:150

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: UTILITIES WATER PIPES

Cast Iron (CI)

Copper

Ductile Iron (DI)

Other

Unknown

DISTRIBUTION PIPES CAST IRON

TYPICAL LIFESPAN: 75–100 YEARS Risk pattern: Gradual increase in break frequency over time Common issue: External corrosion and brittleness

POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC)

WATER PIPES BUILT BEFORE 1970S

Cross-Linked Polyethylene (PEX) Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)

Copper

Ductile Iron (DI)

Other

Unknown

Cast Iron (CI)

0.5

Pipes Built Before 1970s

HOUSEHOLD PIPES

1 Km

DUCTILE IRON (DI)

TYPICAL LIFESPAN: 75–100+ YEARS Risk pattern: Gradual deterioration, low sudden failure risk Common issue: External corrosion and wall thinning over time

Cross-Linked Polyethylene (PEX) Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Cast Iron Pipe >50 Year-Old N

COPPER

TYPICAL LIFESPAN: 50–70 YEARS Failure mode: Pin-hole leaks from internal corrosion

CROSS-LINKED POLYETHYLENE (PEX)

TYPICAL LIFESPAN: 40–50+ YEARS Failure mode: Rare, usually installation-related

TYPICAL LIFESPAN: 50–100 YEARS Risk pattern: Generally stable Common issue: Brittleness in extreme cold over long periods

0.5

1 Km

96.84% PIPES ARE OLDER THAN 50 YEARS

Looking at underground infrastructure, the water pipe network in the study area shows a clear aging issue, with about 96.84 percent of pipes being more than 50 years old. Some of the pipes highlighted by yellow dots are cast iron distribution pipes built before the 1970s. These older cast iron pipes are more sensitive to temperature change and tend to become more brittle over time, making them more vulnerable to corrosion and breakage. This indicates a significant long-term infrastructure concern and suggests a need for future monitoring, maintenance, and replacement planning.

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: UTILITIES TREES AND POWER LINES & POLES

GUTTERS AND POWER LINES & POLES

Gutters

Power Pole

Sidewalk

0.5

1 Km

Tree Within 5m of Power Pole

0.5

1 Km

Power poles (dots) are highly consistent and evenly spaced Gutters (lines) follow almost every street segment The network reflects a fully serviced, auto-oriented suburban fabric

ENMAX

The gutters, power lines, and poles are evenly distributed throughout the community, reflecting a fully serviced suburban layout. The regular spacing of power poles and the broad gutter coverage suggest that basic municipal infrastructure is consistently provided across the area. The analysis also identified trees located within 5 metres of power poles. Based on the ENMAX clearance guidance shown in the figure, trees that are too close to overhead power lines may create vegetation hazards, particularly during storms, making this an area that requires ongoing monitoring and maintenance.

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS: SUMMARY

HIGH-RISK INTERSECTIONS

LACK OF ACCESS POINTS

AGING CAST IRON PIPES

BAD INTERSECTION DESIGN

OVERHEAD POWERLINE VEGETATION HAZARD

Heavy Traffic Congestion During Peak Hours

Tree Within 5m of Power Pole

Cast Iron Pipe >50 Year-Old

High-Risk Intersection

0.5

Max Green & Core Bus Route 301

ON AVG: EVERY 10-15 MINS

1 Km

PART 3: ENGAGEMENT

COMMUNITY WALKABOUT JANUARY 22 2026 Our class met up with community representatives from the steering committee from both North Haven and ThorncliffeGreenview to conduct a guided walking tour of the neighbourhoods. Throughout the tour, the residents shared their personal experiences and knowledge of the community’s history, along with current issues and concerns. Repeatedly mentioned where traffic and pedestrian safety issues, especially around major intersections and near schools. Residents also emphasized the extensive amount of beloved parks and underutilized open spaces which they wished to see better programmed.

COMMUNITY WALKABOUT

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP MARCH 7 2026 We held a workshop at the ThorncliffeGreenview Community Centre where we met with residents to hear firsthand about their experiences living in the community. Discussions were split into two phases, where we first asked them to identify current challenges faced in the community, while the second phase focused on brainstorming future possibilities and potential interventions they would like to see. Residents came from across all four communities, as well as a few surrounding neighbourhoods. Each table contained a map, allowing residents to mark and record key concerns and locations of interest for future interventions. Community feedback across all maps was then compiled into a summary.

TODAY’S CHALLENGES

FUTURE POSSIBILITIES

Where do you walk and/or cycle? Are there any challenges?

What are the special places in the neighbourhood?

How do you stay connected and active in the winter?

Where would you like to walk/bike? What are your main concerns for walking and cycling?

What are your concerns about transit and commuting? Where do you catch transit? What are your main concerns about driving? Are there streets that would benefit from traffic calming? (for example, where there is speeding) What types of housing are missing in the community? Do you feel commercial spaces are missing within the community? What amenities or services do you feel are missing from your community?

Do you see an opportunity for more diverse housing types? (unique multifamily buildings) Are you supportive of laneway housing and secondary suites? What issues would need to be addressed for these to be successful additions to your community? What kinds of improvements would you like to see in the parks and open spaces? How can the parks and open spaces offer more to different age and interest groups? What kind of streetscape improvements do you think are necessary and where?

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP WHAT WE HEARD SUMMARY DESIGN SOLUTIONS AND VISION

LANDUSE

OPEN SPACE

MOBILITY

MORE ACCESS TO LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES

UNDERUTILIZED GREEN SPACES

UNSAFE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE

LACK OF SENIOR LIVING OPTIONS

DISCONNECTED PARKS

DISCONNECTED BIKE LANES

TARGETED DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL DIVERSIFICATION

AGING IN PLACE AND INTER-GENERATION LIVING

ACTIVATING HIGH ACTIVITY NODES AND CORRIDORS

POP-UP ACTIVATIONS

GREENWAY

LIGHTING INTERVENTIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

EXPANDED CYCLING NETWORK

SMART TRAFFIC LIGHT

LACK OF LIGHTING

TRAFFIC CONGESTION

PART 4: DESIGN CONCEPTS & POLICIES

LANDUSE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

LANDUSE: NEIGHBOURHOOD LANDUSE CONCEPT PROPOSED URBAN FORM

PROPOSED BUILDING SCALE

Neighbourhood Local Neighbourhood Connector Neighbourhood Flex Neighbourhood Commercial Active Frontage

Natural Areas Parks & Open Space Private Institutional Neighbourhood Commercial Comprehensive Planning Site

0.5

Limited <12m (Up to 3 Storeys) Low-Modified 12-16m (Up to 4 Storeys) Low-Rise (Up to 6 Storeys) Mid-Rise (Up to 12 Storeys)

1Km

0.5

1Km

Open Space

Local Area Plans commonly use urban form maps to identify key general land use categories. These categories guide the types of buildings and uses permitted and determine community functions. Our proposed urban form utilizes four main categories for neighbourhood residential uses, with lower activity areas permitting ground-oriented building forms, while higher activity areas along key transit corridors and collector roads allow for denser buildings with a mix of residential and commercial uses.

The building scale map is intended to be read alongside the urban form map, and identifies the maximum permitted heights and massing of buildings in a specific area. This influences both the density and experience at the street level. We propose designating higher building scale along transit corridors and key intersections along collector roads.

LANDUSE: URBAN FORM URBAN FORM CATEGORY

LANDUSE DISTRICTS

NEIGHBOURHOOD LOCAL

R-CG, R-C1, R-C2, M-CG

Low-density grade-oriented residential areas

Single-detached, semi-detached, multiplexes, townhouses

R-CG, H-GO, M-C1, M-C2

Higher activity residential areas along key collector roads and corridors designed to accommodate more pedestrian traffic

Single-detached, semi-detached, multiplexes, townhouses, stacked townhouses, low-rise apartments

R-CG, H-GO, MU-1

Areas along connector corridors designed to accommodate a mix of residential and commercial uses

Single-detached, semi-detached, multiplexes, townhouses, stacked townhouses, live-work units, low-rise mixed use

MU-1, MU-2, C-COR2

High activity areas along key transit corridors designed to accomdate both residential and commercial uses with active frontage at grade

Low-rise and mid-rise mixed use

S-SPR, S-CS, S-UN

Publicly-accessible green open spaces and naturalized areas designed for recreational and environmental preservation uses. Also includes school parks and community associations

Schools, community centres, recreation facilities

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL

S-CI

Owned by non-governmental entities that serves a broad community or institutional function including religious, private education, or long-term care

Places of worship, private school, senior’s home

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SITE

S-FUD, DC

Larger complex sites intended for future development that require additional planning and design

Varies, usually large-scale communal functions

NEIGHBOURHOOD CONNECTOR

NEIGHBOURHOOD FLEX

NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMERCIAL

PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREAS

DESCRIPTION

BUILDING TYPES

LANDUSE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FEEDBACK TODAY’S CHALLENGES

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES

Compatible densification aligning with community character

Middle housing Targeted larger density along main streets and commercial corridors

Lack of access to local businesses & services in residential areas

Mixed-use housing typologies

Aging in place and intergenerational living

Senior-friendly built forms Purpose-built affordable housing Improved regulation and safety of secondary suites Provide senior supportive care options for living in place solutions

Thorncliffe Community Association needs to increase memberships to expand program capacity

Create a mixed use corridor along center street to anticipate the future Greenline Community center can then increase memberships and program capacity

LANDUSE: RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL INTERVENTIONS

NEW HOUSING TYPES

FUTURE GREENLINE LRT Laneway Suite

Stacked Townhomes

Live-Work Units

Mixed-Use

Flexible housing type incorporating residential and commerical uses at smaller scale

Accommodate a mix of residential and commercial uses in the same building

1 Self-contained residential unit located on the same lot as primary dwelling building

Vertically arranged units with separate entrances Ground level units designed with seniorfriendly features

New building types should be introduced that address the increased need for housing and diverse needs of residents at different life stages, while thoughtfully integrating with the existing built form character of the community. We aim to achieve this through the use of gentle density, which means the scale of new developments will be comparable to that of the existing surrounding buildings. We propose the following general recommendations for new developments: New developments should be mindful of the adjacent property heights and built at a similar scale N Low Density Residential with Laneway (R-CG) Stacked Townhomes (H-GO) Live-Work Unit (MU-1 h12) Low-Rise Mixed-Use Up to 6 Storeys (MU-1)

0.5

1Km

A diversity of ground-oriented units (single-detached, semi-detached, multiplexes, townhouse, laneway suites, live-work units) are permitted in low-density areas outside key transit corridors In accordance with R-CG zoning, a maximum height of 11 m is permitted, with the exception of H-GO and MU-1 h12 live-work parcels which allow building heights up to 12 m

Mid-Rise Mixed-Use 12 Storeys Intervention Node

Other zoning adjacent to low density residential areas should allow no more than double the maximum height permitted in R-CG (22m) with discretion permitted for parcels along major transit corridors (Centre St and 4th St) Design features such as building podiums and tower setbacks should be included to maintain human scale at the street level and minimize the impact of shadowing

LANDUSE: RESIDENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS LANEWAY SUITE

PRECEDENTS

Property owners on laneways are encouraged to utilize the City of Calgary Backyard Suites Incentive to construct laneway suites Can get $35,000+ with additional funding available for accessibility features and bylaw compliance Additional funding ($40,000-50,000) should be provided in the form of a forgivable loan for units that are rented at below average market rate for a minimum of 5 years Partner with CMHC for Affordable Housing Fund (low-interest and forgivable loans)

CEDARVALE LANEWAY, LANE SCAPE ARCHITECTURE, TORONTO

BOWLING LANEWAY, STUDIO NORTH, CRESCENT HEIGHTS, CALGARY

RIVERDALE LANEWAY, CAB ARCHITECTS, TORONTO

WORTHINGTON DRIVE, LANE FAB, VANCOUVER

LOOP 36 FAAS ARCHITECTURE MARDA LOOP, CALGARY

RELAX STACKED TOWNHOUSE GRAVITY ARCHITECTURE, MAHOGANY, CALGARY

3912 30 AVE SW, NEW CENTURY DESIGN, KILLARNEY, CALGARY

EMERGE, AVALON MASTER BUILDER, ARBOUR LAKE

LIVE-WORK 4PLEX GRAVITY ARCHITECTURE, SHAGANAPPI, CALGARY

GARDENIA FLOWER BOUTIQUE LEONARD DEVELOPMENT GROUP, MARDA LOOP, CALGARY

For lots with no laneway, similar funding should be provided for creation of basement suites to be rented at below average market rate for a minimum of 5 years

STACKED TOWNHOMES

Selected blocks along Centre St transit corridor will be rezoned to H-GO Developer incentives should be provided to construct ground floor units with accessibility features Use Manitoba Visitable Homes Guidelines as basis Additional Developer Incentives to encourage at least 25% of units to be purpose-built affordable housing Partner with CMHC for Affordable Housing Fund (low-interest and forgivable loans)

LIVE-WORK UNITS

Key corner lots along collector roads will be rezoned to MU-1 A height modifier of 12m (in-line with H-GO height maximum) will be added to fit with scale of surrounding low-density residential R-CG zoning We propose the following adjustments to current bylaw regulations: Remove restriction that can only be put in multifamily buildings Change live-work unit from a discretionary to permitted use in MU-1 Remove stipulation that must not exceed 50.0 per cent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit Remove minimum parking requirements within 600m of LRT station

LANDUSE: RESIDENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

PRECEDENTS

MIXED-USE The blocks along Centre St and 4 St transit corridors to be rezoned to MU-1, allowing up to 6 storeys, and 12 storeys on selected larger parcels Commercial active frontage is encouraged at grade along high traffic areas on Centre St near Thorncliffe-Greenview Community Centre and 4th St NW 4

NW St

MARDA APARTMENTS, NORR ARCHITECTS, MARDA LOOP, CALGARY

SOUTH BANK MIXED-USE, KASIAN ARCHITECTURE, INGLEWOOD, CALGARY

Phased development will be adopted to allow a gradual transition of commercial strips into mixed-use developments

OAKRIDGE CO-OP, CALGARY. CO-OP AND ELAN CONSTRUCTION

NORTH HILL CO-OP, CALGARY. GGA ARCHITECTURE

SOCIAL PROGRAMS Alongside the built form recommendations, we also propose adoption of the following social initiatives to help address equity barriers to housing:

CANADA HOMESHARE Community-wide housing initiative pairing students with seniors Collaborate with community association to facilitate matching Establish grant program to fund home upgrades to adapt unit to sharing

HOME ADAPTATION Integrate Alberta SHARP (Seniors Home Adaptation and Repair Program) Grant Low-interest home equity loans can cover a range of home adaptations and renovations to help seniors stay in their homes longer Provides up to $40,000

CANADA HOMESHARE

ALBERTA SENIOR’S HOME ADAPTATION AND REPAIR (SHARP) PROGRAM

LANDUSE: RESIDENTIAL

NODE 1: SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL DIVERSIFICATION Bla ck th or nR dN W

N St e r nt Ce

60 Av eN E

LANDUSE: RESIDENTIAL BEFORE

This node shows a conceptualization of an area along Centre St where each of our gentle density housing forms has been integrated. These include: Laneway suites Stacked townhomes (shown in several possible configurations) Live-work units 6-storey mixed-use apartments with ground-level commercial With Centre Street serving as a major transit corridor and designated as the location of the future Greenline LRT, it is a prime opportunity location to integrate higher density in the community. Addition of further density and upgrading the streetscape will enhance the pedestrian experience and transform Centre St from a car-oriented roadway into a vibrant community mainstreet. To assist in street activation, we propose reducing the building setback to the property line along Centre Street in order to facilitate further interaction with the active commercial frontage along the mixed-use buildings. The adjacent sidewalk will be widened to 3.5 m and regular planting and seating added to allow for high pedestrian activity and comfort. Overall the incorporation of more diverse housing forms can provide further options for community members across a range of life stages. In particular, denser gradeoriented units are ideal for seniors looking to age in place. Additionally, more flexible built forms such as mixed-use and live-work units provide more local businesses and services to create a complete community.

AFTER

LANDUSE: RESIDENTIAL NODE 2: HIGHER DENSITY MIXED USE

6 2 1

1 1

4S tN W

SECTION A 60

12-STOREY MIXED-USE

6-STOREY MIXED-USE

BIKE LANE

GREENWAY

PLAZA

CURB EXTENSIONS

LANDUSE: RESIDENTIAL

The new design concept will also encourage improved integration with the green space west of the current Safeway. The two 12 storey mixed-use buildings will be positioned to face a pedestrian walkway leading from 4th St into a terraced plaza matching the slope difference of the park. Active commercial frontage will run along the plaza-facing portions of the podiums, creating an enclosed outdoor mall.

The second intervention demonstrates the potential to redevelop an underutilized commercial strip into a higher density mixed-use node. 4th Street being another prominent transit corridor in close proximity to the Centre Street makes it another ideal location to add density. The strip malls also sit on larger parcels which present the opportunity for development of larger 12 storey buildings without needing consolidation. Alongside our proposed mobility interventions of adding a dedicated bike lane extension and intersecting greenway, this positions 4th St as a secondary mainstreet connecting to Centre St.

This redeveloped node creates additional amenities and services, that together with its strategic location position it as a future destination around an existing community hub.

To reduce the car-oriented design and increase pedestrian appeal, the new buildings will be positioned at the property line to directly interface with a widened sidewalk along 4th St, while the parking lot will be moved behind the buildings away from the mainstreet.

LANDUSE: NON-RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL INTERVENTIONS FUTURE GREENLINE LRT

NEW BUILDING TYPES Mixed-use 4-6 Storey

Institutional 4-6 Storey

Commercial 2 Storey

N 0

0.5

1Km

Direct Control Up to 6 Storeys (DC) Low-Rise Mixed-Use Up to 6 Storeys (MU-1) Intervention Node

Mid-Rise Mixed-Use 12 Storeys Institutional Use (S-SPR and S-CI)

Zoning MU-1 allows for residential or commercial use at grade for developer flexibility Can be wood-frame construction which is cheaper to build than steel Different scales for different size lots

Publicly funded Type A and B Senior Care for complex needs Separated buildings for different types of care Uses existing drainage slope for underground parking

Activates streets and pedestrian paths Provides local diverse uses and services for residents

3 Storey Max Existing Residential Scale

Allows for gradual scaling into lower density established areas

Future Greenline LRT Station

may not be able to properly deal with. These buildings will be stepped down to 4 to better scale into residential areas that allow for a maximum of 3 storeys.

For non-residential interventions, we wanted to focus on creating publicly and privately funded aging-in-place options as well as activating streets with high density mixed-uses at key nodes and corridors in our proposals. This is particularly relevant alongside BRT routes and sites that will interface with future LRT stations to make the community ready to anticipate the Greenline LRT when it is built.

In addition, we propose using max 6 storey mixed-use buildings that interface with the street, allowing MU-1 zoning for the choice of either residential or commercial uses at grade with the exception of active frontage at TOD intersections that have BRT stops. These buildings can be stepped down to 4 storeys depending on lot sizes, as it cannot be guaranteed that all lots can be consolidated to accommodate 6 storey development. Commercial two storey buildings will be used to increase the amount of small-scale commercial units as well as better blend into certain contexts. An example of how we use private development to cater to the community context is the Aegis Senior Hub in Newcastle, Washington which prioritize Chinese-oriented businesses and programs to facilitate a cultural senior hub that responds more directly to the community’s needs.

With the demographics skewing elderly with many residents having lived in the community their entire lives, it is important to provide options for residents to continue to live in the community they love. This is why bridging the gaps of the housing continuum is so important so we provide flexible and supportive needs for all income and abilities. As residents age into disability, we strive to give them options to transition into within the community itself. This can be addressed with institutional use 4-6 storey buildings replacing part of the community center parking lot and extending into the open green field facing 56th Avenue. This land is privately operated on public land, so an agreement with the community center can be reached to develop the site for further unique and contextual services. These buildings will provide Type A and Type B senior care, which deals with dementia and other complex healthcare needs that family members

Finally, we propose Direct Control zoning to incentivize the market to develop a senior oriented mixed-use development. With developer benefits for renting to senior oriented businesses or offering senior housing subsidies, a market solution to agingin-place can be prioritized.

LANDUSE: NON-RESIDENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Mixed-use 4-6 Storey

The majority of parcel blocks along the Centre St transit corridor will be rezoned to MU-1 This will concentrate development on high capacity and high traffic areas as to not infringe on lower-density areas while introducing density at priority nodes This also gives developers flexibility on building commercial or residential at grade Max 6 storey heights should only reserved for lots that conglomerate 2 or more parcels. Max 4 storey heights should be considered for single lot development Active frontage should be mandated on where lots immediately interface the Center Street and 56th Ave intersection, BRT stops, or public realm opportunities Areas in which this takes place should explore possibilities to improve pedestrian realms including but not limited to street tree cover expansion, reducing crosswalks with curb bump-outs into parking lanes, and creating plazas and providing street furniture for resting and congregating Density bonuses and development rebates should be offered for developers who that: Provide supportive care services Prioritize medical and senior service businesses in commercial units Offer below market rent for seniors

Institutional 4-6 Storey

Commercial 2 Storey

PRECEDENTS

AEGIS GARDENS SENIOR FACILITY AND CHINESE CULTURAL HUB. NEWCASTLE, WASHINGTON. AEGIS LIVING

2101 34 AVE SW MARDA LOOP, CALGARY

MILLRISE SENIOR VILLAGE, CALGARY

WESTBROOK UNDERGROUND LRT STATION AND LIBRARY, CALGARY

Additional Developer Incentives to encourage at least 25% of units to be purpose-built affordable housing Partner with CMHC for Affordable Housing Fund (low-interest and forgivable loans) This would make projects eligible for a $50,000 Grant for pre-development costs (HIP). An agreement with the community center should be reached in order for the ThorncliffeGreenview Community Association parcel to provide publicly funded and operated senior living supports This should include Type A and Type B services or other services that provide assisted or full-time senior care This should be operated by ASH or other provincially funded staff Parking loss should be transferred into underground parking that takes advantage of the site’s slope Buildings should be separated for different intensities of care if needed Heights for buildings should scale down to 4 to remain contextually responsive to the community scale A 2 storey commercial block should be included in two specific areas of the site: Include a commercial block where the Greenway intersects with the site of Node 2 to allow for pedestrians to make active use of a tiered plaza Include a commercial block on the Node 1 site of the Thorncliffe-Greenview Community Association to activate the street front and create passive rental revenue for the facility. This will allow for the expansion of services and take advantage of the higher density and foot traffic on the street. This parcel on Node 1 should be be active frontage along the street edge where the intersection leads to the community center’s front doors. This commercial active frontage should take advantage of wide pedestrian walkways, street tree coverage, or plazas to create a pleasant pedestrian experience.

HAYDEN BLOCK AND HEXAGON CAFE IN KENSINGTON, CALGARY

SUNALTA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HUB WITH COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND COFFEE SHOP

LANDUSE: NON-RESIDENTIAL NODE 1: HIGH ACTIVITY CORRIDOR | CENTER STREET AND 56TH AVE PLAN ISOMETRIC

CURB BUMP-OUTS INTO PARKING LANE

56th Ave

Northmount Dr.

PLAZA MAX GREEN BRT STOP

SENIOR CARE PARK

UNDERGROUND PARKING

Section Line

Center Street

INCREASED ROAD SEPARATION BY 2.3 METERS

SECTION

Thorncliffe-Greenview Community Association (TGCA)

20m

Residential

Commercial

Active Frontage

Commercial

Pedestrian Path BRT Lanes Parking lane

Institutional

Commercial 4m

3.6m

N Path Buffer BRT

3.6m

4.6m

4.4m

Arena

LANDUSE: NON-RESIDENTIAL BEFORE

AFTER

SW VIEW OF COMMUNITY CENTER LOT

Commercial Plaza

Dedicated BRT Lanes

Indigenous Prairie Grasses

Curb Bumpouts into Parking Lane

BENEFITS NON-MARKET LIVING-IN-PLACE OPTIONS This fills in gaps in non-market housing supports for seniors identified in our analysis This kind of care can be a more affordable and reliable complex needs solution than private care for many lower-income seniors This site also integrates seniors into an established community and activity hub

INCREASE PROXIMITY AND USE OF THE TGCA This site will increases revenue for the community center through targeted density, street activation, and public realm creation More foot traffic to the facility will provide opportunity for more memberships visitors to street-oriented or interior commercial ventures Opportunity to expand programs or amenities offered

TOD AND GREENLINE READY DEVELOPMENT Zoning choice allows for increased developer options, which will help entice reinvestment into the community and upgrade aging buildings Site becomes TOD ready for future Greenline development with commercial frontage and improved pedetrian realm at current BRT stops and future LRT station

LANDUSE: NON-RESIDENTIAL NODE 2: MIXED-USE SENIOR VILLAGE PLAN | CENTER STREET AND 56TH AVE PLAN

ISOMETRIC

th e, 60 Av

56th Ave

MIXED USE ACTIVE FRONTAGE

COMMERCIAL BLOCK Nosecreek Pathway Section Line

SECTION

TIERED PLAZA

20m

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENT PARKING Trelle Dr.

PLAZA

COMMERCIAL 4m

Pedestrian Path Parking Lane Greenway Connection

7m 6m

PEDESTRIAN PATH

2.6m 3.6m

2.6m

2.6m 3.6m

PARKING LANE

7m 4.6m

4.4m

LANDUSE: NON-RESIDENTIAL BEFORE

SE VIEW OF EMPTY LOT

AFTER

SE VIEW DOWN PROPOSED ROAD AND SENIOR VILLAGE

INTER-GENERATIONAL LIVING

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

PARKING LANE

SEAMLESS PEDESTRIAN REALM

BENEFITS INTER-GENERATIONAL LIVING Our Senior Village allows more people to age in place close to loved ones This provides a privately developed solution to aging-in-place needs

EXPANDED LOCAL SHOPPING OPTIONS This site provides more flexibility for the market to create a contextually appropriate senior living development similar to the Aegis Gardens Senior facility oriented to Chinese senior needs

AMENITY CONNECTION TO THE NOSECREEK PATH This site connects to our Greenway intervention with a commercial block at a tiered plaza to interface with the slope This creates a desirable location that utilizes the natural landscape

EGERT’S PARK, NORTH HAVEN, CALGARY

OPEN SPACE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FEEDBACK

TODAY’S CHALLENGES

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES

Lots of green space, but underutilized

Local Community building

Many parks, but broken connections

Neighbourhood Greenways

Dark areas in open spaces

Lighting Interventions

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

14 ST NW & NORTH HAVEN DR

MOBILITY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

MOBILITY: STREET DESIGN CONCEPT Complete Street Design

A street design approach that supports all modes of transportation, including walking, cycling, transit, and driving, in order to create more liveable neighbourhoods and encourage active and sustainable mobility. Through our proposed designs, the goal is to advance a complete street design that is safe, accessible, and inclusive for all users. SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM

STRATHCONA COUNTY, ALBERTA

DUNSMUIR STREET, VANCOUVER

SIDEWALKS

SAFE CROSSING

VICTORIA, BC

BIKE LANES

THE BRISTOL AND BATH RAILWAY PATH, UK

SHARED-USE PATHS EGLINTON AVENUE EAST, TORONTO

DEDICATED BUS LANE

CURB EXTENSIONS

STREETS FOR HEALTH

STREETS FOR SAFETY

STREETS FOR EVERYONE

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SPACES

SHERBOURNE STREET, TORONTO

NARROWER TRAVEL LANES 9TH AVE SE, CALGARY

SAFE & ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT STOPS 84

MOBILITY: STREET DESIGN CONCEPT COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FEEDBACK

TODAY’S CHALLENGES

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES

Congested intersections and long wait times at signals

Implement smart traffic lights to optimize flow and reduce delays

Inconsistent traffic calming leading to speeding on neighbourhood streets

Add targeted traffic calming measures on key neighbourhood streets

Unsafe crossings for pedestrians

Improve road safety design with safer crosswalks and better visibility for pedestrians

Disconnected and incomplete bike lanes that feel unsafe to use

Connect discontinuous bike lanes into a safe, continuous cycling network

Buses delayed by mixed traffic and unreliable travel times

Introduce designated bus lanes on priority corridors for more reliable service

Uncomfortable, poorly sheltered bus stops with limited amenities

Upgrade bus stop design with shelters, lighting, seating, and clear information

MOBILITY: INTERVENTIONS To Solve the Issues of

Purpose of Interventions UNSAFE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE

TRAFFIC CONGESTION

DISCONNECTED BIKE LANES

Transit Extended dedicated bus lane & queue jump lane

Improve transit speed, reliability, and priority Reduce Traffic Improve traffic flow and reduce delay at key conflict points

Smart traffic lights with overpass

Biking Experience Separated bike lane & connecting bike path

Create a safer, more continuous, and comfortable cycling network Pedestrian Safety

Better intersection design, traffic calming measures & school zone traffic calming

Improve crossing safety and create calmer, lower-risk street environments

MOBILITY: INTERVENTIONS Interventions Map

64TH AVE NE

CENTRE ST

4TH ST NW

64TH AVE NW

At a larger scale, the proposed interventions are intended to maximize overall mobility through a combination of traffic management, transit priority, active transportation improvements, and targeted safety measures. These include smart traffic lights, extended dedicated bus lanes, a queue jump lane, a separated bike lane, a connecting bike path linking existing and proposed routes, improved pedestrian safety at key intersections, and traffic calming measures in school zones.

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

JO HN

LA UR IE BL VD

Collectively, these strategies seek to improve network performance while supporting a safer and more inclusive mobility system.

Extended Dedicated Bus Lane

Queue Jump Lane

Smart Traffic Lights & Overpass

Separated Bike Lane

Traffic Calming in School Zones

New Speed Limit 40kmh

Connecting Bike Path

Traffic Calming at Major Intersections

Barrier-Free (12% Slope)

Vehicle-Triggered Phase

Safer For Pedestrian

Adaptive Signal Control

MOBILITY: TRANSIT PRIORITY Smart Traffic Light & Overpass

Barrier-Free (12% Slope)

64TH AVE NE

Vehicle-Triggered Phase

Safer For Pedestrian

Adaptive Signal Control

CENTRE ST

4TH ST NW

64TH AVE NW

Plan View

JO HN

LA UR IE BL VD

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

Extended Dedicated Bus Lane

Connecting Bike Path

Smart Traffic Lights & Overpass

6.0m

Queue-Jump Bus Lane

Separated Bike Lane

3.2m

3.0m

3.2m

3.3m

Cross Section A

Street View

The T-intersection at McKnight Boulevard NW, John Laurie Boulevard, and 48th Avenue NW has long been a concern for local residents, as vehicles are often delayed there for more than 10 minutes during peak hours. To address this issue, the proposed smart traffic light design would improve traffic flow in a way that is less intrusive, more budgetfriendly, and more flexible for future development than major road reconstruction. In addition, a barrier-free overpass with a 12 percent slope is proposed to provide a safe and accessible crossing for all users, allowing pedestrians, cyclists, and people with mobility needs to move through the area more freely and safely.

MOBILITY: TRANSIT PRIORITY Smart Traffic Light & Overpass

Avg Traffic Volume

Smart Traffic Light Concept

48thAve Eastbound (towards McKnight Blvd) ≈ 1,983 vehicles daily Situation AM peak period (7:00-9:00)≈ 193 veh/h PM peak period (15:00-18:00)≈ 122 veh/h John Laurie Southbound ≈ 20,600 vehicles daily AM peak period (7:00-9:00)≈ 1,651 veh/h PM peak period (15:00-18:00)≈ 1,530 veh/h Data from City of Calgary (2017) Calgary Traffic Counts System

Peak Hours (7:00 - 9:00) (15:00 - 18:00)

Safer For Pedestrian

Adaptive Signal Control

Off-Peak Hours

About 30s wait, 7s min green, extendable up to 10s if more cars are detected.

No car on 48 Ave NW

48 Ave stays red

John Laurie Blvd stays green by default, and 48 Ave stays red.

John Laurie Blvd

John Laurie stays green by Runs on 120s cycle, only default, 30-second off-peak changes to red when vehicles interval for responsive detected on 48 Ave operation.

Car waiting on 48 Ave NW

Single Lane Roundabout Often $2M–$6M+ Flyover Often $25M–$40M

Vehicle-Triggered Phase

Green in 120s cycle, 7s min green, can be extended to 20s max depending how many cars waiting

The Cost

Smart Traffic Light ~$350,000 ONLY

Barrier-Free (12% Slope)

Data from Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (2022) & Town of Morinville (2013)

Traffic Signal Warrant Study has never been conducted yet at the intersection 89

MOBILITY: TRANSIT PRIORITY Smart Traffic Light & Overpass Paisley Road and Silvercreek Parkway North - Guelph, ON

Precedent

Paisley Road & Silvercreek Parkway North - Guelph, ON Paisley Road is the main street and stays green by default Silvercreek Parkway North only gets a green when detectors see a vehicle or pedestrian The side‑street green on Silvercreek is at least 7 seconds and can extend if more vehicles arrive

Vehicle-Triggered Phase

Safer For Pedestrian

Adaptive Signal Control

MOBILITY: TRANSIT PRIORITY Extended Dedicated Bus Lane

Bus Routes and Frequency

CENTRE ST

4TH ST NW

LA UR IE BL VD

64TH AVE NE

Extended Dedicated Bus Lane

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

JO HN

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

JO HN

LA UR IE BL VD

HIGHER BUS FREQUENCY

BYPASS QUEUE

64TH AVE NW

64TH AVE NE

CENTRE ST

4TH ST NW

64TH AVE NW

MAXIMIZING MOBILITY

Queue-Jump Bus Lane

Separated Bike Lane

Smart Traffic Lights & Overpass

Connecting Bike Path

Zoomed-In Sections

Bus Stop

Max Green & Core Bus Route

Primary Bus Routes

301

ON AVG: EVERY 16-25 MINS

ON AVG: EVERY 10-15 MINS

300

0.5

1 Km

Minor Bus Routes 4

414

ON AVG: EVERY 25-60 MINS

The extended dedicated bus lane is intended to maximize mobility by enhancing transit priority along a key corridor in the study area. The bus routes and frequency map shows that multiple core and primary bus routes are concentrated along Centre Street and 4th Street NW, highlighting their importance within the existing transit network. Extending the dedicated bus lane along Centre Street would therefore improve transit efficiency and help support a more reliable and effective mobility system.

MOBILITY: TRANSIT PRIORITY Extended Dedicated Bus Lane on Centre Street Blackthorn Rd NW

WN dR nrohtkcalB

MAXIMIZING MOBILITY

BYPASS QUEUE

HIGHER BUS FREQUENCY

Centre Street

1.3m

2.3m

3.4m

4.0m

4.8m

4.0m

3.8m

Plan View

2.2m

Cross Section B

MOBILITY: TRANSIT PRIORITY Queue Jump Lane 64TH AVE NW

BYPASS QUEUE

HIGHER BUS FREQUENCY

4th St NW

CENTRE ST

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

McKnight Blvd NW

JO HN

LA UR IE BL VD

4TH ST NW

MAXIMIZING MOBILITY

WN tS ht4

64TH AVE NE

McKnight Blvd NW & 4th St NW

Extended Dedicated Bus Lane

Separated Bike Lane

Connecting Bike Path

Existing On-Street Bike Lane

Smart Traffic Lights & Overpass

Queue-Jump Bus Lane

The queue jump bus lane is proposed as a mobility-focused intervention to improve transit priority and reduce delay at the intersection. On the northbound side, a new lane would be added for buses to use as a queue jump lane, helping them bypass congestion more efficiently. This would not reduce sidewalk width because sufficient space is available on the government-owned land to the east. On the southbound side, the design would require minimal change, as the existing curbside lane can be repurposed as a queue jump lane without altering the current streetscape. The intersection is also an important multimodal node where the separated bike lane and the connecting bike path pass through and merge.

Plan View

MOBILITY: TRANSIT PRIORITY Precedent Calgary’s MAX Purple BRT

MAXIMIZING MOBILITY

BYPASS QUEUE

HIGHER BUS FREQUENCY

16 Avenue and 10 Street N.W

Google Maps

Queue Jump Lane Concept

North Crosstown Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Map City of Calgary

BikeDurham

Queue jump lanes already have a local precedent in Calgary’s MAX rapid transit system. Calgary Transit states that MAX services use queue jumps at many signalized intersections, allowing buses to enter a dedicated lane and receive an advance green signal to bypass congestion. This makes MAX Purple a useful precedent for the proposed intervention. In contrast, current official information on MAX Green highlights transit-only lanes, improved stations, and signal upgrades, but does not clearly confirm existing queue jump lanes along the corridor. As a result, the proposed queue jump lane can be understood as a practical extension of transit priority measures already used in Calgary, while also anticipating future improvements along the MAX Green corridor. 94

MOBILITY: BIKING EXPERIENCE PRECEDENTS

Separated Bike Lane

DUNSMUIR STREET SEPARATED BIKE LANE - VANCOUVER

Collisions dropped 18% on Dunsmuir

Bike use jumped 250% overall and 50% year over year

64TH AVE NE

7TH STREET BIKE TRACK- CALGARY

CENTRE ST

Created a safe link from the Adanac route into downtown

Valley Transportation Authority

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

By Corey Morgan

JO HN

Northmount Dr NW

W N r D t n u o m htr o N

Separated Bike Lane on 4th St NW

Connecting Bike Path

Existing On-Street Bike Lane

0.5

1 Km

Existing On-Street Bike Lane

4th St NW

Smart Traffic Lights & Overpass 54 Ave NW

A two-way separated bike lane is proposed along 4 Street NW to improve cycling safety and connectivity within the study area. The existing sidewalk corridor appears wide enough to accommodate the facility, making the intervention spatially feasible. Through physical separation from motor vehicle traffic, the bike lane would provide a safer and more comfortable cycling experience while also supporting stronger connections to the existing biking network.

WN evA 45

Zoomed-In Sections

COMFORT & QUALITY

By Corey Morgan

N Separated Bike Lane

ENSURE SAFETY

BETTER CONNECTIVITY

LA UR IE BL VD

4TH ST NW

64TH AVE NW

TWO-WAY SEPARATED BIKE LANE ON DUNSMUIR ST

Plan View

2.8m

3.5m

3.6m

3.5m

3.3m

1.8m

Cross Section C

MOBILITY: BIKING EXPERIENCE Connecting Bike Path

ENSURE SAFETY

64TH AVE NE

4th St NW

CENTRE ST

COMFORT & QUALITY

WN tS ht4

4TH ST NW

64TH AVE NW

BETTER CONNECTIVITY

McK nigh t Blv d NW Blv d

dv l B ei r u aL n ho J

JO HN

LA UR IE BL VD

Jo hn La ur ie

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

*Dotted Lines are Proposing Connections *Solid Lines Are Existing Connections

N Separated Bike Lane Existing On-Street Bike Lane

Connecting Bike Path Existing On-Street Bike Lane

Smart Traffic Lights & Overpass

Separated Bike Lane

0.5

1 Km

Connecting Bike Path

Existing On-Street Bike Lane

Active Passive Hybrid Recreation

The connecting bike path is proposed as a strategic intervention to improve network continuity between existing and proposed cycling infrastructure. It links the existing biking system with major proposed elements, including the overpass and the separated bike lane, thereby creating a more coherent cycling network across the study area. In addition, the route passes through the proposed active-passive hybrid recreation, where it contributes to both transportation and recreational functions, as discussed further in the green open space section.

MOBILITY: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Safer Intersection Design 64TH AVE NE

64TH AVE NW

CENTRE ST

4TH ST NW

At the intersection of 64 Avenue and 4 Street NW, the slip lane is redesigned at a sharper angle so that drivers are required to slow down and have better visibility of both pedestrians and other vehicles. At 64 Avenue and Centre Street, a more ambitious design is proposed by removing all slip lanes to maximize pedestrian safety.

4 5

In the school zones, two additional traffic calming measures are introduced, namely pinch points and median or refuge islands, in order to reduce vehicle speeds and create a safer environment for students and pedestrians.

JO HN

LA UR IE BL VD

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

The proposed interventions introduce improved pedestrian safety design at six intersections across the study area. Most of these interventions use corner radii reductions and gateway treatment traffic calming measures, which mainly work by extending the pedestrian curb to shorten crossing distances and slow turning vehicles.

Traffic Calming at Major Intersections

Traffic Calming in School Zones

New Speed Limit 40kmh

BETTER SIGHT LINES

SLOWER TRAFFIC SPEED

FEWER CONFLICT SHORTER CROSSING POINTS DISTANCE

MOBILITY: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Safer Intersection Design

Highlighted Intersections 64TH AVE NE

64TH AVE NW

CENTRE ST

4TH ST NW

4 5 6

64TH AVE & CENTRE ST

MCKNIGHT BLVD & CENTRE ST

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

JO HN

LA UR IE BL VD

64TH AVE NW & 4TH ST

Traffic Calming at Major Intersections

Traffic Calming in School Zones

New Speed Limit 40kmh

NORTHMOUNT DR & 4TH ST

This map further explains the design logic behind the proposed pedestrian safety interventions and supports them with local precedents from 17 Avenue SW and 37 Street SW in Calgary. These examples show how measures such as reduced corner radii and gateway treatments can help slow turning vehicles, improve sight lines, reduce conflict points, and shorten pedestrian crossing distances. By applying similar strategies at the highlighted intersections and school-area crossings, the proposal aims to create a safer and more comfortable walking environment for students, children, and other vulnerable road users.

NORTHMOUNT CRESCENT & NORTHMOUNT DR

CORNER RADII

17TH AVE SW - CALGARY, AB

54TH AVE & THORNTON RD

BETTER SIGHT LINES

Google Maps

37TH ST SW - CALGARY, AB

SLOWER TRAFFIC SPEED

Global Design Cities Initative

GATEWAY TREATMENTS

FEWER CONFLICT POINTS

SHORTER CROSSING DISTANCE Google Maps

Global Design Cities Initative

AmericaWalks

MOBILITY: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Before

After

Safer Intersection Design (64th Ave & Centre St)

64TH AVE NE

CENTRE ST

4TH ST NW

64TH AVE NW

Google Maps

Precedent

Raindrop Plaza, Dundas St. E. and Coxwell Ave, ON

Strong Towns Langleys

SpruceLab

64TH AVE & CENTRE ST

JO HN

Traffic Calming at Major Intersections

Walnut Grove Drive & 212 Street, BC

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

LA UR IE BL VD

Walnut Grove Drive & 88 Avenue, BC

Traffic Calming in School Zones

New Speed Limit 40kmh

N BETTER SIGHT LINES

At 64 Avenue and Centre Street, the proposed intervention adopts a bold intersection redesign by removing all slip lanes to prioritize pedestrian safety. This strategy is supported by the Walnut Grove precedent in British Columbia, which shows how pedestrian refuge islands beside slip lanes can become overcrowded during school hours and peak travel periods, resulting in unsafe conditions. Given that this intersection is located near three schools, a stronger intervention is justified to better protect students and other pedestrians. The design is also informed by the Raindrop Plaza precedent in Toronto, where slip lane removal created substantially more pedestrian space and introduced public art and landscape improvements. A similar approach at 64 Avenue and Centre Street would therefore enhance both safety and place quality, while projecting a more active and youthful image for the area.

SLOWER TRAFFIC SPEED

FEWER CONFLICT POINTS

64th Ave NW Centre St

tS ertneC

SHORTER CROSSING DISTANCE

6.3m

4.1m

4.3m

6.8m

Cross Section D

MOBILITY: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Before

After

Safer Intersection Design in School Zones (54th Ave NW & Thornton Rd NW)

64TH AVE NE

CENTRE ST

4TH ST NW

64TH AVE NW

Source: Google Maps

Riverside Drive, Manhattan

NYC Street Design Manual

JO HN

54 AVE NW & THORNTON RD NW

New Speed Limit 40kmh

hT tnro R no d WN

Traffic Calming in School Zones

n Rd rnto Tho

Traffic Calming at Major Intersections

Grand Concourse, Bronx

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW

LA UR IE BL VD

Precedent

SLOWER TRAFFIC SPEED

This intervention is proposed as a school-zone traffic calming measure through the introduction of a median and refuge island design. By narrowing and organizing vehicle entry movements, the design helps reduce traffic speeds and reinforces the need for drivers to yield to pedestrians. The conversion of the right-side lane into a right-turn-only lane further limits vehicle access to a single through lane, helping to reduce potential pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. In addition to its safety function, the median can also be landscaped with planting and greenery, contributing to a greener and more attractive school-zone environment. Precedents from Grand Concourse in the Bronx and Riverside Drive in Manhattan further suggest that these types of interventions can improve pedestrian comfort and perceived safety by creating a more protected and legible crossing environment.

BETTER SIGHT LINES

54 Ave NW FEWER CONFLICT POINTS

SHORTER CROSSING DISTANCE

3.2m

1.5m

2.4m

1.6m

11..0m

Cross Section E

100

MOBILITY: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Before

After

Safer Intersection Design in School Zones (Northmount Crescent NW & Northmount Dr NW)

64TH AVE NE

CENTRE ST

Thomas St , Athens

6 1/2 Avenue , New York

LA UR IE BL VD

MCKNIGHT BLVD NW Reddit User warnelldawg

Traffic Calming in School Zones

New Speed Limit 40kmh

No rth mo unt Dr

JO HN

NORTHMOUNT CRESCENT NW & NORTHMOUNT DR NW No rth m ou nt Cr es ce nt NW

NACTO

WN rD t n uom htr oN

Traffic Calming at Major Intersections

Google Maps

Precedent

4TH ST NW

64TH AVE NW

This proposal represents another traffic calming intervention in the school zone, using a pinch point design to improve pedestrian safety. By narrowing the roadway, the design shortens pedestrian crossing distances, limits vehicle access to a single lane, and requires drivers to slow down and yield to pedestrians before entering. Precedents from Thomas Street in Athens and 6 1/2 Avenue in New York show how pinch points can create a more controlled and legible crossing environment by reducing vehicle speed, minimizing conflict space, and making pedestrian movement more visible and protected.

BETTER SIGHT LINES

SLOWER TRAFFIC SPEED

FEWER CONFLICT POINTS

2.4m

SHORTER CROSSING DISTANCE

2.4m

Cross Section F

101

MOBILITY: POLICY& RECOMMENDATIONS POLICY

Adopt a complete streets approach that balances the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers. Prioritize east-west connectivity as a key mobility objective for the community. Support transit-priority improvements on major corridors to reduce delay and improve reliability. Strengthen active transportation connections between existing and proposed cycling infrastructure. Improve pedestrian safety at high-risk intersections and in school zones through context-sensitive design. Integrate mobility improvements with public realm enhancements, including planting, landscaping, and upgraded bus stops.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Implement smart traffic lights at key congested intersections to improve traffic flow and support future mobility needs. Extend the dedicated bus lane along Centre Street to improve transit efficiency on an existing high-demand corridor. Introduce queue jump lanes to give buses priority at intersections and reduce delay. Provide a barrier-free overpass to improve safe and accessible crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. Develop a separated bike lane and a connecting bike path to close existing network gaps and improve eastwest movement. Redesign key intersections using curb extensions, reduced corner radii, and gateway treatments to improve pedestrian safety. Remove or redesign slip lanes where pedestrian conflicts are high, especially near schools. Apply school-zone traffic calming measures such as refuge islands and pinch points to reduce vehicle speed and improve crossing safety. Upgrade bus stops and expand Transit Signal Priority to create a more comfortable and efficient transit corridor. Continue advocating for connections toward the industrial area to the east, as stronger external links remain an important community concern.

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

Residents identified a lack of east-west connection within the community. Residents expressed frustration that proposals to connect toward the industrial area on the east side are often pushed back. Community feedback encouraged continued efforts to pursue stronger mobility connections in the future.

102

OPEN HOUSE: CONCLUSION APRIL 18 2026 The open house was an opportunity for our team to unveil our proposed interventions to the public at the North Haven Community Association. Using a large community model as a centerpiece and visual aid, Horizon Edge interfaced with the community to communicate our ideas and get feedback from the public. We also got the opportunity to speak with an MLA and the area’s councilor, D.J. Kelly, and discussed the importance of providing care for the aging demographic as well as finding solutions to underutilized open space or aging infrastructure to direct the future LAP for these communities. In particular, we received many positive comments regarding the mobility interventions that would facilitate a safer pedestrian experience, as well as a cost-effective traffic light solution to the “nightmare” intersection on McKnight and John Laurie Boulevard. We also received comments that our inter-generational living solutions and Senior Village concepts were gravely needed, as many residents are getting older or have family that want to live close but can’t live within the community. Residents also noted that inter-generational living is already happening on their streets, that they have seen an influx of young families living with extended older family. Another comment we received was to extend our Greenway intervention all the way to Nose Hill, as those who enjoy keeping active by biking would love an uninterrupted east-west connection. We hope that these proposed interventions will help guide future community development and attract investment back into a beloved and opportune part of Calgary.

103

OPEN HOUSE

104

REFERENCES City of Calgary. (2026). Calgary imagery app. https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryImagery/ City of Calgary. (2026). Historical property assessments (parcel). Open Calgary. https://data.calgary.ca/d/4ur7-wsgc/visualization City of Calgary. (2026). School enrolment by school authority timeline chart. https://data.calgary.ca/Demographics/School-Enrolment-by-School-Authority-Timeline-Char/7jum-ynic City of Calgary. (2023). Design guidelines for street lighting. https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/transportation/roads/documents/traffic/traffic-signals-and-streetlights/designguidelines-for-street-lighting.pdf City of Calgary. (2021). Greenview community profile. https://www.calgary.ca/communities/profiles/greenview.html City of Calgary. (2021). North Haven community profile. https://www.calgary.ca/communities/profiles/north-haven.html City of Calgary. (2021). Thorncliffe community profile. https://www.calgary.ca/communities/profiles/thorncliffe.html City of Calgary. (2021). Upper North Haven community profile. https://www.calgary.ca/communities/profiles/north-haven-upper.html City of Calgary. (2019). Archaeology and Calgary parks. https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/programs-services/parks-recreation/parks/history/archaeology-and-calgary-parks1.pdf City of Calgary. (2018). Historical community populations and dwelling counts. https://data.calgary.ca/Demographics/Historical-Community-Populations-and-Dwelling-Coun/4286-vnsg City of Calgary. (2017). Calgary Traffic Counts System. https://trafficcounts.calgary.ca/ City of Calgary. (2017). This is my neighbourhood: What we heard report (Thorncliffe/Greenview). https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/engage/documents/timn/timnwhatweheard.thorncliffegreenview.pdf City of Calgary. (2017). Urban forestry strategic plan. https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/programs-services/parks-recreation/parks/natural-parks-and-wetlands/urban-forestrystrategic-plan.pdf City of Calgary. (n.d.). Community grant programs. https://www.calgary.ca/communities/grant-programs.html City of Calgary. (n.d.). Highland Park redevelopment. https://www.calgary.ca/planning/projects/highland-park.html City of Calgary. (n.d.). Inspiring neighbourhoods grant. https://www.calgary.ca/social-services/funding/inspiring-neighbourhoods.html City of Calgary. (n.d.). Local area investment fund. https://www.calgary.ca/planning/local-area/local-area-investment-fund.html City of Calgary. (n.d.). Tree protection bylaw. https://www.calgary.ca/bylaws/tree-protection.html City of Calgary. (n.d.). Trees and shrubs. https://www.calgary.ca/bylaws/trees-shrubs.html City of Vancouver. (2025). Green rainwater infrastructure planting guidelines. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-gri-planting-guidelines.pdf City of Vancouver. (2018). Arbutus Greenway plan: Understanding the corridor today. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2018-493-release2.pdf DarkSky International. (2025, May 8). How DarkSky partners with the National Audubon Society to promote Lights Out for the birds. https://darksky.org/news/how-darksky-partners-withthe-national-audubon-society-to-promote-lights-out-for-the-birds/

105

REFERENCES Dwayne Kula. (2022). What is dark sky compliance and why it matters. LED Lighting Supply. https://www.ledlightingsupply.com/blog/dark-sky-compliance Federation of Calgary Communities. (n.d.). Energizing spaces LED lighting grant. https://calgarycommunities.com/energizing-spaces-led-lighting-application-form/ Government of Alberta. (1985). Hawkwood site (EgPm-179): A multi-component prehistoric campsite on Nose Hill. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/hawkwood-site-egpm-179-a-multicomponent-prehistoric-campsite-on-nose-hill Government of Canada. (n.d.). Natural infrastructure fund. https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/nature/index-eng.html HelpAge Canada. (n.d.). Canada HomeShare. https://www.canadahomeshare.com Maple Projects. (2017). Highland Village Green outline plan and land use redesignation submission. https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/pda/pd/documents/current-studies-andongoing-activities/highland-park/highland-village-green-outline-plan-and-land-use-redesignation-submission.pdf Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. (2022, December 19). Draft cost estimating guide for designers. https://tcp.mto.gov.on.ca/sites/default/files/202212/Draft%20Estimating%20Guide%20-%20Dec%2019%202022.pdf Para, L. L. M., Silver Architects, & Hilderman. (2006). Community building through visitable and adaptable housing. Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation. https://www.gov.mb.ca/housing/progs/pdf/visitable-housing-visitable-housing-community-building.pdf Parks Foundation Calgary. (n.d.). Building communities grant. https://www.parksfdn.com/building-communities Parks Foundation Calgary. (n.d.). Programs. https://www.parksfdn.com/programs RE/MAX. (n.d.). Calgary real estate—houses for sale in Calgary. https://www.remax.ca/ab/calgary-real-estate Saunders, P. (2026). The modern era: Thorncliffe Greenview comes to age. Unpublished manuscript. Swoop Vending. (n.d.). Sports equipment rental vending machines for clubs and facilities. https://swoopvending.com/ Town of Morinville. (2013). Highway 642 functional planning study: Appendix F – Cost estimates. https://www.morinville.ca/media/0k4npwji/highway-642-functional-planning-studyappendix-f-cost-estimates.pdf United Way of Canada. (2019). The Indigenous landscape of Calgary and area. https://calgaryunitedway.org/blog/the-indigenous-landscape-of-calgary-and-area/

106

Horizon Edge Consulting

107