Calgary Construction XXVI

[Bad Grizzly]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this debate as it's bringing out the true colors of some people. I've long said that a number of people on this forum are hypocrites, and I was right. Urban folks who critize nimby's are suddendly showing themselves to be nimby's This is is too perfect.

[Bad Grizzly]

That first pic is a bit on the large side.

Originally Posted by Daemon

Telus sky photo from new angle

<large sized pic was deleted>

[Habanero]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Oh? Do tell...

Been awhile since we've seen rumours on this site. I miss those days.

It's not a rumor, it's a legit proposal, 3 towers, very tall. I've seen the rendering for it, it looks pretty good.

Here's is the link to the project at SRC (since you asked about the project)
https://skyrisecities.com/forum/threads/calgary-the-hat-elbow-river-178m-56s-cidex-norr.27856/

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Yes, I haven't seen it. I am assuming you have, so can you share the details with us?

There is some shadowing, it’s not on residents, but that’s not the point, any shadowing is still shadowing. Also you guys seem to forget that shadowing doesn’t have to be on peoples houses to be a problem, that’s why you are totally missing the point. A tall building will cast a shadow or somewhere no matter what, you just need to get that concept and think about it a bit. Consider the fact that a shorter building ball cast less of a shadow.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by shreddog

So you don't live in Inglewood?

I live in Crescent Heights, but own a house in Inglewood, and will probably move into it at some point.
It's great that you don't mind having highrises in your neighborhood, but consider the fact that others in Tuxedo probably probably don't want high rises like you do. That's why theirs a community association, so a few people with fetishes for high rises don't ruin the neighborhood.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

I'm thoroughly enjoying this debate as it's bringing out the true colors of some people. I've long said that a number of people on this forum are hypocrites, and I was right. Urban folks who critize nimby's are suddendly showing themselves to be nimby's This is is too perfect.

A few people who came across as jackasses are still showing themselves to be jackasses.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So you have no rational reason, that confirms it is straight up NIMBYism. Give me a good reason and I'll listen. Name a single thing that is negative about the building of 20 floors that would not be an issue at 6 floors.

It's not straight up nimbyism. Nibyism would be someone opposing a reasonable project.
You're asking to name one single negative thing about the tower? Do you not understand the concept of shadowing?? Do you not understand the concept of good urban planning?? Do you not understand the difference in shadowing caused by a 20 storey tower compared to a 6 storey tower? How can you not see that?

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

A few people who came across as jackasses are still showing themselves to be jackasses.

Don't be so hard on yourself

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

It's not straight up nimbyism. Nibyism would be someone opposing a reasonable project.
You're asking to name one single negative thing about the tower? Do you not understand the concept of shadowing?? Do you not understand the concept of good urban planning?? Do you not understand the difference in shadowing caused by a 20 storey tower compared to a 6 storey tower? How can you not see that?

Help me understand why people would choose to live in the inner city when they know that zoning is increasing and the city's plan is to increase density, and yet gripe and whine about an apartment tower going up. The worst part about it all, is that it's going up in a piece of land that's mostly a wasteland of brown grass beside a truck stop. Not matter what kind of building they build it'll be an improvement.

IMO it's a no brainer. You choose that part of the city, expect the result.

[topdog]

I’ve looked over all the posts in the last day or two regarding this high-rise proposal for Inglewood, and I’m onboard with the folks who are against it. Those who want to see a 20 story tower go up in the middle of a neighbourhood like that maybe have their hearts in the right spot, but I don’t believe they have really thought this through. It’s one thing to want extra density for the inner city, but it’s one thing to support something that is simply a bad proposal, and not the right fit for its context. Tomboy is right, this is more about people just wanting to see a high-rise belt somewhere, nothing to do with go to urban planning.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

There is some shadowing, it’s not on residents, but that’s not the point, any shadowing is still shadowing. Also you guys seem to forget that shadowing doesn’t have to be on peoples houses to be a problem, that’s why you are totally missing the point. A tall building will cast a shadow or somewhere no matter what, you just need to get that concept and think about it a bit. Consider the fact that a shorter building ball cast less of a shadow.

Honestly curious what harm will it's shadow cause on a road and a baseball diamond?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

O-tabular is one of the few people here with half a brain. I’ve seen your posts over the years I don’t need to read anymore of them understand where you’re coming from.

You have no idea where I'm coming from but I have a feeling a lot of us here know where you are coming from.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I literally said nothing to him about you. He came to that conclusion on his own based on your track record. Look in the mirror.

Brush up on your reading comprehension. And I stand firmly by my statement that my "reputation" is one that people such as yourself have tried to assign to me. It's how you operate. You've done the same to Suburbia, Bad Grizzly, etc. You disagree with someone and you automatically go into character assassination mode. You can try to assign any labels, etc. you want to people but it doesn't make them true.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by topdog

I’ve looked over all the posts in the last day or two regarding this high-rise proposal for Inglewood, and I’m onboard with the folks who are against it. Those who want to see a 20 story tower go up in the middle of a neighbourhood like that maybe have their hearts in the right spot, but I don’t believe they have really thought this through. It’s one thing to want extra density for the inner city, but it’s one thing to support something that is simply a bad proposal, and not the right fit for its context. Tomboy is right, this is more about people just wanting to see a high-rise belt somewhere, nothing to do with go to urban planning.

Not solely directed towards you but what are your thoughts about the three Westgate towers?

Even taller, on a major road adjacent to a low density neighbourhood. Their shadows even cast north onto apartment properties.

Would 6 storeys have been better at the time? 15 to match the Barberry Walk Apartments?

Is Westgate considered significantly out of place? Less out of place because the 15 storey Barberry Walk Apartments building was there already?

Someone has to be first. I'm not ignoring the concerns of those owning single family immediately to the east but I have a hard time agreeing with anyone not supporting this development.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

I'm thoroughly enjoying this debate as it's bringing out the true colors of some people. I've long said that a number of people on this forum are hypocrites, and I was right. Urban folks who critize nimby's are suddendly showing themselves to be nimby's This is is too perfect.

So true! They're perfectly okay with dictating how others should live but when it comes time to apply their own rules to their neighborhoods they get all defensive.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by topdog

I’ve looked over all the posts in the last day or two regarding this high-rise proposal for Inglewood, and I’m onboard with the folks who are against it. Those who want to see a 20 story tower go up in the middle of a neighbourhood like that maybe have their hearts in the right spot, but I don’t believe they have really thought this through. It’s one thing to want extra density for the inner city, but it’s one thing to support something that is simply a bad proposal, and not the right fit for its context. Tomboy is right, this is more about people just wanting to see a high-rise belt somewhere, nothing to do with go to urban planning.

High rises are meant for the inner city, that's where they belong. People like Milo Milo, Xtingon and Toyboy are the classic case of nimbyism. Unbelievably hypocritical. I bet 1000 bucks these guys would be okay with that tower being built in Mission.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

So true! They're perfectly okay with dictating how others should live but when it comes time to apply their own rules to their neighborhoods they get all defensive.

Exactly. Hypocrisy at it's worst! Especially Deppstar. I've had to listen to his drivel for years about inner city density, and I find out he's not willing to walk the walk.

[X_ting_on]

For the last time - this is not about being nimby! I have said that I’m not against extra density, only the height of the tower. Some people have said that the height of the tower is not a problem, and like topdog said, maybe they mean well, but they aren’t invested on whether this is good urban development or not. For them it’s like, yay more density, and yay another tall tower to look at. It feel like there arent many enough people on here who understand good urban planning. some of you need to take a trip over to a place like Europe.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by topdog

I’ve looked over all the posts in the last day or two regarding this high-rise proposal for Inglewood, and I’m onboard with the folks who are against it. Those who want to see a 20 story tower go up in the middle of a neighbourhood like that maybe have their hearts in the right spot, but I don’t believe they have really thought this through. It’s one thing to want extra density for the inner city, but it’s one thing to support something that is simply a bad proposal, and not the right fit for its context. Tomboy is right, this is more about people just wanting to see a high-rise belt somewhere, nothing to do with go to urban planning.

While I look forward to seeing more detailed information regarding the design, I'm not as categorically opposed to a tower at that location as others seem to be. The location has excellent connectivity as it currently stands. Further, I think this needs to be considered in context of the future, and not what the area is today. For example, this site will be on the dedicated late BRT line what is currently under construction.


via City of Calgary's 17th Ave BRT page

Personally, I think extending development of 9th avenue all the way through to 17th avenue is a strategic aim that is needed for the city, and leveraging restaurants, entertainment and services all along that stretch starting right from downtown is a solid play that makes urban planning sense, especially for 17th Ave.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Exactly. Hypocrisy at it's worst! Especially Deppstar. I've had to listen to his drivel for years about inner city density, and I find out he's not willing to walk the walk.

Nobody's being a hypocrite here. The people who are against the idea only want to see better planning for this and don't see the need for a highrise tower. People like yourself aren't being hypocritical either, we already know you don'at care about good inner city planning, or even care about the inner city. Your being yourself, and there's nothing new there.