Calgary Construction XXVI

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by shreddog

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.

The cons for me are that we probably shouldn't start densifying an area with 20 story towers. Westgate is not an example of a successful development which benefits the neighbourhood. I think people who are against the Inglewood development would also be against Westgate.

If the city has determined a 20 story tower is an appropriate density vehicle for a neighbourhood, we should have a holistic plan about what that neighbourhood will look like, how it will develop, and so on.

Plopping a 20 story tower with no street retail, poor street interaction, and no plan for the rest of the neighbourhood is a bad recipe.

When someone first comes to Calgary, they might see the potential of other locations in China and Dubai who have successfully planned entire cities. That isn't what is happening in Calgary - we have too many examples of the kind of substandard planning that leads to poor substandard neighbourhoods. West Village and Eau Claire are two examples where more holistic planning would have gone a long way.

[s211]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

whats going on with this brutilist gem?

Owned for several years by bcIMC/Quadreal. I'm sure they're wondering what the heck to do with that site now, given the current uncertain state of Calgary's downtown market.

[X_ting_on]

Yes, yes and yes.

Originally Posted by geotag277

The cons for me are that we probably shouldn't start densifying an area with 20 story towers. Westgate is not an example of a successful development which benefits the neighbourhood. I think people who are against the Inglewood development would also be against Westgate.

If the city has determined a 20 story tower is an appropriate density vehicle for a neighbourhood, we should have a holistic plan about what that neighbourhood will look like, how it will develop, and so on.

Plopping a 20 story tower with no street retail, poor street interaction, and no plan for the rest of the neighbourhood is a bad recipe.

When someone first comes to Calgary, they might see the potential of other locations in China and Dubai who have successfully planned entire cities. That isn't what is happening in Calgary - we have too many examples of the kind of substandard planning that leads to poor substandard neighbourhoods. West Village and Eau Claire are two examples where more holistic planning would have gone a long way.

[X_ting_on]

Well, yeah no kidding. Obviously Calgary will never be exactly like a European city, but at least we can model it after some of the good points.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Well, yeah no kidding. Obviously Calgary will never be exactly like a European city, but at least we can model it after some of the good points.

I honestly don't know why people even bother thinking this way. European cities are nice and quaint with their little trams etc... The streets in European cities are nice, but hello. Those streets and buildings people love so much were built centuries ago using what amounted to slave labour. We are never going to have those kinds of buildings and streets. so let the dream die. and FWIW I couldn't care less. Those cities are great to visit as a tourist, Calgary's a great place to live. Take your pick.

My advice Tingo. concentrate on what people in Calgary want, and how we can make Calgary better.

[Bad Grizzly]

And why is Westgate not a good example? That parcel of land was a dirt parking lot for ages, and now it's a nice complex of a few hundred units, beside an LRT station and a mall. How is that not beneficial to the neighborhood and the city? And by the way you can't master plan every thing. Dubai exploded in population and they have the money to carry out their master plans.... a little detail you may have missed. Shanghai's a cesspool that hasn't been successfully master planned.

Originally Posted by geotag277

The cons for me are that we probably shouldn't start densifying an area with 20 story towers. Westgate is not an example of a successful development which benefits the neighbourhood. I think people who are against the Inglewood development would also be against Westgate.

If the city has determined a 20 story tower is an appropriate density vehicle for a neighbourhood, we should have a holistic plan about what that neighbourhood will look like, how it will develop, and so on.

Plopping a 20 story tower with no street retail, poor street interaction, and no plan for the rest of the neighbourhood is a bad recipe.

When someone first comes to Calgary, they might see the potential of other locations in China and Dubai who have successfully planned entire cities. That isn't what is happening in Calgary - we have too many examples of the kind of substandard planning that leads to poor substandard neighbourhoods. West Village and Eau Claire are two examples where more holistic planning would have gone a long way.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by s211

Owned for several years by bcIMC/Quadreal. I'm sure they're wondering what the heck to do with that site now, given the current uncertain state of Calgary's downtown market.

It''s a god awful building, so what to do with it is an easy decision. Wrecking ball.

[geotag277]

There is an ocean of degrees between master planning an entire city like Shanghai, and plopping a development like Westgate or the Inglewood proposal down in the city and expecting great things.

Density for density's sake is seldom a good decision without a greater vision, and we have many examples of that in Calgary.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by s211

Owned for several years by bcIMC/Quadreal. I'm sure they're wondering what the heck to do with that site now, given the current uncertain state of Calgary's downtown market.

its definatly a weird design for the size of land vs value u would get back
they should look at it as a loss carry forward and fix it up for some sorta museum to canadian architecture

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by geotag277

There is an ocean of degrees between master planning an entire city like Shanghai, and plopping a development like Westgate or the Inglewood proposal down in the city and expecting great things.

Density for density's sake is seldom a good decision without a greater vision, and we have many examples of that in Calgary.

Actually the opposite is true. Most of the cool cities that we are wanting to be modeled after have been building for centuries and never had a master plan, but instead have grown organically. There's nothing wrong with putting a highrise in here and there, and certainly that location is can totally support it.

To create a so called 'greater vision' is a utopian idea that is anything but realistic. Something hipsters can discuss while sipping their Starbucks. It would require time and effort. Lots of time and effort for a vision no two people will ever agree on and thus a vision that would never get completed. The result is a city where nothing gets built waiting for all the intellects to agree on something, and in the end a complete waste of time.

[geotag277]

The Bad Grizzly dichotomy: Either we build poorly thought out 20 story towers everywhere, or you are hopelessly believing in a unrealistic Utopian ideal.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The Bad Grizzly dichotomy: Either we build poorly thought out 20 story towers everywhere, or you are hopelessly believing in a unrealistic Utopian ideal.

He has a point. If Calgary sat around trying to define a master vision nothing would get done. Master visions are the type of thing pipe dreamers love to think of as realistic. Much like communism its great in theory.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Yup.

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Actually the opposite is true. Most of the cool cities that we are wanting to be modeled after have been building for centuries and never had a master plan, but instead have grown organically. There's nothing wrong with putting a highrise in here and there, and certainly that location is can totally support it.

To create a so called 'greater vision' is a utopian idea that is anything but realistic. Something hipsters can discuss while sipping their Starbucks It would require time and effort. Lots of time and effort for a vision no two people will ever agree on and thus a vision that would never get completed. The result is a city where nothing gets built waiting for all the intellects to agree on something, and in the end a complete waste of time.

[Luk_o]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

It''s a god awful building, so what to do with it is an easy decision. Wrecking ball.

Typically I would agree with buildings from this era, but there's something about this one I like, and would like to see it saved with a reno and integration with new development to the west on the block if possible. When the idea of ACAD moving downtown years back was being floated around, I always thought this block would be a good candidate to consider - keeping the CBE building around, gutted and reno'd as a component for classrooms, then taller modern buildings to the west as part of the campus.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

He has a point. If Calgary sat around trying to define a master vision nothing would get done. Master visions are the type of thing pipe dreamers love to think of as realistic. Much like communism its great in theory.

Again, if you are assuming having a vision is the same as never getting anything built, you are fighting a straw man no one is saying. East Village is a good example of a planned community which got build and is decently well designed. West Village is a good example of a lack of planning leading to a relatively poor neighbourhood.

These are two examples right in our city. The "master visions never get built" boogeyman is absurd.

There are two realistic pragmatic existing communities which demonstrate the point right in front of your nose.

[Blader]

Regarding the proposal for a 20-story building in Inglewood on the gas station site. Is the station still there or has it been demolished? Does the site require remediation? If it does, and it's not done soon, is there a likelihood of even more remediation required?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Actually the opposite is true. Most of the cool cities that we are wanting to be modeled after have been building for centuries and never had a master plan, but instead have grown organically. There's nothing wrong with putting a highrise in here and there, and certainly that location is can totally support it.

To create a so called 'greater vision' is a utopian idea that is anything but realistic. Something hipsters can discuss while sipping their Starbucks. It would require time and effort. Lots of time and effort for a vision no two people will ever agree on and thus a vision that would never get completed. The result is a city where nothing gets built waiting for all the intellects to agree on something, and in the end a complete waste of time.

That isn't true at all.

London(Londinium) was a planned roman town 2000 years ago.

Paris was renovated due to Haussmann's master plan 150 years ago, as was Berlin.

Washington DC was designed on a master plan by L'Enfant from 1791.

etc

[craner]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Again, if you are assuming having a vision is the same as never getting anything built, you are fighting a straw man no one is saying. East Village is a good example of a planned community which got build and is decently well designed. West Village is a good example of a lack of planning leading to a relatively poor neighbourhood.

Hasn't the City been working on a master plan for West Village for the last few years ?

[craner]

Originally Posted by Luk_o

Typically I would agree with buildings from this era, but there's something about this one I like, and would like to see it saved with a reno and integration with new development to the west on the block if possible. When the idea of ACAD moving downtown years back was being floated around, I always thought this block would be a good candidate to consider - keeping the CBE building around, gutted and reno'd as a component for classrooms, then taller modern buildings to the west as part of the campus.

Hear hear !
x2

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

London(Londinium) was a planned roman town 2000 years ago.

That's fairly irrelevant though, as almost everything that exists today was unplanned. In fact, London is probably one of the least planned and 'messiest' cities there is, in part due to lack of policy and also fires and being bombed to shit in WW2. The eclectic mess that is London is part of its character.

There is a notable exception in London though - Canary Wharf. Which is a great example of how to build a successful masterplan out of a wasteland.