Calgary Construction XXVI

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by milomilo

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

This is the common misconception and some people just aren’t getting it. We aren’t NIMBYs. People who oppose a development that’s not good for the neighbourhood aren’t automatically nimbys. Would you rather I refer to you and sheddog as bsteiiadi’s

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

This is the common misconception and some people just aren’t getting it. We aren’t NIMBYs. People who oppose a development that’s not good for the neighbourhood aren’t automatically nimbys. Would you rather I refer to you and sheddog as bsteiiadi’s

Just a reminder - you were going to provide a link to the shadowing document you said you had a look at that showed impact on houses. Thanks!

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

This is the common misconception and some people just aren’t getting it. We aren’t NIMBYs. People who oppose a development that’s not good for the neighbourhood aren’t automatically nimbys. Would you rather I refer to you and sheddog as bsteiiadi’s

You still have not elaborated on what makes this so bad for the community beyond shadowing and it being tall. I agree it seems out sized for what currently resides there but long term this area is going to change. You can't have a prime piece of real estate so close to the centre of the city with nothing but a truck stop and some single story auto mechanics forever.

[O-tacular]

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 clearly didn't read what was being said very closely. There's more nuance to it than just "Yay tall buildings!" on this side of the debate. Personally I find the proposal pretty awkward as is and wouldn't mind a height reduction and better integration at street level. That being said simply opposing it because of shadows is nimbyism 101.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Just a reminder - you were going to provide a link to the shadowing document you said you had a look at that showed impact on houses. Thanks!

Just a heads up that you’ll be waiting a long time. Grab yourself a pair of reading glasses and go back and read my posts.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

You still have not elaborated on what makes this so bad for the community beyond shadowing and it being tall. I agree it seems out sized for what currently resides there but long term this area is going to change. You can't have a prime piece of real estate so close to the centre of the city with nothing but a truck stop and some single story auto mechanics forever.

And you haven’t paid attention. I said earlier a building didn’t need to be that tall, that extra shadowing wasn’t necessary. I’m not sure what part of that you can’t understand.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

And you haven’t paid attention. I said earlier a building didn’t need to be that tall, that extra shadowing wasn’t necessary. I’m not sure what part of that you can’t understand.

Okay then what’s the tallest you could live with? What density could you live with?

[BlaineN]

Originally Posted by Daemon

Telus sky photo from new angle

Daemon, I put spoiler tags on your oversized photo and deleted it in other replied posts. If the photo is going to be extra large you should put spoiler tags on it. Outside of that, your photos are getting better.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

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?

Agreed. The Oakridge proposal is abysmal. The added density is a complete after thought. They couldn’t push it any further to the periphery and background of the parking lot.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

^^^ 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:

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!

I can't see them not taking advantage of the location either. The city very likely wants a cluster of towers in that location to allow a significant number of people very close access to the station. This has happened elsewhere and the world didn't end. The people protesting the Brentwood development (University City) about 10 years ago or so had a way better case but many here had no problem bashing them. What's different here? I think the community should work with the developers and the city to maximize the benefits to everyone. I can see this being good for business in the area. The shadowing issue can also be dealt with. It might not be perfect but if you can live with the trains you should be able to live with the occasional shadow.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Okay then what’s the tallest you could live with? What density could you live with?

What do you mean by what density could I live with? How many people per square meter? Define density.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I can't see them not taking advantage of the location either. The city very likely wants a cluster of towers in that location to allow a significant number of people very close access to the station. This has happened elsewhere and the world didn't end. The people protesting the Brentwood development (University City) about 10 years ago or so had a way better case but many here had no problem bashing them. What's different here? I think the community should work with the developers and the city to maximize the benefits to everyone. I can see this being good for business in the area. The shadowing issue can also be dealt with. It might not be perfect but if you can live with the trains you should be able to live with the occasional shadow.

‘If you can can live with trains you can live with the occasional shadow’ .....not exactly Einstein’s work. Like hey your neighbourhood already has a negative aspect, so why not add another one.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

What do you mean by what density could I live with? How many people per square meter? Define density.

How many units or households in the development.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

‘If you can can live with trains you can live with the occasional shadow’ .....not exactly Einstein’s work. Like hey your neighbourhood already has a negative aspect, so why not add another one.

Being confrontational isn't going to help your cause. Neither is being a smart ass. Shadows are absolutely nothing compared to the sounds and smells of the nearby rail yard.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Being confrontational isn't going to help your cause. Neither is being a smart ass. Shadows are absolutely nothing compared to the sounds and smells of the nearby rail yard.

You’ve been confrontational and a smartass for as long as I can remember and you’re still around.
Shadows might not be a big deal to you, but to others they are. More if a big deal then the sounds of trains. And for the record there no bad smells from the rail yard.

[Corndogger]

Co-op’s Dalhousie location gets green light for redevelopment

One day after having its Oakridge project sent back to the drawing board by city council, Calgary Co-op won approval on Tuesday to push forward with its plans to redevelop its shopping centre site at Dalhousie and turn it into a mixed-use development.

The redesigned location will include a residential component with 440 units in addition to commercial, retail and office space.
Related

“We still have some prior-to-release conditions in the development permits that we have to work through a little bit,” said Tony Argento, director of real estate and development for Calgary Co-op. “Now we can move to that stage of the drawings where we can get the building permits ready.

The vote to approve the land-use application was not unanimous. Councillors Druh Farrell and Gian-Carlo Carra voted against the application.

“What we have in front of us is a bunch of discrete uses with no connections,” said Farrell, who felt walkability and integration with the neighbourhood were key components missing from the plan. “It’s not good enough. These sites are too precious to have a mediocre application.

“I can’t support this. I know it’s been a difficult process for the community [and the] applicant, but we’re not there yet.”

But others on council felt the project was good enough to move forward.

“I think this is a good use of the land that’s there,” Councillor Jeff Davison said. “Sometimes you’re chasing perfection for the sake of trying to be perfect, [and it] is killing great projects.”

Full article at: https://globalnews.ca/news/3983540/co-ops-dalhousie-location-gets-green-light-for-redevelopment/

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

How many units or households in the development.

150 is fine. I don’t care about the number of units as much as the height. That’s how many of the other so called nimbys feel.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

You’ve been confrontational and a smartass for as long as I can remember and you’re still around.
Shadows might not be a big deal to you, but to others they are. More if a big deal then the sounds of trains. And for the record there no bad smells from the rail yard.

Not buying into the urban agenda fully doesn't make me or anyone else here confrontational.

Shadows are worse than a noisy and smelly rail yard. My grandparents lived SUPER close to them and I have family members who worked there for decades. I did some summers as well. You've lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. What is your real agenda? It sure isn't the occasional shadow.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

You clearly didn't read what was being said very closely. There's more nuance to it than just "Yay tall buildings!" on this side of the debate. Personally I find the proposal pretty awkward as is and wouldn't mind a height reduction and better integration at street level. That being said simply opposing it because of shadows is nimbyism 101.

Agreed on the awkwardness and the better street integration. Nobody that I know is opposing it simply to avoid shadows. The issue is more about better design and whether the tower needs to be that tall. Most of the people here can’t seem to grasp that - not singling out you but a few others who are clueless on that concept.
What I would say to those people is try strolling around Mississauga some time. That’s the kind of place they’ll be creating with that attitude.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Not buying into the urban agenda fully doesn't make me or anyone else here confrontational.

Shadows are worse than a noisy and smelly rail yard. My grandparents lived SUPER close to them and I have family members who worked there for decades. I did some summers as well. You've lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. What is your real agenda? It sure isn't the occasional shadow.

I’m not talking about this latest debate. You’re reputation proceeds you.