Calgary Construction XXVI

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

But so what you say? Obviously you don’t live in the area, and if you do it looks like you couldn’t care less about building density in a proper way. You just want a skyscraper to stare at. It’s this shortsighted mentality that makes suburban Toronto look the way it does.

I really don't. Again, it isn't a skyscraper, but to be honest I do agree it will be out of place - however the developer could well have thrown in a proposal for 20 floors expecting to compromise on a lower number.

No, I don't live there but I am familiar with the area. Is it just the height you are opposed to?

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I really don't. Again, it isn't a skyscraper, but to be honest I do agree it will be out of place - however the developer could well have thrown in a proposal for 20 floors expecting to compromise on a lower number.

No, I don't live there but I am familiar with the area. Is it just the height you are opposed to?

The height is too high for the area around it, and I’m also taking exception to your post. There’s nothing more annoying than people who criticize the community association for weighing in on a project and they don’t live in that community.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

There’s nothing more annoying than people who criticize the community association for weighing in on a project and they don’t live in that community.

So I hope you have no opinions about what kind of developments happen elsewhere in the city with an attitude like yours. By your thinking if an arena gets built somewhere and you don't live in that community then you aren't allowed to express your option about it.

[DizzyEdge]

Wider lower rise with the same # of units and far more at-grade, eyes-on-the-street units would be better, and traffic access directly to 19th/Blackfoot rather than it all going down 7th avenue would probably be better.

I agree though that central area is the best place for high density in the neighbourhood.

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by rotten42

So I hope you have no opinions about what kind of developments happen elsewhere in the city with an attitude like yours. By your thinking if an arena gets built somewhere and you don't live in that community then you aren't allowed to express your option about it.

Not the same thing and not the same argument. First off an Arena would have some sort of public involvement, whether public funds or a land swap or what have you. Secondly, I'd love to see an arena go into your neighborhood and see if your community association had any objections. If they did I wonder if you'd support their stance? ..... yeah, that's what I thought.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

The height is too high for the area around it, and I’m also taking exception to your post. There’s nothing more annoying than people who criticize the community association for weighing in on a project and they don’t live in that community.

Did you see the CA person's quote? It's utterly idiotic and shows she is completely incapable of rational thought and has no place representing the opinion of the community. She is not opposing because she thinks another design could be better but because:

Originally Posted by LJ Robertson

It's basically putting a large phallic symbol in the middle of a historic community,"

Which is utter nonsense. Not only is it a stupid reason to oppose a project, it also does not look like the object she compares it to, and describing it as in the middle of a historic community is also a stretch. Of all the places to put a high density building in the area, that place is the right one.

[MrBigStuff]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I agree. That location would be fine for a tall building. The traffic issues are also nonsense.

Wasn't there another proposal in Inglewood called "Railtown" with some buildings that would be even taller than this one? Where exactly would this 20 storey building be built??

[Tobyoby]

There's NIMBYs and then there's YISEBY's - Yes In Someone Else's Backyard. I'm not sure which group of people are worse. It's all good as long as it's somewhere else and not in my neighborhood. Those kinds are actually worse than the NIMBY's IMO.

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's not a skyscraper, it's 60 metres. It will be a bit out of place, for now, but so what? It negatively impacts nothing.

Originally Posted by rotten42

So I hope you have no opinions about what kind of developments happen elsewhere in the city with an attitude like yours. By your thinking if an arena gets built somewhere and you don't live in that community then you aren't allowed to express your option about it.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Did you see the CA person's quote? It's utterly idiotic and shows she is completely incapable of rational thought and has no place representing the opinion of the community. She is not opposing because she thinks another design could be better but because:



Which is utter nonsense. Not only is it a stupid reason to oppose a project, it also does not look like the object she compares it to, and describing it as in the middle of a historic community is also a stretch. Of all the places to put a high density building in the area, that place is the right one.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by MrBigStuff

Wasn't there another proposal in Inglewood called "Railtown" with some buildings that would be even taller than this one? Where exactly would this 20 storey building be built??

No.

[DizzyEdge]

One thing not mentioned is the ARP apparently recommends a max height of 6 stories and that parcel appears to be zoned for 4 stories, so people are mad that a developer is asking for 20 stories, ignoring the ARP. Now more than 6 is probably appropriate for that central wasteland-like area, but the 20 asked for is looked at as a ploy to get people to accept less but more than the ARP's 6.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

There's NIMBYs and then there's YISEBY's - Yes In Someone Else's Backyard. I'm not sure which group of people are worse. It's all good as long as it's somewhere else and not in my neighborhood. Those kinds are actually worse than the NIMBY's IMO.

Yes in that backyard because that's the place for building's like that. There's a reason towers aren't built in suburban neighborhoods, and it's not an emotional one, it's a logical one. A neighborhood like Tucsany doesn't have the infrastructure to support this.
Maybe you forgot there's a BRT being built right past the location for the tower. Also this isn't the nice part of Inglewood, it's on the wrong side of the tricks literally and is more like the Inglewood, Californioa than Inglewood Calgary. 2 or 3 highrise towers would actually be an improvement.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

The height is too high for the area around it, and I’m also taking exception to your post. There’s nothing more annoying than people who criticize the community association for weighing in on a project and they don’t live in that community.

and nothing more anoying than people who blindly follow community associations. That ladie obviously forgot that she lives in an inner city neighborhood, and that more density is expected. She's worried it will be a phallic symbol? Maybe she's the kind of girl that doesn't like men. lol.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by rotten42

So I hope you have no opinions about what kind of developments happen elsewhere in the city with an attitude like yours. By your thinking if an arena gets built somewhere and you don't live in that community then you aren't allowed to express your option about it.

That argument makes no sense whatever. Arenas always cause public debate because there are more of a central building, central to the whole city.

Let’s try looking at this in an intelligent way, let’s build a 20 story tower in your neighbourhood and see how you like it. Hey, I would love it, so I guess you’re OK with me and other people around the city advicating 20 story tower building your neighbourhood? Don’t bother answering that because I already know the answer is no. That about ends that argument.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Yes in that backyard because that's the place for building's like that. There's a reason towers aren't built in suburban neighborhoods, and it's not an emotional one, it's a logical one. A neighborhood like Tucsany doesn't have the infrastructure to support this.
Maybe you forgot there's a BRT being built right past the location for the tower. Also this isn't the nice part of Inglewood, it's on the wrong side of the tricks literally and is more like the Inglewood, Californioa than Inglewood Calgary. 2 or 3 highrise towers would actually be an improvement.

That part of Inglewood is a little shabbier then the main part of Inglewood, but it is by no means anything like Inglewood California. And again like I mentioned before what do you care I know you don’t live there this has nothing to do with you.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

That argument makes no sense whatever. Arenas always cause public debate because there are more of a central building, central to the whole city.

Let’s try looking at this in an intelligent way, let’s build a 20 story tower in your neighbourhood and see how you like it. Hey, I would love it, so I guess you’re OK with me and other people around the city advicating 20 story tower building your neighbourhood? Don’t bother answering that because I already know the answer is no. That about ends that argument.

I can't speak for someone else, but I live in a low rise community and would not care one bit if a high-rise was built nearby. In fact I'd be glad as it would likely mean an increase in local amenities.

What specifically is the issue here? I agree a more lower height development would be more appropriate, but this building still will not have any negative impact on anyone. No one can even be a NIMBY, because it isn't in anyone's backyard!

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I can't speak for someone else, but I live in a low rise community and would not care one bit if a high-rise was built nearby. In fact I'd be glad as it would likely mean an increase in local amenities.

What specifically is the issue here? I agree a more lower height development would be more appropriate, but this building still will not have any negative impact on anyone. No one can even be a NIMBY, because it isn't in anyone's backyard!

Ummm, it's very clear that height is the issue.That's all anyone has complained about.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I can't speak for someone else, but I live in a low rise community and would not care one bit if a high-rise was built nearby. In fact I'd be glad as it would likely mean an increase in local amenities.

What specifically is the issue here? I agree a more lower height development would be more appropriate, but this building still will not have any negative impact on anyone. No one can even be a NIMBY, because it isn't in anyone's backyard!

Obviously height is the issue. The comment about the phallic shape being an issue might be something she has an issue with I don’t know.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

and nothing more anoying than people who blindly follow community associations. That ladie obviously forgot that she lives in an inner city neighborhood, and that more density is expected. She's worried it will be a phallic symbol? Maybe she's the kind of girl that doesn't like men. lol.

I can’t decide if this is the dumbest post I’ve seen so far this year, the funniest. I have to admit it is kind of funny.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet.
http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2018/01/11/inglewood-pushes-back-against-20-storey-tower.html

Wow, what a contrived set of reasons to be against this project. First off, here is a better context view of where it is planned:

Definitely not the "heart of Inglewood".

Secondly, the CA is worried about "... traffic concerns during the construction of the proposed building, which would have trucks driving near Piitoayis Family School ...". The only way that trucks would drive by the school is if they are lost. Plus, there is one of the largest truck stops in the city that support 100's of transport trucks a day RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the school.

Then she says she is concerned that "... shadowing is not something we consider to be minimal,". Shadowing on whom? Drivers on Blackfoot Trail??

I believe that the proposed location is at the red sigh above the white van beside the hydro pole in this view.

Anyway, at first blush this seems like a good place for a taller building. While I don't like the design and the interaction with the street (blah!), I support the density and placement. If someone proposes a building like this (with a nicer design) on Centre St near 24th Ave, I'd still support it.

[Tobyoby]

Another person not from the neighborhood who thinks he knows what's best for Inglewood. Of course it's no concern of yours - you don't live there.

Originally Posted by shreddog

Wow, what a contrived set of reasons to be against this project. First off, here is a better context view of where it is planned:

Definitely not the "heart of Inglewood".

Secondly, the CA is worried about "... traffic concerns during the construction of the proposed building, which would have trucks driving near Piitoayis Family School ...". The only way that trucks would drive by the school is if they are lost. Plus, there is one of the largest truck stops in the city that support 100's of transport trucks a day RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the school.

Then she says she is concerned that "... shadowing is not something we consider to be minimal,". Shadowing on whom? Drivers on Blackfoot Trail??

I believe that the proposed location is at the red sigh above the white van beside the hydro pole in this view.

Anyway, at first blush this seems like a good place for a taller building. While I don't like the design and the interaction with the street (blah!), I support the density and placement. If someone proposes a building like this (with a nicer design) on Centre St near 24th Ave, I'd still support it.