Calgary Construction XXVI

[Tobyoby]

Building a highrise tower in that location as way to extend 9th ave into 17th ave is 100% the wrong way to do it, and in fact will help ruin any chances of that becoming a decent strip.

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

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.

[geotag277]

I would say Westgate was a also a fairly poorly thought out project, plopping high towers in what is effectively a single family/town home 1-story dominated neighbourhood.

I think good urban planning requires a vision for what an area will ultimately look like. Tall towers are good for density, but if you don't have mixed use, no retail frontage, stale design, poor street level interaction - you aren't setting up the community to succeed.

I think Westgate and the Inglewood proposal would be better served by a holistic plan to redevelop the area, which will likely make the most sense to start with projects of smaller scale, and have plans for the neighbouring developments.

If this is the site of a future BRT, and the area will naturally be re-developed anyway, you don't want to jump in with a big ugly tower with poor street level design and no retail space and no future mixed used potential. That isn't getting the community off on the right foot, and we can learn from places like West Village on why building towers with no holistic plan isn't always the greatest urban strategy.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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.

I don't know why you're singling out O-tacular. You, Suburbia and Bad Grizzly are the poster children for starting arguments with your acerbic posts and sarcastic tone. Also the way you've painted all inner city people over the years.

[lubicon]

new parking structure for East Village area

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/platform-parkade-east-village-calgary-1.4500210

[lubicon]

And one of the Co-op redevelopments may be in trouble.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3981273/co-op-oakridge-redevelopment-goes-back-under-the-microscope/

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Habanero

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/

Thanks for posting, I've seen some basic renderings and massing models, but nothing to really judge the project.

[Bad Grizzly]

I don't see a renerding anywhere

Originally Posted by Habanero

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/

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

... 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.

Imagine if in 1943 the Eau Claire CA was successful in preventing "high rises".

Cities grow and desirable neighbourhoods densify, escalate in cost, or both. If someone doesn't like who their inner city neighbourhood changes, perhaps they should move and cash out.

PS. I don't mean to come across as an ass here, but living in a growing city likely means new high rises where there were none before.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

... any shadowing is still shadowing.... Consider the fact that a shorter building ball cast less of a shadow.

Consider that ANY building will cast a shadow - does that mean we never build anything ever again?? If no, then what type of shadow is acceptable??

BTW, since you didn't answer my question, I will ask it again - have you seen the shadowing report?

Just in case your answer is no, here is a previous post of yours:

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Since you haven’t seen the shadowing study, it’s best you stay out of the argument, coming in with no knowledge whatsoever, doesn’t help.

And if your answer is yes, can you share the details with us?

[X_ting_on]

I don’t see how building a high-rise tower there is really going to do it, when a bunch of low rise as could be built instead, that would do much better towards bridging the gap between ninth and 17th

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Building a highrise tower in that location as way to extend 9th ave into 17th ave is 100% the wrong way to do it.

I can't see it being a single solution, rather, one of a number of developments, some in fact that would be inspired by more density in this very accessible and transit friendly location.

We can't remain a small city forever. That location is at an important BRT station, so in effect this is a TOD. Put it in context of other TOD's in other cities, and our own views of good outcomes for TOD's in other Calgary locations. I don't think we should lower our aspirations and be satisfied with low-rise for TOD development.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Consider that ANY building will cast a shadow - does that mean we never build anything ever again?? If no, then what type of shadow is acceptable??

BTW, since you didn't answer my question, I will ask it again - have you seen the shadowing report?

Just in case your answer is no, here is a previous post of yours:


And if your answer is yea, can you share the details with us?

Did you not see my post earlier?

As far as never building anything again, you don’t need to do that, why don’t you just take a look at what Japan does they have shadow rules all over the place and have clusters of high rise buildings here and there, but most of the buildings are about 5 to 6 stories high, specifically for the reason of shadowing.

[X_ting_on]

Using the excuse that cities evolve is a poor example. The idea is to do it properly as your evolving not just hey were evolving so let’s build a tower here.

Originally Posted by shreddog

Imagine if in 1943 the Eau Claire CA was successful in preventing "high rises".

Cities grow and desirable neighbourhoods densify, escalate in cost, or both. If someone doesn't like who their inner city neighbourhood changes, perhaps they should move and cash out.

PS. I don't mean to come across as an ass here, but living in a growing city likely means new high rises where there were none before.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Did you not see my post earlier?

You mean this one?

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.

If yes, I obviously saw it as I quoted it. That said, you have not answered the question - have YOU seen the shadowing report??

If yes, is the bold text the assessment from the text??

And if yes again, are we really going to exclude buildings because they cast shadows even if not on residents? Like seriously, there are many reasons not to allow buildings to be built anywhere, but if the crux of the argument is that a building is gonna cast a shadow, well, I guess we're going to have to build everything out of glass now!

[suburbia]

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.

This is an odd post for SSP. You're basically advocating for there not to be any towers, let alone true sky scrapers, because anything with height will cast a shadow. Seriously?

Well - I cannot argue that a building has a shadow. That is true.

[Tobyoby]

I can't speak for x_tingon, but I do think you're missing the point. It's not about making sure that a building doesn't throw a shadow, it's about good urban planning.
Having a developer come in and want to throw up a high rise in a middle of an area that is mostly low rise one story single family homes isn't a great idea. It;s great if you're skyscraper nut with a hard on for tall buildings but for those who like to try and do things right, the whole area needs to be looked at and a vision for the neighborhood.

Nobody here so far has grasped that concept.

Originally Posted by shreddog

You mean this one?If yes, I obviously saw it as I quoted it. That said, you have not answered the question - have YOU seen the shadowing report??

If yes, is the bold text the assessment from the text??

And if yes again, are we really going to exclude buildings because they cast shadows even if not on residents? Like seriously, there are many reasons not to allow buildings to be built anywhere, but if the crux of the argument is that a building is gonna cast a shadow, well, I guess we're going to have to build everything out of glass now!

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lubicon

new parking structure for East Village area

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/platform-parkade-east-village-calgary-1.4500210

I was wondering what happened to that project. Looks good!

[Bad Grizzly]

Nobody's grasped the concept because there's nothing to grasp. We're talking about one building in a large area. Inglewood is big. One lousy building and people freak out as if it's going to kill the neighborhood. Is it me, or are some people really this belligerent? Also FWIW I think Xtinon is the lady in the article.

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I can't speak for x_tingon, but I do think you're missing the point. It's not about making sure that a building doesn't throw a shadow, it's about good urban planning.
Having a developer come in and want to throw up a high rise in a middle of an area that is mostly low rise one story single family homes isn't a great idea. It;s great if you're skyscraper nut with a hard on for tall buildings but for those who like to try and do things right, the whole area needs to be looked at and a vision for the neighborhood.

Nobody here so far has grasped that concept.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Nobody's grasped the concept because there's nothing to grasp. We're talking about one building in a large area. Inglewood is big. One lousy building and people freak out as if it's going to kill the neighborhood. Is it me, or are some people really this belligerent? Also FWIW I think Xtinon is the lady in the article.

That thought did cross my mind as well.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I can't speak for x_tingon, but I do think you're missing the point.

Than you should respond to x_tingon, because he is all about being anti-shadow.

Regarding the portion of Inglewood south of 17th ave SE, in all honesty, I think that entire area needs redevelopment. I know it doesn't work like that, but it can in entirety be developed better. When you think of urban planning, that is not where you put ultra-low density single floor large lot housing. Right next to train tracks and industrial.

No one seemed as angry about Westbrook:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0406199,-...2hkSfeWCdDFwSW60T7RqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656