Calgary Construction XXVI

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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.

So true. This is something that's good for the city as a whole and thus the reason the city is pushing this. What gets me is the same people who complain about suburbs not being dense enough and the city needing to control sprawl are the same people who are against this proposal. Like wft?

[Bad Grizzly]

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 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.

What was that you were saying about the suburbs being garbage? There's that condensation coming out again.



Lake Bonavista by Heather Romero, on Flickr

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I've noticed that all the supporters of this tower have (except corndog) have gone quiet. I think those people are finally understanding why this isn't a good idea.

Seriously?? We really need another 5 pages of people debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead??

Let me recap for you:

Pro camp: This is a good place for density (inner city neighbourhood, adjacent to BRT station, expanding on existing increased density developments) but it needs a redesign and better street interaction.

Con camp: Too tall, incongruent design with existing historic neighbourhood, issues with school children, shadowing issues on SFHs 178 metres north of the site (according to fictional report commissioned by whom?), and negative impact on surrounding SFHs.

Ok then – whose ready to change their opinion??

BTW, the thing that confuses me the most about this proposal is actually X-ting_0 position on it. When they joined SSP 8 years ago, they gave the impression that they wanted Calgary to become a city of tall buildings:

X_ting_on Hello everyone. I just lately moved back to Calgary after being away for 23 years. I lived here when I was a child, from 1982-1987. Even though many things still seem the same to me, also many things have changed, and the city is such a bigger city feel than before. I'm enamored with all the new skyscrapers, specially the bow.

It's possible Calgary could look somthing like Shanghai in 20 or so years

X_ting_on Okay so Calgary skyline doesn't look like Shanghai i 30 years, maybe it look like this one.

X_ting_on Perhaps this is Calgary in 2040

This is dubai

But when a proposal comes along leading towards that future vision that happens to be in their neighbourhood, they are vehemently against "a new skyscraper".

[Tobyoby]

Those neighborhoods have nothing to do with the debate. Also those are pics of lakes and not cul-de-sacs.

Anyhow, I'm not against people living in those types of neighborhoods, and not against them being built. I don't like them personally, but if others do, to each their own. But if you like that kind of neighborhood, why do you even care about having a tower in Inglewood? Same for O-tacular, you live in Seton, why do you care about a tower in Inglewood? I love how all those folks from the outer burbs want to have a say in a neighbourhood they don't live in and probably visit once a year to go pick up a Starbucks' and feel urban for an afternoon.

QUOTE=Bad Grizzly;8059296]What was that you were saying about the suburbs being garbage? There's that condensation coming out again.



Lake Bonavista by Heather Romero, on Flickr

[/QUOTE]

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by corndogger

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?

100%

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Pro camp: This is a good place for density (inner city neighbourhood, adjacent to BRT station, expanding on existing increased density developments) but it needs a redesign and better street interaction.

Con camp: Too tall, incongruent design with existing historic neighbourhood, issues with school children, shadowing issues on SFHs 178 metres north of the site (according to fictional report commissioned by whom?), and negative impact on surrounding SFHs.

That's pretty much my opinion

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

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.

I'm all for something in the 10 story range. Maybe we're getting into semantics about shadows here. You can't tell me that a tall tower would destroy the vibrancy of this area as seen in streeview though:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0378125,-...5ihs-3timsMqrcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0366918,-...dMHZyrJLyL5e77w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Those neighborhoods have nothing to do with the debate. Also those are pics of lakes and not cul-de-sacs.

Anyhow, I'm not against people living in those types of neighborhoods, and not against them being built. I don't like them personally, but if others do, to each their own. But if you like that kind of neighborhood, why do you even care about having a tower in Inglewood? Same for O-tacular, you live in Seton, why do you care about a tower in Inglewood? I love how all those folks from the outer burbs want to have a say in a neighbourhood they don't live in and probably visit once a year to go pick up a Starbucks' and feel urban for an afternoon.

Ok, so anyone living outside the inner city isn't allowed a say in how the core develops. Got it.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I'm all for something in the 10 story range. Maybe we're getting into semantics about shadows here. You can't tell me that a tall tower would destroy the vibrancy of this area as seen in streeview though:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0378125,-...5ihs-3timsMqrcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0366918,-...dMHZyrJLyL5e77w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

I think the one thing everyone can absolutely agree on is that area desperately needs something to happen, such a waste currently.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I'm all for something in the 10 story range. Maybe we're getting into semantics about shadows here. You can't tell me that a tall tower would destroy the vibrancy of this area as seen in streeview though:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0378125,-...5ihs-3timsMqrcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0366918,-...dMHZyrJLyL5e77w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

I suspect that concern about the height is partially about this project, and partially a concern that the number of stories above the ARP's 6 that this achieves will be the new standard for all future tower applications.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I suspect that concern about the height is partially about this project, and partially a concern that the number of stories above the ARP's 6 that this achieves will be the new standard for all future tower applications.

I can understand that. I wouldn't want a precedent being set for towers along 9th Avenue. That's why the city would have to restrict it to just this one area including that corner and the truckstop. I wonder if another part of the fear is due to the proposal for the old brewery. That project should absolutely be midrise and not point towers.

[X_ting_on]

I chuckle at how much time people spending digging old posts lol. Anywho it’s fine because you’re actually helping me with my side of things.

Yes, I said those things 10 years ago, back when I was young and foolish. Yes I was enamoured with the skyscrapers of Dubai and Shanghai, but after spending time in other cities I see that tall towers Only for the sake of density is not the way to build cities, so thanks for bringing up those old posts.


In my opinion a city like Dubai is exactly the opposite of how you want to build a good urban livable city. Not all of their issues are related to tall towers, but the way they have tall towers scattered willy nilly alongside empty parking lots throughout the city has done nothing for their urban environment.
Everyone is discussing the BRT station in Inglewood, and the densities needed for the surrounding area and that’s fine, I’m all for that as well. I’m also for building up densities around the train station, I think everybody here is all for that particular concept.
In Dubai they have tall towers around all of their metro stations there but again it has not really done anything for the urban environment. It’s simply told hours for the sake of density around a train station but the neighbourhoods around those train stations are not great.

I don’t know what cities in the world some of you have been to, but I get the feeling some of you have never travelled outside of Canada or if you have you haven’t been to places like Shanghai or Dubai and had the chance compared them to European cities like Paris or Frankfurt or London. Or a city like Buenos Aires. A few tall towers here and there, but a city made up mostly of low rise buildings and a surprising amount of single family homes.

Originally Posted by shreddog

Seriously?? We really need another 5 pages of people debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead??

Let me recap for you:

Pro camp: This is a good place for density (inner city neighbourhood, adjacent to BRT station, expanding on existing increased density developments) but it needs a redesign and better street interaction.

Con camp: Too tall, incongruent design with existing historic neighbourhood, issues with school children, shadowing issues on SFHs 178 metres north of the site (according to fictional report commissioned by whom?), and negative impact on surrounding SFHs.

Ok then – whose ready to change their opinion??

BTW, the thing that confuses me the most about this proposal is actually X-ting_0 position on it. When they joined SSP 8 years ago, they gave the impression that they wanted Calgary to become a city of tall buildings:




But when a proposal comes along leading towards that future vision that happens to be in their neighbourhood, they are vehemently against "a new skyscraper".

[ST1]

Let me recap for you.

Pro Camp - 100% certain they know what's best and everyone else is a nimby, and like to say the same things over and over again.

Con Camp - 100% certain they know what's best and everyone else isn't well traveled enough, and like to say the same things over and over again

That's a more accurate recap.

Originally Posted by shreddog

Seriously?? We really need another 5 pages of people debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead??

Let me recap for you:

Pro camp: This is a good place for density (inner city neighbourhood, adjacent to BRT station, expanding on existing increased density developments) but it needs a redesign and better street interaction.

Con camp: Too tall, incongruent design with existing historic neighbourhood, issues with school children, shadowing issues on SFHs 178 metres north of the site (according to fictional report commissioned by whom?), and negative impact on surrounding SFHs.

Ok then – whose ready to change their opinion??

[suburbia]

New Horizon Mall set for Summer opening:
http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-...al-mega-mall-on-track-for-summer-opening

• 320,000 sq.-ft.
• units for between $190,000 to $750,000 (ranging in size from 285 sq.-ft. to 855 sq.-ft.)
• modern food court with 26 restaurants and room for 300 diners
• main stage that will feature multi-cultural entertainment
• underground parking
• 500 shops will make it the second largest in Canada (IE measured by # of shops)
• 1,400 jobs
• has already sold 98 per cent of its 500 retail units
• original plan was for additional floors and half the footprint, but plan changed due to shadowing concerns from Airdrie residents

[X_ting_on]

Sounds about right for the pro camp side

Originally Posted by ST1

Let me recap for you.

Pro Camp - 100% certain they know what's best and everyone else is a nimby, and like to say the same things over and over again.

Con Camp - 100% certain they know what's best and everyone else isn't well traveled enough, and like to say the same things over and over again

That's a more accurate recap.

[Chinook Arch]

Originally Posted by ST1

Let me recap for you.

Pro Camp - 100% certain they know what's best and everyone else is a nimby, and like to say the same things over and over again.

Con Camp - 100% certain they know what's best and everyone else isn't well traveled enough, and like to say the same things over and over again

That's a more accurate recap.

Plenty of people saying the same thing over and over, but after reading all the arguments for and against it, I would say the pro camp hasn’t made an argument. They haven’t given a good reason why a 20 floor building is the right choice.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

Plenty of people saying the same thing over and over, but after reading all the arguments for and against it, I would say the pro camp hasn’t made an argument. They haven’t given a good reason why a 20 floor building is the right choice.

No one said it needs to be a 20 story tower. The argument was simply that if there is an appropriate area in Inglewood to do it then that is the best spot.

[milomilo]

I think this is one issue where the two sides are almost agreed but are arguing anyway (I'm as guilty as anyone). I think all of us agree that the tower will be a bit out of place and is too tall, and a shorter, more fleshed out proposal (or set of proposals) would be better.

Personally, what set me off here was entirely the stupid opinion held by the local CA rep. With opinions like hers, she needs to be immediately booted as she clearly does not base her decisions in anything rational. It highly irritated me because it was typical of the sort of people who are responsible for much of what gets built in the city - busybodies with nothing better to do that let their opinions and (small c) conservative nature get in the way of progress.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

Plenty of people saying the same thing over and over, but after reading all the arguments for and against it, I would say the pro camp hasn’t made an argument. They haven’t given a good reason why a 20 floor building is the right choice.

Agreed. There have been people including myself saying the same thing over and over, but I do agree about the pro-camp not making an argument for why a high rise is necessary or even good for the area.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

No one said it needs to be a 20 story tower. The argument was simply that if there is an appropriate area in Inglewood to do it then that is the best spot.

Nobody specifically said it had to be 20 floors, but that was the proposed number and the pro-camp started out saying that the proposal was okay, or good for Inglewood. Some people seemed to have softened their stance as the debate went on.