Calgary Construction XXVI

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

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.

In the TOD Best Practices Handbook there's this blurb on p. 9.

Promote density
Development densities are “as great as possible” within the context of
a particular station and surrounding community. Minimum residential
densities around rail stations are high enough to support higher frequency
transit service and to foster lively, walkable communities. Housing forms
include townhouse, walk-up apartment and high-rise buildings. Minimum
employment densities are established in station areas to create a destination
which generates transit trips. Below are some examples of minimum
densities being used in LRT station areas by other jurisdictions.

Source: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/transit-oriented-development/tod-handbook.pdf

I think it's safe to assume that the city wants as many people as possible close to the station so they can provide high frequency service. The location of that area doesn't allow for density build up in a 600 meter radius as far as I can tell so I can see the city wanting towers. Is it the right context for the community? That's a subjective question. If done "right" I don't think it would be a problem. If you have no faith in the city planning this properly then I would worry. If I lived in the area the height wouldn't be a concern to me. It would be the types of retail and businesses the city envisions for the TOD area and if the existing infrastructure can handle an influx of new people.

[1ajs]

whats going on with this brutilist gem?

[craner]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

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.

Conversely the con-camp has not made an argument why a 20 storey tower shouldn't go in that location (although it will cast a shadow on Blackfoot Trail)

[X_ting_on]

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.

Maybe not exactly that but some people said that there was no difference with shadowing if it was a high rise or a low rise.

[craner]

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.

That about sums up my position.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by craner

Conversely the con-camp has not made an argument why a 20 storey tower shouldn't go in that location (although it will cast a shadow on Blackfoot Trail)

Although it will cast a shadow in multiple directions including on some of the residential nearby. It’s not that people can’t handle a shadow, it’s more that it can be avoided. That’s the argument.

[X_ting_on]

Why are you posting this again? It doesn’t say what the densities are supposed to be. It says “as great as possible within the context of a particular station and surrounding community” in other words it’s open to interpretation, remember back when discussion was about the TOD guidelines being vague. Well, there you have it.

And by the way, this isn’t the city pushing the high rise density, this is the developer, and for obvious reasons. It’s what’s best for them.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

In the TOD Best Practices Handbook there's this blurb on p. 9.

Promote density
Development densities are “as great as possible” within the context of
a particular station and surrounding community. Minimum residential
densities around rail stations are high enough to support higher frequency
transit service and to foster lively, walkable communities. Housing forms
include townhouse, walk-up apartment and high-rise buildings. Minimum
employment densities are established in station areas to create a destination
which generates transit trips. Below are some examples of minimum
densities being used in LRT station areas by other jurisdictions.

Source: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/transit-oriented-development/tod-handbook.pdf

I think it's safe to assume that the city wants as many people as possible close to the station so they can provide high frequency service. The location of that area doesn't allow for density build up in a 600 meter radius as far as I can tell so I can see the city wanting towers. Is it the right context for the community? That's a subjective question. If done "right" I don't think it would be a problem. If you have no faith in the city planning this properly then I would worry. If I lived in the area the height wouldn't be a concern to me. It would be the types of retail and businesses the city envisions for the TOD area and if the existing infrastructure can handle an influx of new people.

[jc_yyc_ca]

I've been reading all the posts regarding this apartment proposal in Inglewood and it seems to me the people against it are being selfish. Others have had to put up with towers built in Brentwood and Westbrooke, and a few other places, but Inglewood wants to be different.

Well newsflash. Suck it up princesses! As for the lady from the community association, she could always move to Banff, there won't be any highrises getting built there.

[craner]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

whats going on with this brutilist gem?

AFAIK it's just fenced off for safety reasons - not for any pending renovation/construction unfortunately.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by craner

AFAIK it's just fenced off for safety reasons - not for any pending renovation/construction unfortunately.

i figured that as it was fenced off last time i came through town what a crying shame such a gem of that style

[craner]

I agree, would be a shame to lose it.
I hope they can find a use for it while adding a tower or two on the site.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Why are you posting this again? It doesn’t say what the densities are supposed to be. It says “as great as possible within the context of a particular station and surrounding community” in other words it’s open to interpretation, remember back when discussion was about the TOD guidelines being vague. Well, there you have it.

And by the way, this isn’t the city pushing the high rise density, this is the developer, and for obvious reasons. It’s what’s best for them.

Different info. Being combative and ignoring information isn't doing much for your case. The TOD Best Practices document might not have been written by the City of Calgary but it's what they're following. They want high density close to the stations. I'm sure that you see that but you're ignoring it on purpose to try and get what you want. If you don't want a tower you're going about it the wrong way. And of course the developer wants density. I already stated that.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I've been reading all the posts regarding this apartment proposal in Inglewood and it seems to me the people against it are being selfish. Others have had to put up with towers built in Brentwood and Westbrooke, and a few other places, but Inglewood wants to be different.

Well newsflash. Suck it up princesses! As for the lady from the community association, she could always move to Banff, there won't be any highrises getting built there.

I'm looking at the Westbrook area plan on the city's website and see that density ranges are given for the different parcels of land via a bylaw which proves my point that it's the city setting the density rules. They also list building heights for the different areas. For landmark buildings the height is 100 meters which is a lot taller than a 20 story building. If she's so against how the city is doing TOD she should have fought the BRT line going through her area. If she had won that battle she wouldn't have to deal with any of this and been a happy camper.

Source: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/arp-asp/arp/westbrook-village-arp.pdf (look at pp. 33-34 for the references I made)

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I've been reading all the posts regarding this apartment proposal in Inglewood and it seems to me the people against it are being selfish. Others have had to put up with towers built in Brentwood and Westbrooke, and a few other places, but Inglewood wants to be different.

Well newsflash. Suck it up princesses! As for the lady from the community association, she could always move to Banff, there won't be any highrises getting built there.

I'm a poster from Edmonton and that site doesn't look hot for a 20-story building there. People keep saying that it will be serviced by the BRT station but. . . on a cul de sac in one of the most isolated corners?

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I'm a poster from Edmonton and that site doesn't look hot for a 20-story building there. People keep saying that it will be serviced by the BRT station but. . . on a cul de sac in one of the most isolated corners?

That's exactly it. All along each person who's against the tower has said they're okay with extra density in the neighborhood, but not a 20 storey tower. That it's the wrong way to do density IMO.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Different info. Being combative and ignoring information isn't doing much for your case. The TOD Best Practices document might not have been written by the City of Calgary but it's what they're following. They want high density close to the stations. I'm sure that you see that but you're ignoring it on purpose to try and get what you want. If you don't want a tower you're going about it the wrong way. And of course the developer wants density. I already stated that.

It's well established that the city wants density near LRT and BRT stations. That's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't equate to a 20 storey tower poorly connected to its surroundings. For one thing the city is still trying to develop TOD and is new to this, and don't have experience at this yet. There's no doubt they'll discover mistakes along the way, and things will change. Secondly, even the TOD guidelines they have now are vague. Nothing you posted from the city says anything about having to build highrises, and it doesn't address each station independently. As I've already said many times, these are only vague guidelines, so don't take it as carte blanche to build highrises under the guise of being near a station.

The whole impetus behind this debate is the pro-camp's view that in order to get density (density yet to be defined) there has to be high rises, and that's no true.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I've been reading all the posts regarding this apartment proposal in Inglewood and it seems to me the people against it are being selfish. Others have had to put up with towers built in Brentwood and Westbrooke, and a few other places, but Inglewood wants to be different.

Well newsflash. Suck it up princesses! As for the lady from the community association, she could always move to Banff, there won't be any highrises getting built there.

Okay, this isn't much of a help. 'suck it up princesses'?? What about every other neighborhood that doesn't have a highrise. Should they be required to suck it up and have one too?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I'm a poster from Edmonton and that site doesn't look hot for a 20-story building there. People keep saying that it will be serviced by the BRT station but. . . on a cul de sac in one of the most isolated corners?

It's not in a cul de sac. It's right beside Blackfoot / 17th Ave.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Okay, this isn't much of a help. 'suck it up princesses'?? What about every other neighborhood that doesn't have a highrise. Should they be required to suck it up and have one too?

Nobody wants to see a highrise in every neighborhood, it's pointless to do that. Every city i can think around the world has highrises in certain areas, and low rise, SFH's in other areas. It would be stupid to mix the two in every neighborhood. Most people prefer the SFH neighborhood, and some people like to have a mix. The guys who like the mix, live in inner city neighborhoods. I would bet anything that most people in Inglewood would like the highrise, and that the community association lady doesn't represent the people of the neighborhood. She's probably one of those weeds and seeds hippies who think the word 'developer' is a 4 letter word.

[Bad Grizzly]

If only I had a dollar for every time someone said we need to plan the city like a European city, I'd be a millionaire. and if I had a dime for every time I had to tell them it ain't gonna happen, and doesn't need to happen, I'd be a billionaire.

Originally Posted by 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.