Calgary Construction XXVI

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

I’m not talking about this latest debate. You’re reputation proceeds you.

Neither was I.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Agreed on the awkwardness and the better street integration. Nobody that I know is opposing it simply to avoid shadows. The issue is more about better design and whether the tower needs to be that tall. Most of the people here can’t seem to grasp that - not singling out you but a few others who are clueless on that concept.
What I would say to those people is try strolling around Mississauga some time. That’s the kind of place they’ll be creating with that attitude.

Constantly insulting people is not going to help your cause. Some of us are trying to tell you that this is what the city wants. Their policies on TOD are clear and so has what they've approved in other areas with TOD. Towers get built near these stations to maximize density as much as possible. When the city was planning the BRT route and the location of the stations did your community association ask them about the plans for TOD at that station? You can say all you want that some of us are clueless on the concept of height but what we want doesn't matter. It's what the city wants. A cluster of 20+ story buildings is very likely what they want.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Constantly insulting people is not going to help your cause. Some of us are trying to tell you that this is what the city wants. Their policies on TOD are clear and so has what they've approved in other areas with TOD. Towers get built near these stations to maximize density as much as possible. When the city was planning the BRT route and the location of the stations did your community association ask them about the plans for TOD at that station? You can say all you want that some of us are clueless on the concept of height but what we want doesn't matter. It's what the city wants. A cluster of 20+ story buildings is very likely what they want.

Maximizing density near the BRT Station is fine, but it needs to be done properly, not some half baked plan of erecting a cluster of high rises.
And for your information the city’s policies on TODs are only somewhat clear, snd are only general guidelines. By the way there is no laid out plan for TOD around this particular area, only the location of a BRT station.

I’m sorry if you’re feeling insulted, but you shouldn’t be discussing something you don’t know anything about. I’ve been debating with O-tacular, and might not agree with him but at least he understands this stuff.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Maximizing density near the BRT Station is fine, but it needs to be done properly, not some half baked plan of erecting a cluster of high rises.
And for your information the city’s policies on TODs are only somewhat clear, snd are only general guidelines. By the way there is no laid out plan for TOD around this particular area, only the location of a BRT station.

I’m sorry if you’re feeling insulted, but you shouldn’t be discussing something you don’t know anything about. I’ve been debating with O-tacular, and might not agree with him but at least he understands this stuff.

That's rich coming from someone who's solution is to build the same density with a smaller number of buildings while totally ignoring the fact the developer has to work with the land parcel they have. Do you think they bought that parcel of land with the intention of NOT maximizing their ROI?

The city's policies on TODs seem pretty clear to me.

Transit oriented development (TOD) is a walkable, mixed-use form of area development typically focused within a 600m radius of a primary transit station – a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop. Higher density development is concentrated near the station to make transit convenient for more people and encourage ridership. This form of development uses existing infrastructure, optimizes use of the transit network and creates mobility options for transit riders and the local community. A successful TOD provides a mix of land uses and densities that create a convenient, interesting and vibrant community for local residents and visitors alike.

Source: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Curre...es/Transit-Oriented-Development-TOD.aspx

You're the one who shouldn't be debating this. You obviously have an agenda and you've been all over the map the entire day on where you stand. At one point shadowing was a major concern to you and then tonight you claimed it wasn't. You're throwing out every excuse you can think of to make this project look bad and failing miserably because you don't have any facts behind you. You claim you do but when asked to provide evidence you refuse to.

[topdog]

Your post actually backs up what xtingon says. The guidelines for TOD are very generic in what you posted they don’t say anything about the height of buildings or the density or how far they should be space to park on the street treatment or anything really. I don’t even know why you posted this it only supports his argument.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

That's rich coming from someone who's solution is to build the same density with a smaller number of buildings while totally ignoring the fact the developer has to work with the land parcel they have. Do you think they bought that parcel of land with the intention of NOT maximizing their ROI?

The city's policies on TODs seem pretty clear to me.

Transit oriented development (TOD) is a walkable, mixed-use form of area development typically focused within a 600m radius of a primary transit station – a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop. Higher density development is concentrated near the station to make transit convenient for more people and encourage ridership. This form of development uses existing infrastructure, optimizes use of the transit network and creates mobility options for transit riders and the local community. A successful TOD provides a mix of land uses and densities that create a convenient, interesting and vibrant community for local residents and visitors alike.

Source: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Curre...es/Transit-Oriented-Development-TOD.aspx

You're the one who shouldn't be debating this. You obviously have an agenda and you've been all over the map the entire day on where you stand. At one point shadowing was a major concern to you and then tonight you claimed it wasn't. You're throwing out every excuse you can think of to make this project look bad and failing miserably because you don't have any facts behind you. You claim you do but when asked to provide evidence you refuse to.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Imagine if in 1943 the Eau Claire CA was successful in preventing "high rises".

Cities grow and desirable neighbourhoods densify, escalate in cost, or both. If someone doesn't like who their inner city neighbourhood changes, perhaps they should move and cash out.

PS. I don't mean to come across as an ass here, but living in a growing city likely means new high rises where there were none before.

I get your point but I'm not sure if that's a good example, the disruption of Eau Claire as a neighbourhood led to about 40 years of it being parking lots and random light industrial.

[DizzyEdge]

Is there any kind of 'master plan' done by the city for this large central area? I think there should be if there isn't, it's pretty large for ad hoc proposals.

[Tobyoby]

I'm reading your post trying to figure out what your point is.

First off, you're worried about how tough it might be for the developer to work with a parcel of land. In other words you're okay with letting the developer decide how the neighborhood should progress. That's ridiculous.

Secondly, your posted info about the city's TOD policy shows exactly what X_ting_on had pointed out. That it's only a guideline and is actually quite vague. The only info in there that definitive is the 600m radius they have mentioned.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

That's rich coming from someone who's solution is to build the same density with a smaller number of buildings while totally ignoring the fact the developer has to work with the land parcel they have. Do you think they bought that parcel of land with the intention of NOT maximizing their ROI?

The city's policies on TODs seem pretty clear to me.

Transit oriented development (TOD) is a walkable, mixed-use form of area development typically focused within a 600m radius of a primary transit station – a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop. Higher density development is concentrated near the station to make transit convenient for more people and encourage ridership. This form of development uses existing infrastructure, optimizes use of the transit network and creates mobility options for transit riders and the local community. A successful TOD provides a mix of land uses and densities that create a convenient, interesting and vibrant community for local residents and visitors alike.

Source: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Curre...es/Transit-Oriented-Development-TOD.aspx

You're the one who shouldn't be debating this. You obviously have an agenda and you've been all over the map the entire day on where you stand. At one point shadowing was a major concern to you and then tonight you claimed it wasn't. You're throwing out every excuse you can think of to make this project look bad and failing miserably because you don't have any facts behind you. You claim you do but when asked to provide evidence you refuse to.

[Tobyoby]

I've noticed that all the supporters of this tower have (except corndog) have gone quiet. I think those people are finally understanding why this isn't a good idea.

[Tobyoby]

This.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I get your point but I'm not sure if that's a good example, the disruption of Eau Claire as a neighbourhood led to about 40 years of it being parking lots and random light industrial.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I decided to do a bit of digging because this seemed familiar.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5553560&postcount=742

Anyway, I'm done wasting my time with her.

Not sure how you can join a skyscraper forum and make such comments. Blasphemy!!!

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I've noticed that all the supporters of this tower have (except corndog) have gone quiet. I think those people are finally understanding why this isn't a good idea.

I still am on the fence about this one. I would like to see it a bit shorter but I would also like to see something in the 10 or 12 story range if it's going to be directly next to the BRT station. That is the epicenter of the TOD and accordingly it should have the tallest buildings.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I still am on the fence about this one. I would like to see it a bit shorter but I would also like to see something in the 10 or 12 story range if it's going to be directly next to the BRT station. That is the epicenter of the TOD and accordingly it should have the tallest buildings.

I think that's where everyone's getting it wrong though. There's nothing forcing us to build tall buildings. Many people have this mentality that we have no choice but to build tall in order to leverage a BRT station. It would some people some good to go over to a city like London or Paris.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I decided to do a bit of digging because this seemed familiar.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5553560&postcount=742

Anyway, I'm done wasting my time with her.

Congratulations Corndog, on solving the mystery using scientific methods..

[Tobyoby]

This.

Originally Posted by topdog

Your post actually backs up what xtingon says. The guidelines for TOD are very generic in what you posted they don’t say anything about the height of buildings or the density or how far they should be space to park on the street treatment or anything really. I don’t even know why you posted this it only supports his argument.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I think that's where everyone's getting it wrong though. There's nothing forcing us to build tall buildings. Many people have this mentality that we have no choice but to build tall in order to leverage a BRT station. It would some people some good to go over to a city like London or Paris.

I've been to London and Paris so please don't condescend me. Hell, we could also throw in Barcelona but the fact is Calgary will never look like that. Keep in mind by advocating for shorter buildings but the same density by necessity you will be building many times more 5-6 story buildings across larger areas. I have a feeling the people opposing this won't like even more properties being taken out for larger buildings thus casting more shadows over a larger area. The arguments against this simply because it is a tower are inconsistent at best.

[s211]

Originally Posted by topdog

So you decide to do some digging at midnight? Are you Coldsrx? He’s another guy on this forum with no life.

Guys/gals, please debate the issues, and avoid the personal attacks. The personal attacks are why this thread so easily goes off the rails. My sheets might not be completely clean, but when I see so many people written off just because of their name (regardless of whether their post is valid, or not), then in my eyes your position vis-a-vis a particular issue begins to lose its objective validity.

If you honestly don't like somebody, do us all a favour and just add them to your ignore list. It's probably the most valuable option on this board. I can't emphasize that enough.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I've been to London and Paris so please don't condescend me. Hell, we could also throw in Barcelona but the fact is Calgary will never look like that. Keep in mind by advocating for shorter buildings but the same density by necessity you will be building many times more 5-6 story buildings across larger areas. I have a feeling the people opposing this won't like even more properties being taken out for larger buildings thus casting more shadows over a larger area. The arguments against this simply because it is a tower are inconsistent at best.

That comment wasn't referring to you, but rather some individuals who are fixated on having a high-rise tower in that location no matter what. I personally know residents there who are open to more density, and would be fine with 4 shorter 5 storey buildings rather than one 20 storey tower. The argument here is that towers don't necessarily make for good urban neighborhoods and only certain locations suit that kind of development.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I've noticed that all the supporters of this tower have (except corndog) have gone quiet. I think those people are finally understanding why this isn't a good idea.

Huh? Nobody repsonds to you or xtingon for 12 hours and suddenly people are finally seeing the light? I don't think so.
Nothing you or xtoingon has said has made my change my view. I can find no reason why a 20 floor towr can't be built on that site. I never said I wanted a cluster of towers, olny one highrise, and it's not that tall. Build one highrise and build a few low rises nearby or across the street. The truck stop will be gone someday anyhow (land is too valuable) and a couple of 10-15 floor towers there.

The pedestrian environment will be fine, just have some retail and restaurants put in at the ground level. Easy peezy.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I've been to London and Paris so please don't condescend me. Hell, we could also throw in Barcelona but the fact is Calgary will never look like that. Keep in mind by advocating for shorter buildings but the same density by necessity you will be building many times more 5-6 story buildings across larger areas. I have a feeling the people opposing this won't like even more properties being taken out for larger buildings thus casting more shadows over a larger area. The arguments against this simply because it is a tower are inconsistent at best.

Why? At one time those cities didn't either, but a decision was made to do build like that.