Calgary Construction XXVI

[X_ting_on]

I made a typo, it was supposed to say it would cast s shadow on some residents. Yes I have seen a diagram of what the shadowing would look like.

Shadowing isn’t the be-all and all consideration but height and trying to build tall is even less of a consideration. And no I never said we could never cast a shadow, just that if you don’t need to cast a shadow don’t do it. Did it ever occur to you that you could build two shorter buildings get the same density with much less shadowing, and also without having a large tower looming over your house even if you’re not in the shade? Apparently you’ve never considered that option.

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!

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

I made a typo, it was supposed to say it would cast s shadow on some residents. Yes I have seen a diagram of what the shadowing would look like.

What houses? Perhaps I'm not understanding the location. The plot I thought this was for is north of the houses, and south of a large divided road. If you have access to a diagram of the shadowing and how it impacts the housing, please share.

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

if you don’t need to cast a shadow don’t do it.

[topdog]

I find it hilarious that in 5 of pages bickering and whining nobody thought of the idea of two shorter buildings to get the same number of units. I’m also not surprised by this. It’s very symbolic of the way this forum operates. Two extreme groups of people - a bunch of diehard density at any cost people with a hard on to build a high-rise, and a bunch of people that are so involved in urban planning, they don’t even want to shadow to fall on somebody.

People so involved in battling for their side but they never even thought to consider an easy logical proposition

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

I made a typo, it was supposed to say it would cast s shadow on some residents. Yes I have seen a diagram of what the shadowing would look like.

Shadowing isn’t the be-all and all consideration but height and trying to build tall is even less of a consideration. And no I never said we could never cast a shadow, just that if you don’t need to cast a shadow don’t do it. Did it ever occur to you that you could build two shorter buildings get the same density with much less shadowing, and also without having a large tower looming over your house even if you’re not in the shade? Apparently you’ve never considered that option.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by 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/

The Oakridge proposal misses the mark for sure and I’m glad that Council wants to see something better for that site.

The Dalhousie proposal is much better!

Vancouver seems to successfully integrate a grocery store and its associated parking very well into office and residential buildings. Why can’t we see more of that here?

[suburbia]

^^ do we actually have proper drawings of the proposal, IE full-on site plan showing what they intend to do with the spaces they have that are not going to be taken up by building and podium? It should be helpful in assessing. Certainly four buildings at one quarter of the height would be equal also, but you get the point.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

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.

Go back and look at who starts many of the dumb arguments and resorts to name calling. It isn't any of the people you mention.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by 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/

This passage from the article applies to the Inglewood one as well.

Some members of city council were critical of the proposed project, feeling it was underwhelming given its proximity to the future bus rapid transit (BRT) development along 24 Street S.W.

[milomilo]

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?

Do you not understand the concept of the shadow falling on a road? The sun shines from the south. How do you not know that?

Even so, shadowing and views, while unfortunate for anyone affected (which is zero people in this example), are not actually reasons to disallow a project. Otherwise we would not have any taller buildings in the Beltline or downtown.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

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.

Sorry do you have me confused with someone else? I've been arguing against the NIMBYs.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by 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

I don't think that's the city's goal. At least not now. I take it that a BRT station is going to be close to that location and they want a lot of people who will take transit to live there. They're more likely to want a bunch of 20+ story buildings than they are low rise ones.

You also have to consider the developer. I have no idea what they paid for the land but maybe they need to go high to make their investment worthwhile.

[ST1]

Darmon rocks

Originally Posted by Daemon

Waterfront place from this morning. I’m doing new angle.

[ST1]

Really awesome.

Originally Posted by Daemon

[ST1]

Thanks for posting these barnburners

Originally Posted by Daemon

Telus sky photo from new angle
oversized photo deleted

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by topdog

I find it hilarious that in 5 of pages bickering and whining nobody thought of the idea of two shorter buildings to get the same number of units. I’m also not surprised by this. It’s very symbolic of the way this forum operates. Two extreme groups of people - a bunch of diehard density at any cost people with a hard on to build a high-rise, and a bunch of people that are so involved in urban planning, they don’t even want to shadow to fall on somebody.

People so involved in battling for their side but they never even thought to consider an easy logical proposition

Actually I think most of us agree the proposal isn't perfect and a shorter building would be better. It's just that the opposition to this didn't start as this, it was purely for NIMBY reasons like 'it's too tall', 'it's shadowing the roads', 'think of the children', 'it looks like a penis' etc. This is an unfortunate reflection of the selfishness of many in the city, who only care about preserving their community exactly as it is.

[Corndogger]

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.

So you're saying the city's planners don't know what they're doing because this is exactly what they want. If Inglewood can opt out of TOD then why shouldn't every area have the same option?

[Chinook Arch]

Dude, don’t just sit there, choose a side and do battle!

Originally Posted by topdog

I find it hilarious that in 5 of pages bickering and whining nobody thought of the idea of two shorter buildings to get the same number of units. I’m also not surprised by this. It’s very symbolic of the way this forum operates. Two extreme groups of people - a bunch of diehard density at any cost people with a hard on to build a high-rise, and a bunch of people that are so involved in urban planning, they don’t even want to shadow to fall on somebody.

People so involved in battling for their side but they never even thought to consider an easy logical proposition

[Corndogger]

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 occurred to me as well. If Xtinon had said she was against the project because the building looks ugly she probably would get a lot of support.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by topdog

I find it hilarious that in 5 of pages bickering and whining nobody thought of the idea of two shorter buildings to get the same number of units. I’m also not surprised by this. It’s very symbolic of the way this forum operates. Two extreme groups of people - a bunch of diehard density at any cost people with a hard on to build a high-rise, and a bunch of people that are so involved in urban planning, they don’t even want to shadow to fall on somebody.

People so involved in battling for their side but they never even thought to consider an easy logical proposition

You need to consider other factors. What makes you think the developer owns enough land to build multiple towers?

[Xelebes]

Just some notes: people use spoiler tags for collapsing quotes of images. Really helps the readability of the forum.

[spoiler]What would obviously be a huge number of large images.[/spoiler]

What would obviously be a huge number of large images.

On the inglewood tower site, are we expecting a midrise/highrise project to be serviced with a crescent?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I don't think that's the city's goal. At least not now. I take it that a BRT station is going to be close to that location and they want a lot of people who will take transit to live there. They're more likely to want a bunch of 20+ story buildings than they are low rise ones.

^^^ I agree.

I was checking into it further, and indeed the BRT station is going to be literally right there. Zoom into the left portion of this rather large image, and you'll see that the station is literally "on" the gas station land:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/...-se-brt-phase-2-roll-plan-may29-2017.pdf

Further, this is what the city adds about TOD:

Higher density development is concentrated near the station to make transit convenient for more people and encourage ridership. This form of development uses existing infrastructure, optimizes use of the transit network and creates mobility options for transit riders and the local community. A successful TOD provides a mix of land uses and densities that create a convenient, interesting and vibrant community for local residents and visitors alike. A TOD is also about enabling sustainable long-term urban growth.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Curre...es/Transit-Oriented-Development-TOD.aspx

While this site is not currently on the official list of TOD locations, I can't see them not taking advantage of the great location and under-development of that area. It would be generally speaking a great place to live, with very close access to parks and the river, and access to downtown via the main core of Inglewood, and on the other side, International Avenue! And of course, additional development within the vicinity. Curious what this all looks like in 5-7 years!