Heritage Issues - Page 27

Govertical · #**521** Posted **Jun 2, 2015, 11:33 PM**

^^^I sure hope not!!

CalgaryAlex · #**522** Posted **Jun 3, 2015, 6:59 PM**

Looks like Richard White took a tour of the Brewery Site:
http://everydaytourist.ca/blog/2015/5/31/flaneuring-calgarys-original-craft-brewery

I'm looking forward to seeing more renders of this. He does say some funny things, like considering the brick chimney as "kinda the Calgary Tower of Inglewood." I like his enthusiasm for urban issues but jesus, some things he says really make me roll my eyes.

Also, he picked a very bizarre and misleading location to photograph where the Ramsay/Inglewood Green Line station will be. The picture doesn't show the location at all.

Full Mountain · #**523** Posted **Jun 3, 2015, 7:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Looks like Richard White took a tour of the Brewery Site:
http://everydaytourist.ca/blog/2015/5/31/flaneuring-calgarys-original-craft-brewery

I'm looking forward to seeing more renders of this. He does say some funny things, like considering the brick chimney as "kinda the Calgary Tower of Inglewood." I like his enthusiasm for urban issues but jesus, some things he says really make me roll my eyes.

Also, he picked a very bizarre and misleading location to photograph where the Ramsay/Inglewood Green Line station will be. The picture doesn't show the location at all.

In theory it's across the tracks if they go elevated.

CalgaryAlex · #**524** Posted **Jun 3, 2015, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

In theory it's across the tracks if they go elevated.

True (and I think there will be a pedestrian connection to where the photograph was taken), I just thought it was a weird angle that wasn't properly explained in his post. Not a biggie, just strange.

Full Mountain · #**525** Posted **Jun 3, 2015, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

True (and I think there will be a pedestrian connection to where the photograph was taken), I just thought it was a weird angle that wasn't properly explained in his post. Not a biggie, just strange.

True is a weird angle to pick for that purpose.

DizzyEdge · #**526** Posted **Jun 3, 2015, 11:57 PM**

Man it's like the owners paid him to write that article.
Even things in good shape 'not sure if they're in a good spot'

CalgaryAlex · #**527** Posted **Jun 4, 2015, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Man it's like the owners paid him to write that article.
Even things in good shape 'not sure if they're in a good spot'

It does seem suspicious. He doesn't explain why it's in a bad spot, or why the planners can't plan around or incorporate one of the few buildings that remains in good condition.

Either he got paid, or he has no filter for 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and listened to everything he was told as if it were gospel.

UofC.engineer · #**528** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 3:54 PM**

Looks like the Cecil is a goner. What a shame but I guess there was nothing we could do since the building was in such poor condition.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ce...with-mix-of-nostalgia-and-glee-1.3189641

I wonder what will become of that block in downtown now? Hopefully they can relocate the DI shelter and then tear it down.

O-tacular · #**529** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 4:01 PM**

It would be nice if they at least kept the sign. That's really the only cool part of it that I remember. This city needs more neon signs. It ads a level of grit that big cities need to stay interesting.

googspecial · #**530** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

CMLC said it will preserve the large neon sign and as much of the other elements it can.

From the link provided above....

Since the DI seems to be unable to get their Hotel refurb project going up at McKnight, an expansion of the DI to fill up the block and provide the housing they are looking for wouldn't be so bad.

Full Mountain · #**531** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by googspecial

From the link provided above....

Since the DI seems to be unable to get their Hotel refurb project going up at McKnight, an expansion of the DI to fill up the block and provide the housing they are looking for wouldn't be so bad.

Hope its not the DI expanding, that level of concentration for that type of services doesn't do anyone good. Of course recognizing the difficulty of locating these services in a dispersed manner.

UofC.engineer · #**532** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by googspecial

From the link provided above....

Since the DI seems to be unable to get their Hotel refurb project going up at McKnight, an expansion of the DI to fill up the block and provide the housing they are looking for wouldn't be so bad.

That would disastrous for the area. Having two shelters in close proximity already concentrates the homeless population in East Village.

CalgaryAlex · #**533** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 4:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

That would disastrous for the area. Having two shelters in close proximity already concentrates the homeless population in East Village.

Agree - previous decisions to concentrate services for the homeless in one area have proven to be disastrous. Hopefully the city rejects any proposals for expansion and forces them to look elsewhere for new space.

O-tacular · #**534** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by googspecial

From the link provided above....

Since the DI seems to be unable to get their Hotel refurb project going up at McKnight, an expansion of the DI to fill up the block and provide the housing they are looking for wouldn't be so bad.

Oh good! The part about preserving the sign, not the DI expansion.

speedog · #**535** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 5:26 PM**

Aah, the DI debate resurfaces with it's usual critics that can offer no real and plausible solutions.

suburbia · #**536** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by googspecial

Since the DI seems to be unable to get their Hotel refurb project going up at McKnight, an expansion of the DI to fill up the block and provide the housing they are looking for wouldn't be so bad.

So basically like when the Cecil was in operation, accept now with one governance across the whole block.

It makes sense at some level, but on the other hand, man that is one prime location.

Anyway - whatever.

Drawing attention back to the McKnight site, are they not able to get it going for money reasons (in which case, how could they build appropriately from scratch at the Cecil site?) or was it other resistance that is not circumventable? That McKnight block (along with some of the patches to the direct east that aren't used very well) is actually very prime for a number of reasons. I'd like to see that entire piece re-developed and intensified.

UofC.engineer · #**537** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedog

Aah, the DI debate resurfaces with it's usual critics that can offer no real and plausible solutions.

Issue: Two homeless shelters in East Village concentrate homeless people in one area generating higher levels of vagrancy and a feeling of unsafety for the colder months of the year.

Two-fold solution:
a) Offer smaller mobile services dispersed throughout the city.
b) Once a year after the first snowfall, give away 500 one way greyhound tickets with a destination to Vancouver for the the less fortunate.

Disclaimer: East Village is a great neighborhood and in the summer months there are enough people using the pathways and going to festivals to give the area a positive atmosphere. However, during the colder months the open areas on the north and south banks of the Langevin bridge are wrought with drug activity that diminishes my willingness to go walk to East Village. And before someone tells me to go back to my safe room in the suburbs I want to make it clear that I live within a 5 minute walk of the Langevin bridge and have had some negative experiences in that area. I do have to commend the peace officers and police that do frequent patrols in winter. I don't mind being stopped and questioned from time to time.

P.S. Sorry to derail the thread, but it happens from time to time.

Full Mountain · #**538** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedog

Aah, the DI debate resurfaces with it's usual critics that can offer no real and plausible solutions.

Inclusionary zoning, for all zoning types (SDH to multifamily). If a developer wants to build a new community they have to build a few houses that are provided to the housing agency for placement of people. For redevelopment it'll be harder to get the SDH for low income but the multifamily should be able to accommodate it. And this shouldn't be the style where you have a poor door in the building each building should have a single entrance.

Also it can be included in a bonusing regime, where the developer gets extra density or relaxations for properly integrated low income housing.

Ramsayfarian · #**539** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedog

Aah, the DI debate resurfaces with it's usual critics that can offer no real and plausible solutions.

Too bad they let the Cecil rot, I would have liked to see it turned into transitional housing for DI residents and a drug and alcohol treatment centre.

fusili · #**540** Posted **Aug 13, 2015, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Inclusionary zoning, for all zoning types (SDH to multifamily). If a developer wants to build a new community they have to build a few houses that are provided to the housing agency for placement of people. For redevelopment it'll be harder to get the SDH for low income but the multifamily should be able to accommodate it. And this shouldn't be the style where you have a poor door in the building each building should have a single entrance.

Also it can be included in a bonusing regime, where the developer gets extra density or relaxations for properly integrated low income housing.

How about, tax people and use that revenue to build housing?