Calgary Construction XXVI

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

That comment wasn't referring to you, but rather some individuals who are fixated on having a high-rise tower in that location no matter what. I personally know residents there who are open to more density, and would be fine with 4 shorter 5 storey buildings rather than one 20 storey tower. The argument here is that towers don't necessarily make for good urban neighborhoods and only certain locations suit that kind of development.

This is one of those locations. What exactly makes a bad location? One that you decide is bad? I've not seen any evidence of why this is a bad location.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Why? At one time those cities didn't either, but a decision was made to do build like that.

My argument is aimed at Nimby's opposing buildings because of shadows. More midrise buildings creates more shadows over longer stretches than a handful of taller buildings. Also, realistically Calgary won't ever be one of those metropolises. There has been quite a bit of increased density due to subdividing smaller lots in the inner city and building duplexes. This increases density without towers. We also have areas like Bridgeland which are midrise districts more in that 5-6 story range. Another area I'd like to see that kind of thing applied to is Centre Street. That is one of the arteries where mid rise blocks could really boost density and create a more urban environment. The potential decision with at grade lrt could ruin that though.

[Calgarian]

I've heard that the Inglewood ARP is going to get some review so as to accommodate TOD developments (BRT and Green Line). Once that is done (hopefully with extensive community consultation), we should have an idea of what developers will have to work with.

This is a part of the city that NEEDS to see intensification, whether it be a point tower with podium, or a 5-8 storey midrise built to the site constraints, something is going to happen and the community NEEDS to get on board. Sunnyside fought intensification for years and all it did was waste time for community members, developers, architects and engineers and the city (SDAB meeting can fuck right off!) as the development is happening and is only going to accelerate. I understand that people want to have a say about what happens in their neighbourhood, but being in an area of only SFH right beside downtown is not realistic. People have their opinions on this particular proposal, and it's good that it started a discussion, but development like this is coming whether people like it or not.

[Tobyoby]

We can all agree intensification is needed. but I have to disagree with the need for tall point towers.

Here's an example of what it could look like (in terms of scale and massing). It could be something of this scale, and developed up against the street like this one.

(It's from SRC, so hopefully nobody takes offence)
https://calgary.skyrisecities.com/forum/...on-discussion.24791/page-56#post-1208932

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

My argument is aimed at Nimby's opposing buildings because of shadows. More midrise buildings creates more shadows over longer stretches than a handful of taller buildings. Also, realistically Calgary won't ever be one of those metropolises. There has been quite a bit of increased density due to subdividing smaller lots in the inner city and building duplexes. This increases density without towers. We also have areas like Bridgeland which are midrise districts more in that 5-6 story range Another area I'd like to see that kind of thing applied to is Centre Street. That is one of the arteries where mid rise blocks could really boost density and create a more urban environment. The potential debate with at grade lrt could ruin that though.

You could help cut down on some of the tension by avoiding the term 'Nimbys' to describe the people who don't like the project.

Also thanks for pointing out Bridgeland as a good example. Why can't the area be developed similar to Bridgeland? That's what we;ve been trying to point out all along.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

We can all agree intensification is needed. but I have to disagree with the need for tall point towers.

Here's an example of what it could look like (in terms of scale and massing). It could be something of this scale, and developed up against the street like this one.

(It's from SRC, so hopefully nobody takes offence)
https://calgary.skyrisecities.com/forum/...on-discussion.24791/page-56#post-1208932

Whats needed is a healthy mix of towers and midrises. I think 20 is a bit too tall for a site that far east of the core, but would be all for a 10 storey tower similar to Casel on 17ave and 24st SW (Crowchild turnoff).

The biggest thing isn't necessarily the height of the tower, it's how it meets the street and integrates into the neighbourhood. I'm opposed to the tower as the first development as it's completely out of scale and won't integrate well.

[X_ting_on]

Please stop referring to us as nimbys, but instead as those who simply opppse the project. By calling us NIMBYs, you are appearing to be no better than the actual NIMBYs.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

My argument is aimed at Nimby's opposing buildings because of shadows. More midrise buildings creates more shadows over longer stretches than a handful of taller buildings. Also, realistically Calgary won't ever be one of those metropolises. There has been quite a bit of increased density due to subdividing smaller lots in the inner city and building duplexes. This increases density without towers. We also have areas like Bridgeland which are midrise districts more in that 5-6 story range. Another area I'd like to see that kind of thing applied to is Centre Street. That is one of the arteries where mid rise blocks could really boost density and create a more urban environment. The potential debate with at grade lrt could ruin that though.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

We can all agree intensification is needed. but I have to disagree with the need for tall point towers.

Here's an example of what it could look like (in terms of scale and massing). It could be something of this scale, and developed up against the street like this one.

(It's from SRC, so hopefully nobody takes offence)
https://calgary.skyrisecities.com/forum/...on-discussion.24791/page-56#post-1208932

I could live with that.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

I could live with that.

Exactly. That's been my point the whole time. Why is a tower needed when something of similar density but shorter can be built? How are people being nimby's when they support something of the same density but better? Some people just can't grasp that because all they care about is a tall tower to look at from a distance.

[Tobyoby]

Not to beat a dead horse, but one more comment on this post. Just because a BRT station is going in and technically it's a TOD, doesn't equate it to a TOD of an LRT line. An LRT line/station will see magnitudes more people moving to and fro. A case can be made for taller buildings near an LRT station.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

That's rich coming from someone who's solution is to build the same density with a smaller number of buildings while totally ignoring the fact the developer has to work with the land parcel they have. Do you think they bought that parcel of land with the intention of NOT maximizing their ROI?

The city's policies on TODs seem pretty clear to me.

Transit oriented development (TOD) is a walkable, mixed-use form of area development typically focused within a 600m radius of a primary transit station – a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop. 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.

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

You're the one who shouldn't be debating this. You obviously have an agenda and you've been all over the map the entire day on where you stand. At one point shadowing was a major concern to you and then tonight you claimed it wasn't. You're throwing out every excuse you can think of to make this project look bad and failing miserably because you don't have any facts behind you. You claim you do but when asked to provide evidence you refuse to.

[topdog]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Please stop referring to us as nimbys, but instead as those who simply opppse the project. By calling us NIMBYs, you are appearing to be no better than the actual NIMBYs.

Very good point, and perhaps by this thread went awry in the first place. People can’t just use the term NIMBY to describe anyone who opposes something. Even the most ardent B&Bs will still post projects if they’re not a good project. That’s been the whole issue with this whole debate is that the people who like the tower or simply calling everyone and then be who oppose it. That’s simply not the case.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I'm reading your post trying to figure out what your point is.

First off, you're worried about how tough it might be for the developer to work with a parcel of land. In other words you're okay with letting the developer decide how the neighborhood should progress. That's ridiculous.

Secondly, your posted info about the city's TOD policy shows exactly what X_ting_on had pointed out. That it's only a guideline and is actually quite vague. The only info in there that definitive is the 600m radius they have mentioned.

Unfortunately for me I don't need to figure out the intent of your posts. They always are attack-based and very seldom focus on the facts. Where did I say I was alright with letting the developer decide how the neighborhood should progress? I'm trying to be realistic and it would be helpful if the people against this project were as well.

How is the city's guideline and what they have approved in past TOD cases vague? Higher density to the city in terms of TOD does not mean 6 story buildings next to the station. It's not going to happen. It doesn't matter what I think as I'm not the one making the policies.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I think that's where everyone's getting it wrong though. There's nothing forcing us to build tall buildings. Many people have this mentality that we have no choice but to build tall in order to leverage a BRT station. It would some people some good to go over to a city like London or Paris.

I doubt you'll find too many people in Calgary wanting to turn the city into what London or Paris is.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I've heard that the Inglewood ARP is going to get some review so as to accommodate TOD developments (BRT and Green Line). Once that is done (hopefully with extensive community consultation), we should have an idea of what developers will have to work with.

This is a part of the city that NEEDS to see intensification, whether it be a point tower with podium, or a 5-8 storey midrise built to the site constraints, something is going to happen and the community NEEDS to get on board. Sunnyside fought intensification for years and all it did was waste time for community members, developers, architects and engineers and the city (SDAB meeting can fuck right off!) as the development is happening and is only going to accelerate. I understand that people want to have a say about what happens in their neighbourhood, but being in an area of only SFH right beside downtown is not realistic. People have their opinions on this particular proposal, and it's good that it started a discussion, but development like this is coming whether people like it or not.

I think you pretty well nailed it with your post. It would have been ideal if the ARP had been reviewed and modified before the BRT line started construction but that's the city for you. Why do they even bother with ARPs when it seems projects are constantly approved or disapproved even when they meet/don't meet the guidelines?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

We can all agree intensification is needed. but I have to disagree with the need for tall point towers.

Here's an example of what it could look like (in terms of scale and massing). It could be something of this scale, and developed up against the street like this one.

(It's from SRC, so hopefully nobody takes offence)
https://calgary.skyrisecities.com/forum/...on-discussion.24791/page-56#post-1208932

But you need a lot more than one such project to achieve the density the city wants. I can see such buildings be suitable a few blocks away. Maybe even in the truckstop lot.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Not to beat a dead horse, but one more comment on this post. Just because a BRT station is going in and technically it's a TOD, doesn't equate it to a TOD of an LRT line. An LRT line/station will see magnitudes more people moving to and fro. A case can be made for taller buildings near an LRT station.

The passage I quoted from the city's website specifically mentions BRT in the same line as LRT. My understanding is that the city would eventually like to turn this into a rail line so I can see them wanting to build up the same amount of density as they would for a LRT station.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

But you need a lot more than one such project to achieve the density the city wants. I can see such buildings be suitable a few blocks away. Maybe even in the truckstop lot.

Density Density density....to what end density???? Density's great, but again, only if done properly. There is no need to build a 20 storey tower to get a decent density level.
You can have a lowrise project and a few others around it and get the same effect.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The passage I quoted from the city's website specifically mentions BRT in the same line as LRT. My understanding is that the city would eventually like to turn this into a rail line so I can see them wanting to build up the same amount of density as they would for a LRT station.

Maybe the BRT line will someday be converted into an LRT line, but none of us will live long enough to see it, and as a BRT it'll never be anywhere close to the same busyness as an LRT line.
Like I said earlier, density is fine and we all agree on that, but high rises are not the way to go. Yeah it gets the numbers up, but to what end? Better to have good urban planning and human scaled neighborhoods rather than tall towers everywhere for the sole purpose of achieving a specific density figure.

All you have to do is look at the suburbs. These days they are more dense than previous suburbs from 50 years earlier, but the neighbourhoods are garbage.
Designed around windy roads and cul-de-sacs so as to get more people into a given area. As a result they are far less walkable then those older neighborhoods from 50 years earlier. Yes they are more dense, but they can never be fixed or improved because of their design.

[Tobyoby]

Does this look like a nice urban human scaled area to anyone?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Maybe the BRT line will someday be converted into an LRT line, but none of us will live long enough to see it, and as a BRT it'll never be anywhere close to the same business as an LRT line.
Like I said earlier, density is fine and we all agree on that, but high rises are not the way to go. Yeah it gets the numbers up, but to what end? Better to have good urban planning and human scaled neighborhoods rather than tall towers everywhere for the sole purpose of achieving a specific density figure.

All you have to do is look at the suburbs. These days they are more dense than previous suburbs from 50 years earlier, but the neighbourhoods are garbage.
Designed around windy roads and cul-de-sacs so as to get more people into a given area. As a result they are far less walkable then those older neighborhoods from 50 years earlier. Yes they are more dense, but they can never be fixed or improved because of their design.

As I've said before I'm not the one doing the planning. I'm just stating what the city has made very clear are their plans and policies. Are they ideal? Obviously not given that we don't have any successful TOD yet. At least none that I know of.