Calgary Construction XXVI

[Tobyoby]

Where does it show building heights and density (in specific numbers)? The joke is on you, the developer is simply kicking tires, going for as much height as they can. They'll probably be thrilled with 10 floors.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Where does it show building heights and density (in specific numbers)? The joke is on you, the developer is simply kicking tires, going for as much height as they can. They'll probably be thrilled with 10 floors.

I provided you a link to the Westbrook TOD approved plans and even told you exactly what pages to look at. The TOD plan for a station most definitely indicates the density range for each section of the area covered along with heights. Developers can also apply for bonuses. As I also mentioned these figures are actual bylaws that apply to the station in question. The joke is on you and the CA rep for not doing your homework. Like I said, the developer has very likely already talked to people including Carra. I'd laugh if the city ends up approving landmark buildings of 100 meters like they did for Westbrook. Then you guys we'll be kicking yourself for not accepting a 20 story tower. It doesn't matter what I think or anyone else here for that matter. You need to convince the city. Good luck with that.

[Deepstar]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I provided you a link to the Westbrook TOD approved plans and even told you exactly what pages to look at. The TOD plan for a station most definitely indicates the density range for each section of the area covered along with heights. Developers can also apply for bonuses. As I also mentioned these figures are actual bylaws that apply to the station in question. The joke is on you and the CA rep for not doing your homework. Like I said, the developer has very likely already talked to people including Carra. I'd laugh if the city ends up approving landmark buildings of 100 meters like they did for Westbrook. Then you guys we'll be kicking yourself for not accepting a 20 story tower. It doesn't matter what I think or anyone else here for that matter. You need to convince the city. Good luck with that.

Are you talking about the lnk and page number provided in this post? The city's buzzword loaded, vague, outline of TOD's

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=8059886&postcount=742

I'm all for having some sort of outline for TOD's, but the city hasn't given detailed guidelines only vague generalisations. Which is okay at this stage, but please don't go around quoting a vague guideline document as the reason a 20 storey tower is good for that location.

BTW, there are no heights specified whatsoever in that document.

[Deepstar]

Regarding this whole debate, I'm not vehemently against a high rise tower in that location, but I see where the con group is coming from. My own opinion is that the 20 floors are un-necessary.
The con group have been very clear about what they want. They are okay with density, and only want to see a shorter building. That's all they have said, nothing more. Very simple concept.

The pro group hasn't even really expressed exactly what they want. They're all over the map, and seem to be mainly angry at the Inglewood CA leader (can't recall her name) more than anything. Reading through a dozen pages of debate I still can't figure out what they are hoping to achieve.
Some members keep bringing up a city TOD document which has no reference whatsoever to a 20 storey height, and is one of the most vague documents on the planet.

Questions for the Pro group.
-Do you really feel a 20 storey tower there needs to go there?
-Are you okay with a 10 storey tower with the same number of units?
-Are you okay with a 10 storey tower with half the number of units as the 20 storey tower?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Regarding this whole debate, I'm not vehemently against a high rise tower in that location, but I see where the con group is coming from. My own opinion is that the 20 floors are un-necessary.
The con group have been very clear about what they want. They are okay with density, and only want to see a shorter building. That's all they have said, nothing more. Very simple concept.

The pro group hasn't even really expressed exactly what they want. They're all over the map, and seem to be mainly angry at the Inglewood CA leader (can't recall her name) more than anything. Reading through a dozen pages of debate I still can't figure out what they are hoping to achieve.
Some members keep bringing up a city TOD document which has no reference whatsoever to a 20 storey height, and is one of the most vague documents on the planet.

Questions for the Pro group.
-Do you really feel a 20 storey tower there needs to go there?
-Are you okay with a 10 storey tower with the same number of units?
-Are you okay with a 10 storey tower with half the number of units as the 20 storey tower?

Here are my general thoughts:
- Looking at TODs in larger cities such at Toronto, their height profiles often rival their downtown (yonge/eglinton, yonge/finch). I do not feel our city can handle that from an infrastructure and services perspective, however, do feel that a height profile for TODs that is 50% of downtown height is appropriate.
- Regarding this particular site, given the plans already being developed, and what is forseeable going forward, I think it deserves formal recognition as a TOD
- The area plan should include the brewery area, Inglewood 9th Ave till DT, and International Ave (which is a particularly exciting area, but often off radar for most)

Based on the above, within context of a slightly broader master-plan, I'd be okay with something even pushing 300 feet there. If we keep the most prime lot of a location that really should be officially TOD below say 100 feet / ten floors, I think in the longer term, that would be a huge mistake. A ten or twenty or thirty floor building is not going to be quickly redeveloped, so we'll be stuck with it. As such our thinking needs to be with a fifty year outlook, and not ten (and certainly not limited to what is there now).

Hopefully the above is helpful.

[Bad Grizzly]

Umm, it says right on page 9 what the heights should be. It's not obvious, and there is some math involved, and maybe that's part of the problem. But don't say there aren't figures for this.

Housing----------------------------- Jobs
Santa Clara County CA
25 - 45 upa ------------------------- 1.0 FAR
Puget Sound, WA
10 - 20 upa-------------------------- 50 jobs/acre
Denver, CO
25 - 30 upa-------------------------- 0.75 FAR


Also from the document
Housing forms include townhouse, walk-up apartment and high-rise buildings

Try re-reading the document again.

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Are you talking about the lnk and page number provided in this post? The city's buzzword loaded, vague, outline of TOD's

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=8059886&postcount=742

I'm all for having some sort of outline for TOD's, but the city hasn't given detailed guidelines only vague generalisations. Which is okay at this stage, but please don't go around quoting a vague guideline document as the reason a 20 storey tower is good for that location.

BTW, there are no heights specified whatsoever in that document.

[X_ting_on]

I guess the joke is still in you, Carra hasn’t stated his position, and has said exactly what we have said, density is fine but we don’t like the height.

Here are his exact comments from the original article

Coun. Gian Carlo Carra said he's been mischaracterized as being in favour of the project, but he is ready to have the conversation about the pros and cons of the proposition.
"This is density in an appropriate place, but it’s a very high building," said Carra.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I provided you a link to the Westbrook TOD approved plans and even told you exactly what pages to look at. The TOD plan for a station most definitely indicates the density range for each section of the area covered along with heights. Developers can also apply for bonuses. As I also mentioned these figures are actual bylaws that apply to the station in question. The joke is on you and the CA rep for not doing your homework. Like I said, the developer has very likely already talked to people including Carra. I'd laugh if the city ends up approving landmark buildings of 100 meters like they did for Westbrook. Then you guys we'll be kicking yourself for not accepting a 20 story tower. It doesn't matter what I think or anyone else here for that matter. You need to convince the city. Good luck with that.

[Deepstar]

Fair enough. I disagree, but it is what it is, at least you answered the question and stated your opinion, unlike many of the other comments that seem only anti-nimby and not anything to do with the actual proposal.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Here are my general thoughts:
- Looking at TODs in larger cities such at Toronto, their height profiles often rival their downtown (yonge/eglinton, yonge/finch). I do not feel our city can handle that from an infrastructure and services perspective, however, do feel that a height profile for TODs that is 50% of downtown height is appropriate.
- Regarding this particular site, given the plans already being developed, and what is forseeable going forward, I think it deserves formal recognition as a TOD
- The area plan should include the brewery area, Inglewood 9th Ave till DT, and International Ave (which is a particularly exciting area, but often off radar for most)

Based on the above, within context of a slightly broader master-plan, I'd be okay with something even pushing 300 feet there. If we keep the most prime lot of a location that really should be officially TOD below say 100 feet / ten floors, I think in the longer term, that would be a huge mistake. A ten or twenty or thirty floor building is not going to be quickly redeveloped, so we'll be stuck with it. As such our thinking needs to be with a fifty year outlook, and not ten (and certainly not limited to what is there now).

Hopefully the above is helpful.

[Deepstar]

I don't even know where to start with this post. So you do realise those figures are not numbers laid out by the city right? This is the sentence right above that paragraph. They're examples from other cities, and only examples. Like dude, not even relevant to the debate in any way.
Below are some examples of minimum
densities being used in LRT station areas by other jurisdictions.

Also it says "Housing forms include" not housing forms have to be highrises. it also includes lowrises and townhouses. Did you read the document? You, Shreddog and Corngog should take another look at the document. I think you guys are cherry picking the parts that you like.

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Umm, it says right on page 9 what the heights should be. It's not obvious, and there is some math involved, and maybe that's part of the problem. But don't say there aren't figures for this.

Housing----------------------------- Jobs
Santa Clara County CA
25 - 45 upa ------------------------- 1.0 FAR
Puget Sound, WA
10 - 20 upa-------------------------- 50 jobs/acre
Denver, CO
25 - 30 upa-------------------------- 0.75 FAR


Also from the document
Housing forms include townhouse, walk-up apartment and high-rise buildings

Try re-reading the document again.

[Deepstar]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

I guess the joke is still in you, Carra hasn’t stated his position, and has said exactly what we have said, density is fine but we don’t like the height.

Here are his exact comments from the original article

Carra's a pretty smart guy, he's not going to take position on it until he gets feedback, which will be more negative than positive. There's no reason he'll push for this in order to appease a bunch of suburbanites who will never use the BRT or ever live in the neighborhood, or a developer only looking to make as much money as they can. His focus will be on what's best for the neighborhood, as it should be.

[geotag277]

It is strange how so many self described suburbanites condo hating inner-city-is-a-shit-hole type members on this forum are so over the top gung ho for this project. What gives?

It's almost an indication of just how bad this project really is that people who hate condo living and downtown and inner city are so for this project.

[topdog]

Thanks for pointing those things out, all along these guys have been bringing up this document, and it turns out doesn't even support their argument. That ought to put an end to the debate.

Originally Posted by Deepstar

I don't even know where to start with this post. So you do realise those figures are not numbers laid out by the city right? This is the sentence right above that paragraph. They're examples from other cities, and only examples. Like dude, not even relevant to the debate in any way.
Below are some examples of minimum
densities being used in LRT station areas by other jurisdictions.

Also it says "Housing forms include" not housing forms have to be highrises. it also includes lowrises and townhouses. Did you read the document? You, Shreddog and Corngog should take another look at the document. I think you guys are cherry picking the parts that you like.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by topdog

Thanks for pointing those things out, all along these guys have been bringing up this document, and it turns out doesn't even support their argument. That ought to put an end to the debate.

To be fair it was only one guy who kept bringing up the document..... But yeah, they are all pointing over and over to density intensification of a BRT station as the sole reason to build a high rise.

Was wondering what the pro side was having to say, now that their arguments have been put to rest.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this...

Agreed. Let’s move on.

[Bad Grizzly]

Normally this would be time the time and place for a few f-bombs, but I'll refrain. A big part of the reason there was so much debate was the attitude of certain people starting with the CA association lady, and then being echoed by certain individuals on the forum.

I feel I can speak for others when I say that the reason for wanting the highrise was only to take advantage of a location not being used for anything, a location that was to be next to a future BRT station. It's not difficult to understand the motivation for this. The issue has not been put to rest, as the proposal could still go through whether the nimbys like it or not. This isn't up to one CA member or one councilor or a few nimbys on a forum. This will be up to 15 members of council, and you van bet your paycheck they'll vote in favor of it. The sound of crickets will take place right after the vote.

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

To be fair it was only one guy who kept bringing up the document..... But yeah, they are all pointing over and over to density intensification of a BRT station as the sole reason to build a high rise.

Was wondering what the pro side was having to say, now that their arguments have been put to rest.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Are you talking about the lnk and page number provided in this post? The city's buzzword loaded, vague, outline of TOD's

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=8059886&postcount=742

I'm all for having some sort of outline for TOD's, but the city hasn't given detailed guidelines only vague generalisations. Which is okay at this stage, but please don't go around quoting a vague guideline document as the reason a 20 storey tower is good for that location.

BTW, there are no heights specified whatsoever in that document.

No, as I've stated more than once I'm talking about the Westbrook TOD approved plans so stop playing dumb.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

I guess the joke is still in you, Carra hasn’t stated his position, and has said exactly what we have said, density is fine but we don’t like the height.

Here are his exact comments from the original article

Are you new to politics?

[Bad Grizzly]

I'm one of those people, but it shouldn't be a mystery. I want to see more density in the city, as it's more efficient for the city as whole, and helps out with my tax bill.
That said, I don't want density everywhere in the city, only the places that make sense, and this is one of them. Do I want something like this in my neighborhood? No, but that doesn't make me a nimby. My neighborhood doesn't have an LRT line or BRT line in it, and it's not inner city, where a precedent for high rise towers has already been set.

No reason at all to wonder what gives.

Originally Posted by geotag277

It is strange how so many self described suburbanites condo hating inner-city-is-a-shit-hole type members on this forum are so over the top gung ho for this project. What gives?

It's almost an indication of just how bad this project really is that people who hate condo living and downtown and inner city are so for this project.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Carra's a pretty smart guy, he's not going to take position on it until he gets feedback, which will be more negative than positive. There's no reason he'll push for this in order to appease a bunch of suburbanites who will never use the BRT or ever live in the neighborhood, or a developer only looking to make as much money as they can. His focus will be on what's best for the neighborhood, as it should be.

Who cares what Carra thinks? As I already said earlier this will all come down to a council vote anyhow, and bada boom, a new high rise gets the green light. Shortly after the princess of Inglewood are looking for a vacuum to suck it up.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It is strange how so many self described suburbanites condo hating inner-city-is-a-shit-hole type members on this forum are so over the top gung ho for this project. What gives?

It's almost an indication of just how bad this project really is that people who hate condo living and downtown and inner city are so for this project.

Having to resort to character assassination based on lies IS an indication of how weak your arguments are. The reading comprehension skills of some of the people opposed to this project leave a lot to be desired.