Canadian City Proposals - Page 196

Boris2k7 · #**3901** Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

So far everyone in the Calgary section loves the Legion proposal but we're all bracing for the inevitable community blow back and subsequent butchering of the proposal to appease the NIMBY's.
As an example this POS known as St. John's on 10th in the heart of Hillhurst / Sunnyside was the unfortunate result of community consultation.

<snip>

http://everydaytourist.ca/blog/2014/6/24/calgary-downtown-sprawl

I hate that some Calgary posters actively defend this piece of shit...

WhipperSnapper · #**3902** Posted **Jul 19, 2015, 2:18 PM**

What did the pre-consult St Johns look like? Community consultation overall is a net benefit. Almost always yields a better product. Not liking how this project is being paraded around as if this important process should be avoided

The legion is massed well and looks great because of its glossy rendering. It won't be any better than St John if the developer ends up choosing cheap materials with lots of off coloured spandrel.

SkahHigh · #**3903** Posted **Jul 20, 2015, 1:29 PM**

New 120m mixed used tower at Sherbrooke & Stanley. Sorry, no high-res render available yet

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-ne...ontreals-iconic-maison-alcan-critics-say

HomeInMyShoes · #**3904** Posted **Jul 20, 2015, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

I hate that some Calgary posters actively defend this piece of shit...

From the article St. John's on 10th is just one of many new mid-rise condo developments in the Kensington Village area. This is a model new urban community as it integrates old and new, single-family, small apartments/condos, low and mid-rise residential, with strong retail and an LRT station."

I think you're being a might harsh. If the quality of the design of this is Calgary's biggest concern now then Calgary has made a lot of progress. While it's not beautiful, it's leagues past what a lot of cities are getting for mid-rise development and the article it is really just praising the integration, not the look of the building itself. I personally just classify it as a meh. But I don't know the location so well, but what it is bringing to the table all sounds reasonable.

O-tacular · #**3905** Posted **Jul 20, 2015, 3:49 PM**

The problem with St. John's on 10th HIMS is that it sits on probably the most prized corner in the neighbourhood across the street from Safeway and right by the train station. It's not a location for a filler type project. Not to mention the fact it sat as a vacant lot for years after the church burned down and created all kinds of anticipation.

Ashok · #**3906** Posted **Jul 20, 2015, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

New 120m mixed used tower at Sherbrooke & Stanley. Sorry, no high-res render available yet

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-ne...ontreals-iconic-maison-alcan-critics-say

nice! We need this.

HomeInMyShoes · #**3907** Posted **Jul 20, 2015, 3:54 PM**

^^That makes sense that there's more annoyance.

O-tacular · #**3908** Posted **Jul 20, 2015, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

New 120m mixed used tower at Sherbrooke & Stanley. Sorry, no high-res render available yet

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-ne...ontreals-iconic-maison-alcan-critics-say

So happy to see something current and interesting being proposed in Montreal for a highrise. The bland, early 00's inspired dreck that the Canadiens are peddling for their condo towers needs to be stamped out as quickly as possible. Developments like this will hopefully raise the bar so that mediocre crap no longer becomes acceptable.

Question: Just noticed the lower floors. Is it above grade parking or below grade?

SkahHigh · #**3909** Posted **Jul 20, 2015, 5:45 PM**

^below grade

It's a promising project, but the NIMBYs seem to be all over this one. Some say it's too high for the area, but this is located directly in Downtown so I don't get all the negative comments... Plus nothing of architectural worthiness will be demolished.

Rico Rommheim · #**3910** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 7:11 AM**

The NIMBYS have an actual point this time.

The height argument isn't all that inportsnt, it's the fact they this project was proposed at all. Really, why destroy perfectly fine buildings, which are mind you part of a recognized architectural and planning award winning ensemble? There's just no need to start demolishing quality urbanism for an office tower. An office tower for who exactly? The market isn't exactly begging for more office space right now.

Even though I like the tower, I don't want it there.

SkahHigh · #**3911** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 1:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

The NIMBYS have an actual point this time.

The height argument isn't all that inportsnt, it's the fact they this project was proposed at all. Really, why destroy perfectly fine buildings, which are mind you part of a recognized architectural and planning award winning ensemble? There's just no need to start demolishing quality urbanism for an office tower. An office tower for who exactly? The market isn't exactly begging for more office space right now.

Even though I like the tower, I don't want it there.

These two buildings will be demolished:

http://www.imtl.org/image/big/maison_alcan_mtl_2007.jpg

https://postmediamontrealgazette2.files....acona-armory-b1.jpg?quality=55&strip=all

Both are not big losses IMO.

MexiQuebecois · #**3912** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 1:43 PM**

Why are we demolishing buildings when there are plenty of parking lots downtown? I guess that's the main concern.

telyou · #**3913** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MexiQuebecois

Why are we demolishing buildings when there are plenty of parking lots downtown? I guess that's the main concern.

Because the developers own this land and not some other parking lot. I always hate it when i hear that question. Its ridiculous to think a developer should not build on land they own and told by others to go purchase another land because its some parking lot.

MexiQuebecois · #**3914** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by telyou

Because the developers own this land and not some other parking lot. I always hate it when i hear that question. Its ridiculous to think a developer should not build on land they own and told by others to go purchase another land because its some parking lot.

Maybe you could answer the question without the condescending tone and getting all defensive? I was just wondering and it's "ridiculous" to think that if I knew that information I would be asking that question.

Nouvellecosse · #**3915** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:17 PM**

Mex I actually agree 100%. It drives me crazy when there are unused or underutilized spaces waiting to be filled and I see building demand and development investment wasted by replacing existing buildings. People always cite the "reasons" for this as if they're expected to excuse it. Well of course there are reasons because as with anything else, without a reason (aka "cause") it wouldn't happen. But that doesn't excuse it. The issue is that the unfettered free market doesn't have any goal other than profitability. It doesn't consider things like urban design, cohesive streetscapes, and the beauty and efficiency of the overall city except where those things directly affect the profitability of the development. That's why we have governments that can create planning guidelines and regulations to steer growth in the right direction.

So when people ask "that question" we're not really asking why it happens, so much as we're asking why someone hasn't done something to address this problem. And if you're trying to build a beautiful, efficient, and livable community, wasteful and inefficient land usage is definitely a problem.

FrankieFlowerpot · #**3916** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:35 PM**

1182/1221 King Street West in TO - 21st and 19st

SkahHigh · #**3917** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:35 PM**

Yeah, we can agree that it's better to fill the parking lots first and then tear down ugly, derelict buildings for new developments. But Cirque du Soleil I believe owns the Maison Alcan complex so it's normal that they want to redevelop it as a bigger, more modern complex.

WhipperSnapper · #**3918** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:39 PM**

What a load. Most developers care about. making positive contribution. At the same time, there's a huge number of obsolete buildings operating at losses that make as little contribution as a surface parking lot. They can be completely vacant or heading that way with cheap rates as maintenance is withheld.

No one is going to demolished buildings otherwise.

WhipperSnapper · #**3919** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

1182/1221 King Street West in TO - 21st and 19st

Tact and Urbancorp I guess. Nothing special but infill where it's needed.

Nouvellecosse · #**3920** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

What a load. Most developers care about. making positive contribution. At the same time, there's a huge number of obsolete buildings operating at losses that make as little contribution as a surface parking lot. They can be completely vacant or heading that way with cheap rates as maintenance is withheld.

No one is going to demolished buildings otherwise.

Speaking of loads, no one is going to pass up an opportunity to make a load of money. If you can buy a small building in a high demand area and convert it into something more profitable, you'll do it. It has nothing to do with the current building being obsolete. Sure some obsolete buildings are redeveloped but to assume that it's some sort of prerequisite is very naive. And as far as their contribution, developers are not charities and are concerned about demand. There are tons of ugly and mediocre buildings constructed because they make financial sense, and tons of poor locations, layout, street interfaces and all kinds of other things that are shitty of a city or neighbourhood done because they make financial sense. Of course developers will always put a non-monetary based spin on it but that's just how capitalism works. If it wasn't, regulation would never be needed.