Calgary Construction XXVI

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Something hipsters can discuss while sipping their Starbucks.

lol, hipsters HATE starbucks!

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by craner

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

Yes they have, it all hinges on getting the creosote cleaned up (which is what has prevented any real development in the area) and getting money to realign Bow Tr and all the utilities there. Something should happen in the next few years. One benefit of CalgaryNext is it got discussions about the cleanup started...

[Tobyoby]

lol, you kill me. I don't even know where you come up with this stuff

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.

[Tobyoby]

Except that Canary Wharf isn't a great example of a master plan. Have you been there? Not trying to be sarcastic, I'm asking, because it's not as great as it looks on postcards. Another reason not to put a highrise in that location. Better to do low rises and have the lowrise eclectic part of London that you rave about.

Originally Posted by milomilo

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.

[Tobyoby]

I find it ironic that one of the things that set you off about this was the comments by the head of the community association.......

Originally Posted by 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.

...........when way back at the start you referred to Inglweood as an industrial wasteland and that Inglewood is stuck in neutral. FYI, Inglewood isn't stuck in neutral. For the last 5 or 6 years there's been a steady stream of new projects, with three different ones currently under construction. It seems like you don't know much about Inglewood, but are prepared to weigh in on something that affects the neighbourhood.

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's quite telling of how a few people in this city have vastly oversized influence and voice in deciding what gets built where. I can only conclude that "LJ Robertson, planning director for the Inglewood Community Association", has never actually seen a phallus, nor set foot in the area which he calls an 'historic neighbourhood', as this medium sized tower is to be built in the middle of what is currently industrial wasteland but well connected to roads and the future SEBRT.

While on the subject, that whole area does need a major reconfiguration. It has all the bones of a good community, but Inglewood/Ramsay seems to be stuck in neutral. There needs to be more intuitive access by road, and the railway needs to be grade separated.

[Suburgatory]

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.

So every time someone says 'we need to plan the city like a European city' you tell them it ain't gonna happen 10,000 times? That must take a while?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Except that Canary Wharf isn't a great example of a master plan. Have you been there? Not trying to be sarcastic, I'm asking, because it's not as great as it looks on postcards. Another reason not to put a highrise in that location. Better to do low rises and have the lowrise eclectic part of London that you rave about.

Yes, I have. For what it's meant to be (a financial centre), it's excellent.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes, I have. For what it's meant to be (a financial centre), it's excellent.

If you like Canary Wharf it’s not surprising you’re in favour of a high rise being built in Inglewoid. I’ve been to Canary Wharf and don’t find it interesting. The only thing cool about it are the canals and the docks, and they were always there. In fact it would be more cool if they just left them alone.

Whatever. It doesn’t matter anyhow. Looking at the more recent posts, everyone except a few die-hards have softened their stance on the 20 storey height. While at the same time none of the people against it have changed their mind at all. I’m not trying to say this is a victory or anything, but I feel vindicated. After a good long debate most people came to their senses. A few people haven’t, and that’s OK they’re not going to, I think that they’re only doing this on purpose just to get a rise out of the con-camp.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

I’m not trying to say this is a victory or anything, but I feel vindicated.

Congrats!!

link







PS. Either you won or everyone got tired of talking to a wall

[X_ting_on]

Or the pro side just couldn’t come up with a decent argument (or any argument really) of why we shouldn’t be against it.

I think I speak for those opposed as saying we were against a 20 floor tower, that’s what this has always been about. Nobody could give a good reason why we shouldn’t, and instead kept on about us being nimbys, and continued on pushing that there is a BRT station nearby as the rational behind having the tower. And that’s it, no real argumentvyo speak of, and that’s why the pro camp went silent.

Originally Posted by shreddog

Congrats!!

link


PS. Either you won or everyone got tired of talking to a wall

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's not a skyscraper, it's 60 metres. It will be a bit out of place, for now, but so what? It negatively impacts nothing.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I really don't. Again, it isn't a skyscraper, but to be honest I do agree it will be out of place - however the developer could well have thrown in a proposal for 20 floors expecting to compromise on a lower number.

No, I don't live there but I am familiar with the area. Is it just the height you are opposed to?

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Or the pro side just couldn’t come up with a decent argument (or any argument really) of why we shouldn’t be against it.

I think I speak for those opposed as saying we were against a 20 floor tower, that’s what this has always been about. Nobody could give a good reason why we shouldn’t, and instead kept on about us being nimbys, and continued on pushing that there is a BRT station nearby as the rational behind having the tower. And that’s it, no real argumentvyo speak of, and that’s why the pro camp went silent.

As you can see from a couple of my early quotes, I never said that this was a perfect proposal and most people agreed a shorter, more thought out proposal would be better for the area. This isn't because a tall building would be bad, per se, just that while there is nothing in the area it would probably be a more effective way to build up the area.

What annoyed me was your complete lack of rationality in regards to height. There is literally nothing about the proposal that would negatively impact anyone that would be different than if the proposal was 6 floors. Nothing. You even admitted that the shadowing would effect no one. Yet when asked what real reason you had to oppose the height, you claimed my question wasn't worth a response. You also accused anyone who showed any support for a taller building as hypocritical as you assumed we wouldn't support a similar building in our own neighbourhoods - but this is not the case.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I find it ironic that one of the things that set you off about this was the comments by the head of the community association.......



...........when way back at the start you referred to Inglweood as an industrial wasteland and that Inglewood is stuck in neutral. FYI, Inglewood isn't stuck in neutral. For the last 5 or 6 years there's been a steady stream of new projects, with three different ones currently under construction. It seems like you don't know much about Inglewood, but are prepared to weigh in on something that affects the neighbourhood.

Inglewood isn't an industrial wasteland, the more central area is very charming - but where this tower is proposed literally is wasteland, that's an objective fact.

You don't have to live there to know that Inglewood is not progressing as fast as other inner city communities, like Sunnyside, Bridgeland, the Beltline or Mission.

[O-tacular]

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.

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.

You could also add the old hospital site in Bridgeland to the list of master planned communities.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Or the pro side just couldn’t come up with a decent argument (or any argument really) of why we shouldn’t be against it.

I think I speak for those opposed as saying we were against a 20 floor tower, that’s what this has always been about. Nobody could give a good reason why we shouldn’t, and instead kept on about us being nimbys, and continued on pushing that there is a BRT station nearby as the rational behind having the tower. And that’s it, no real argumentvyo speak of, and that’s why the pro camp went silent.

Yes just keep telling yourself we all drank the Kool-aid...

[Tobyoby]

He didn't say that shadowing wouldn't affect anyone, he said some people would be affected by some shadowing. Anyway, no use arguing it anymore. Everyone, or at least most people are over their hard-on for a high rise and have already said a lower height would better. Those supporting the tower have been preaching the virtues of density, but they've been preaching to the choir. We all agree on that, and always have. Everyone supporting the tower was equating height to density and have now come to realise that density doesn't have to be a tall tower.

Originally Posted by milomilo

What annoyed me was your complete lack of rationality in regards to height. There is literally nothing about the proposal that would negatively impact anyone that would be different than if the proposal was 6 floors. Nothing. You even admitted that the shadowing would effect no one. Yet when asked what real reason you had to oppose the height, you claimed my question wasn't worth a response. You also accused anyone who showed any support for a taller building as hypocritical as you assumed we wouldn't support a similar building in our own neighbourhoods - but this is not the case.

X_ting-on's post

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

I made a typo, it was supposed to say it would cast s shadow on some residents. Yes I have seen a diagram of what the shadowing would look like.

Shadowing isn’t the be-all and all consideration but height and trying to build tall is even less of a consideration. And no I never said we could never cast a shadow, just that if you don’t need to cast a shadow don’t do it. Did it ever occur to you that you could build two shorter buildings get the same density with much less shadowing, and also without having a large tower looming over your house even if you’re not in the shade? Apparently you’ve never considered that option.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

He didn't say that shadowing wouldn't affect anyone, he said some people would be affected by some shadowing. Anyway, no use arguing it anymore. Everyone, or at least most people are over their hard-on for a high rise and have already said a lower height would better.

Nope. Apparently any shadowing, even if it is only on Blackfoot trail, is bad. So literally any building ever built ever is bad.

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

There is some shadowing, it’s not on residents, but that’s not the point, any shadowing is still shadowing. Also you guys seem to forget that shadowing doesn’t have to be on peoples houses to be a problem, that’s why you are totally missing the point. A tall building will cast a shadow or somewhere no matter what, you just need to get that concept and think about it a bit. Consider the fact that a shorter building ball cast less of a shadow.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes just keep telling yourself we all drank the Kool-aid...

Just came to your senses.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Nope. Apparently any shadowing, even if it is only on Blackfoot trail, is bad. So literally any building ever built ever is bad.

Oh c'mon now, no need to be difficult. Everyone, even you surely agrees that there's no need for an argument here. A low-rise building can be built in that location, that would accomplish the same thing as a 20 storey tower. Yeah, it's less efficient for the developer, but this isn't about what's best for the developer right, it's about what's best for the neighborhood right?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Oh c'mon now, no need to be difficult. Everyone, even you surely agrees that there's no need for an argument here. A low-rise building can be built in that location, that would accomplish the same thing as a 20 storey tower. Yeah, it's less efficient for the developer, but this isn't about what's best for the developer right, it's about what's best for the neighborhood right?

Honestly, I've said a few times that the 'two sides' are actually more closely aligned than is being presented. From the start I think no one really thought a 20 floor tower was going up at that location, but the developer is proposing that so when it gets cut down to 10 (or whatever) everyone can come out winning.

Often the biggest conflicts can come from the smallest differences.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Oh c'mon now, no need to be difficult. Everyone, even you surely agrees that there's no need for an argument here. A low-rise building can be built in that location, that would accomplish the same thing. Yeah, it's less efficient for the developer, but this isn't about what's best for the developer right, it's about what's best for the neighborhood right?

You and the CA rep are delusional. You haven't convinced anyone that a 20 story building is bad for that spot. I've provided you two with documentation that the city's TOD plans do specify density and building heights. Just because you refuse to admit those facts doesn't mean that the guidelines are vague. When the city approves a plan for that site don't be surprised if they allow landmark/signature towers much taller.

Your comment about the developer is ridiculous. The city's TOD policy revolves around what's best for transit. If Brentwood couldn't stop the city when they had much more valid concerns than you two have what makes you think Inglewood would be any different? It sounds like Carra approves of this project and more than likely has been working with the developer behind the scenes. Maybe he's been talking to others in the community as well and as their approval. You two could be outliers. What's best for you guys might not be what's best for the rest of the community. And as Milo so accurately stated, that particular area is a wasteland. Let the developer kickstart the revival of that area and improve your community. It's the right thing to do.