Calgary Construction XXVI

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Went to the CMLC open house today. Nothing really worth taking photos of. The information was very basic. There is an ability for people to review the plan online and provide feedback. Of note, an underpass is proposed for 5th St SE under the CP tracks. One thing I did find disappointing is that there's no plan for cycle tracks on 4th St SE/Stampede Trail or the extension of 17th Ave into the Stampede Grounds.

Link to the engagement survey:
https://engage.calgary.ca/beltlinearp

Could you clarify the part bolded? The map shows what appears to be 17th extending over the tracks.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by ST1

Much ado about nothing

I'm curious if there was also a description of each 'section' which would be quite useful even if just high level.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

________________________

FFS, does she expect to have input from Day 1?

The thing is, being that demolitions have already occurred we're actually in day 173.

And just because a building was built in 1907 doesn't make it significant.

Correct, the significance is specified in its heritage inventory entry, which is developed by paid professional researchers to evaluate sites, then if it is confirmed they have heritage value then it is recommended for inclusion to council. The age of a building is pretty much never the sole reason for significance.

Here's the link:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Herit...Calgary-resources.aspx?dhcResourceId=160

What gives the Calgary Heritage Initiative the right to dictate what's torn down and built in this city?

Define 'dictate', it sounds like an opinion to me.

Who is this group anyway?

A provincially registered non-profit society.

Doesn't the city already have a heritage division.

It does. This is an over simplification, but when historic sites are threatened the heritage planning dept can ask the owner to reconsider, and if the owner says no then heritage planning has to pretty much say 'well carry on then', they cannot advocate, not publicly anyway.

These busybody groups need to be legislated out of existence.

I believe the only way to do that legislatively would be to remove the Freedom of Expression clause from the constitution.
I'm not sure of another way to create laws to block opinions you disagree with.

Hope I've answered your questions.

[ggopher]

Here is a really interesting map showing the current and future greenfield developments.

NOTE: This map is provided for information only. It is not designed to reignite the Urban vs Suburban debate. Please use responsibly.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=42859

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm curious if there was also a description of each 'section' which would be quite useful even if just high level.

Nevermind, here it is:

http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/Dir...RP%2fCMLC_Brochure.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Typical Calgary. Someone tries to do something positive but before they even start SIGs jump in to complain.

Those purchased buildings make up nearly one-third of the estimated 150 buildings on that stretch, several of which may be unique, heritage buildings, according to the Calgary Heritage Initiative.

One such building, a 1907 Dutch Colonial Revival called Jalland Block, has been demolished, spokesperson Karen Paul said.

The initiative posted about the plans on its Facebook page, and followers reacted, worrying about a "cold sterile environment" with "square glass buildings."

"It is alarming that several projects like this could be unfolding without full public transparency," Paul said. "In the absence of disclosure, conjecture abounds. Some hard questions need to be asked."
________________________

FFS, does she expect to have input from Day 1? And just because a building was built in 1907 doesn't make it significant. What gives the Calgary Heritage Initiative the right to dictate what's torn down and built in this city? Who is this group anyway? Doesn't the city already have a heritage division. These busybody groups need to be legislated out of existence.

Your mentality is the reason Calgary has so little historic building stock remaining. A master planned 17th Ave. sounds like it could result in sterile, similar looking buildings stamped out repetitively and creating a less interesting and dynamic streetscape. Some of their properties would be nice to redevelop. Others such as the Analog coffee shop in the old corner store are actually quite vibrant and doing well right now, to say nothing of the character they add to the area. If they wanted to truly change 17th for the better why not buy that shitty old H&R block building or the liquor depot or the countless suburban style fast food restaurants on the west side near 14th st?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Your mentality is the reason Calgary has so little historic building stock remaining. A master planned 17th Ave. sounds like it could result in sterile, similar looking buildings stamped out repetitively and creating a less interesting and dynamic streetscape. Some of their properties would be nice to redevelop. Others such as the Analog coffee shop in the old corner store are actually quite vibrant and doing well right now, to say nothing of the character they add to the area. If they wanted to truly change 17th for the better why not buy that shitty old H&R block building or the liquor depot or the countless suburban style fast food restaurants on the west side near 14th st?

Old doesn't mean historic. Do you not understand that? If a building is truly historic then we should preserve it.

You'd have to ask them why they didn't buy certain properties. Not for sale? Not part of their plans? This is going to take a long time to develop so people will have lots of chances to provide input. I'm surprised you think it's going to be sterile when the developer says they want to build something that's dynamic to attract a ton of people to live and shop there. Couldn't be any worse than what's there now as far as I'm concerned.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Old doesn't mean historic. Do you not understand that? If a building is truly historic then we should preserve it.

You'd have to ask them why they didn't buy certain properties. Not for sale? Not part of their plans? This is going to take a long time to develop so people will have lots of chances to provide input. I'm surprised you think it's going to be sterile when the developer says they want to build something that's dynamic to attract a ton of people to live and shop there. Couldn't be any worse than what's there now as far as I'm concerned.

I think really the main complaint, or maybe concern is a better word, is due to having purchased approximately 1/4 of 17th avenue, they are potentially planning a development of the size that municipal governments would typically do without the sort of community engagement that they would provide. As you mentioned one shouldn't expect that sort of engagement on day 1, but since they have already started the work it gives the impression that it won't be forthcoming. That's my take anyway.

[milomilo]

Can anyone honestly say that more than, say, 5% of the buildings on 17th are worth saving? Not that I necessarily think a developer redeveloping that many buildings is a good (or bad) thing, but there is literally nothing special about 17th - so right now redeveloping any building is probably going to be an improvement.

Yes, Calgary has done a poor job of preserving buildings in the past and what we might think isn't worth saving now could be viewed differently in the future. But when you're talking about some old rotten wooden shacks and similar contemporary dross, I think it's quite simple to decide what is and isn't worth saving, and most of what is on 17th (and most older buildings in Calgary generally) simply isn't.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Can anyone honestly say that more than, say, 5% of the buildings on 17th are worth saving? Not that I necessarily think a developer redeveloping that many buildings is a good (or bad) thing, but there is literally nothing special about 17th - so right now redeveloping any building is probably going to be an improvement.

Yes, Calgary has done a poor job of preserving buildings in the past and what we might think isn't worth saving now could be viewed differently in the future. But when you're talking about some old rotten wooden shacks and similar contemporary dross, I think it's quite simple to decide what is and isn't worth saving, and most of what is on 17th (and most older buildings in Calgary generally) simply isn't.

There are only a select few buildings such as Model Milk, the Devenish block, the old bank on 14th and some others like the old corner store Analog is in that I think have historic value. However, the ecclectic mix of buildings is what I fear will be lost and replaced with monolithic block long developments with storefronts that are distinguished by nothing more than a sign. Worse yet would be the faux mixed facade design with a bank occupying every bay like the HSBC in Kensington. I don’t know what the solution is, as I do believe we need increased density, but I worry that one single developer owning that much stock generally won’t have a good outcome.

Edit: I really hope that they at least bought one of the competing funeral homes by the X92.9 building.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Could you clarify the part bolded? The map shows what appears to be 17th extending over the tracks.

Correct. CMLC will be extending 17th Ave east over the LRT tracks and linking it up with 4th St SE/Stampede Trial. Once the Saddledome is demolished the plan also calls for 5th St SE to be extended south through the Stampede grounds and 17th Ave to be extended a second time to link up with 5th St SE as well.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

There are only a select few buildings such as Model Milk, the Devenish block, the old bank on 14th and some others like the old corner store Analog is in that I think have historic value. However, the ecclectic mix of buildings is what I fear will be lost and replaced with monolithic block long developments with storefronts that are distinguished by nothing more than a sign. Worse yet would be the faux mixed facade design with a bank occupying every bay like the HSBC in Kensington. I don’t know what the solution is, as I do believe we need increased density, but I worry that one single developer owning that much stock generally won’t have a good outcome.

Edit: I really hope that they at least bought one of the competing funeral homes by the X92.9 building.

Agreed. Hopefully the buildings you mentioned and anything else worth saving isn't included in the developers inventory. There's plenty of forgettable stuff on 17th to be able to redevelop for years to come without touching the nicer stuff.

Heritage protection can go too far, IMO. In the UK, there is very strong heritage protection with hundreds of thousands of listed buildings, and any time a railway station has to be upgraded it adds massively to the cost so you can preserve some minor architectural feature. However in Calgary, it seems that heritage protection is basically voluntary by the owner (correct me if I'm wrong) - which seems too far in the opposite direction.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Agreed. Hopefully the buildings you mentioned and anything else worth saving isn't included in the developers inventory. There's plenty of forgettable stuff on 17th to be able to redevelop for years to come without touching the nicer stuff.

Heritage protection can go too far, IMO. In the UK, there is very strong heritage protection with hundreds of thousands of listed buildings, and any time a railway station has to be upgraded it adds massively to the cost so you can preserve some minor architectural feature. However in Calgary, it seems that heritage protection is basically voluntary by the owner (correct me if I'm wrong) - which seems too far in the opposite direction.

Correct, Calgary/Alberta essentially has the weakest heritage protection legislation in North America. Edmonton is in the same boat, but their council is much much more pro-heritage than Calgary's. I should clarify that the Province actually does have decent tools, they just have only had the political will to use them maybe 3 times in 40 years.

That plus, at least until recently, due to much blanket up-zoning even an owner who wanted to protect their site would see the maybe $50k incentive that protection would give them and then look at the multi-million dollar profit that reselling their 2 story historic home so it could be redeveloped into an 8 story condo and go for the cash. Up-zoning without any care or attention for historic resources in the area creates a situation where the city is offering owners of resources financial incentive to demolish while heritage planning offers maybe 1/10th that amount to retain.

As for 17th Ave, with those marquee sites that have been mentioned (Model Milk, Devenish, etc) since there's no info about Arlington's plans it would be nice to know if there is a threat to those before they're surrounded by construction fencing one morning.

But also I think if 1/4 of a city's main 'high street' is owned by a single developer it would be nice to know about what the plans are. It's weird to me that people on a this site seem to be against that kind of transparency. That said I agree there are plenty of forgettable buildings.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Correct, Calgary/Alberta essentially has the weakest heritage protection legislation in North America. Edmonton is in the same boat, but their council is much much more pro-heritage than Calgary's. I should clarify that the Province actually does have decent tools, they just have only had the political will to use them maybe 3 times in 40 years.

That plus, at least until recently, due to much blanket up-zoning even an owner who wanted to protect their site would see the maybe $50k incentive that protection would give them and then look at the multi-million dollar profit that reselling their 2 story historic home so it could be redeveloped into an 8 story condo and go for the cash. Up-zoning without any care or attention for historic resources in the area creates a situation where the city is offering owners of resources financial incentive to demolish while heritage planning offers maybe 1/10th that amount to retain.

As for 17th Ave, with those marquee sites that have been mentioned (Model Milk, Devenish, etc) since there's no info about Arlington's plans it would be nice to know if there is a threat to those before they're surrounded by construction fencing one morning.

But also I think if 1/4 of a city's main 'high street' is owned by a single developer it would be nice to know about what the plans are. It's weird to me that people on a this site seem to be against that kind of transparency. That said I agree there are plenty of forgettable buildings.

It’s still too much! SIG’s are out of control! Benevolent capitalists are being restrained! Regulations! Red tape!

[People.talking]

Looks like M2 in the East Village has begun construction.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/commer...er?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by People.talking

Looks like M2 in the East Village has begun construction.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/commer...er?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Nice! I knew Kate back in the day, very curious to see how this turns out.

[O-tacular]

Nice to see more retail going up in EV.

[DizzyEdge]

Updates on the new YWCA building in Inglewood



model

my pics

[Bad Grizzly]

Exactly. That's 100% the problem. You're a businessman, you put out your own money to try and improve something and you get these leftwing libtard types who whine about it. They should try putting there money where their mouth is, have them risk their own money and do it their way.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Typical Calgary. Someone tries to do something positive but before they even start SIGs jump in to complain.

Those purchased buildings make up nearly one-third of the estimated 150 buildings on that stretch, several of which may be unique, heritage buildings, according to the Calgary Heritage Initiative.

One such building, a 1907 Dutch Colonial Revival called Jalland Block, has been demolished, spokesperson Karen Paul said.

The initiative posted about the plans on its Facebook page, and followers reacted, worrying about a "cold sterile environment" with "square glass buildings."

"It is alarming that several projects like this could be unfolding without full public transparency," Paul said. "In the absence of disclosure, conjecture abounds. Some hard questions need to be asked."
________________________

FFS, does she expect to have input from Day 1? And just because a building was built in 1907 doesn't make it significant. What gives the Calgary Heritage Initiative the right to dictate what's torn down and built in this city? Who is this group anyway? Doesn't the city already have a heritage division. These busybody groups need to be legislated out of existence.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

It’s still too much! SIG’s are out of control! Benevolent capitalists are being restrained! Regulations! Red tape!

Nice to see you're getting with the program.