News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.6K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.7K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

I recall reading an urban development article once where it addressed the issues with perceiving many modern mid-rises as "human scale". The problem with associating the term "human scale" with midrises/low-rises is that it's practically never implemented the right way in most cities anymore. When I think human scale I think of 8th ave whereas newer midrises being designed today take up almost a whole block. Hence, just because a building is smaller in height doesn't make it "human scale."
Compare these two buildings for example:
189208
Hopewell developement on 4th st.SW.
vs.
189209
Lister block down the road.
The Hopewell building is a midrise but it spans a whole block, still a nice building though but not human scale.Whereas Lister building is a better example of human scale because its smaller in width as well as height. Even though it's more of a lowrise, you could pile on an extra 2 floors ontop of the building and yet it would still be relatively "human scale" compared to the Hopewell development. The problem with building smaller scale midrises with high quality design is that they aren't as economically feasible due to labour costs. Nowadays, developers prefer to have a midrise be wide enough to accommodate enough residential units on top with retail on bottom. We're seeing this with more developments throughout the city like in Inglweood with AVI and South Bank. At the end of the day its not ideal but money is the name of the game.

In addition, there are plenty of mainstreets around the world that incorporate the odd highrise here and there yet are still vibrant and pleasant to walk down. I think well designed stepback podiums are the best cure to allow highrises to exist while maintaining a more "human scale." Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case with this development from ASI, still I don't mind one odd highrise popping up on 17th as long as it doesn't become a pattern. Like Mountain Man said, that article by Corbella is more of a 2 minute opportunity to blabber some nonsense against Nenshi during tax season than an actual intellectual opinion.
 
I think towers can easily be human scale if the ground level is done properly, you just need to keep the focus on the ground level and this can be done by having a podium with the tower set back, have inviting storefronts that aren't just a vertical wall of glass, and use some canopied and such to emphasize the street level. Brookfield and the Bow are not human scale, they are monoliths that meet the ground abruptly in a plaza. The fact that this building is on the NW corner of the intersection means that 17th will not be cast in a big shadow, so it's does no disservice to the street with it's massing. 14th will get some shadow though, so not a total win - win.
 
Great comments from everybody above. I'll throw my two cents in.

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd prefer the building to be smaller. Maybe 10-15 stories would suffice. I'd like to see a better podium on the building with a focus on the main floor retail. As it stands now, it's not a bad proposal...although it could be better.

Furthermore, I find us Calgarians are always thinking about density, density and more density when looking at new proposals. Perhaps this mentality is a hold over from the late 90's to mid 00's when many parts of our inner city didn't have a high population density. Fast forward to 2019. That corner of the Beltline and Lower Mount Royal already has a pop. density of around 10,000ppl/km^2...if not higher, which is more than enough to support a main street like 17th ave.

What I'm trying to say is, we should try to focus more on design quality and how the building interacts with the surroundings as opposed to just being happy that we achieved more "density".
 
Last edited:
Towers seem to struggle with creating successful and comfortable public realms for a variety of reasons (shadows, wind, compromises in design etc.) But the density that towers provide is excellent so it's a trade-off. As it seems unlikely I'll see a mid-rise rezoning of all of Upper Mount Royal, I can live with some towers.

I am going to take on the "towers struggle with creating successful public realms" bit. This is true in very select cases (housing projects in the US come to mind), but pretty much every east Asian city is a counter point to this. Is Singapore not vibrant? Or Hong Kong? Tokyo? What about midtown Manhattan? That place is crazy busy and its nothing but a sea of 40+ storey towers.
 
I don't mind tall towers here and there, but would like to see a lot more low and mid rise in Calgary to help fill out the urban fabric. While there is amazing vibrancy in cities like Singapore, HK, NYC, there is also amazing vibrancy in Barcelona, Paris, and Berlin, Buenos Aires etc..Vibrancy can be achieved through good density in a few ways I think.

Personally I think the key is having good corridors.The density nearby those corridors - whether highrises or low rises, supports the corridor. I remember seeing streets in Hong Kong and Kowloon that weren't overly vibrant, because they were mostly apartments with little or no retail, but the next street over with all the retail was buzzing. I can remember same the same for various streets in Barcelona, or Paris. It seems like focusing on building corridors with good street treatment goes a long way. 8Th Street is a good example, as @retrofiturbanism pointed out, it could use some trees, and maybe some other love, given it's potential. It's got the right cross connections, and the density, just needs to upgrading.
 
I recall reading an urban development article once where it addressed the issues with perceiving many modern mid-rises as "human scale". The problem with associating the term "human scale" with midrises/low-rises is that it's practically never implemented the right way in most cities anymore. When I think human scale I think of 8th ave whereas newer midrises being designed today take up almost a whole block. Hence, just because a building is smaller in height doesn't make it "human scale."
Compare these two buildings for example:
View attachment 189208Hopewell developement on 4th st.SW.
vs.
View attachment 189209Lister block down the road.
The Hopewell building is a midrise but it spans a whole block, still a nice building though but not human scale.Whereas Lister building is a better example of human scale because its smaller in width as well as height. Even though it's more of a lowrise, you could pile on an extra 2 floors ontop of the building and yet it would still be relatively "human scale" compared to the Hopewell development. The problem with building smaller scale midrises with high quality design is that they aren't as economically feasible due to labour costs. Nowadays, developers prefer to have a midrise be wide enough to accommodate enough residential units on top with retail on bottom. We're seeing this with more developments throughout the city like in Inglweood with AVI and South Bank. At the end of the day its not ideal but money is the name of the game.

You can't build Lister Block today. Loading requirements, code requirements (there is no elevator in Lister IIRC, so you wouldn't be able to build it today and get it past building code). Also, it has no parking. To build an efficient underground parkade, you need around 150' of frontage (Lister is around 50'), and to offset the cost of the parkade, you need to go higher.

I find it funny when people lambast the lack of human scale, and praise places like Paris or Barcelona, yet those cities are nothing but block long 8 storey buildings.

Also, money has ALWAYS been the name of the game. The heritage buildings we so love now were lambasted back in the day for being cookie cutter, cheap and monstrous. Same as it ever was.
 
I don't mind tall towers here and there, but would like to see a lot more low and mid rise in Calgary to help fill out the urban fabric. While there is amazing vibrancy in cities like Singapore, HK, NYC, there is also amazing vibrancy in Barcelona, Paris, and Berlin, Buenos Aires etc..Vibrancy can be achieved through good density in a few ways I think.

Personally I think the key is having good corridors.The density nearby those corridors - whether highrises or low rises, supports the corridor. I remember seeing streets in Hong Kong and Kowloon that weren't overly vibrant, because they were mostly apartments with little or no retail, but the next street over with all the retail was buzzing. I can remember same the same for various streets in Barcelona, or Paris. It seems like focusing on building corridors with good street treatment goes a long way. 8Th Street is a good example, as @retrofiturbanism pointed out, it could use some trees, and maybe some other love, given it's potential. It's got the right cross connections, and the density, just needs to upgrading.
14St is becoming a decent corridor, but the dead area between 10 Ave and Kensington will always be a challenge, and will likely stop it from reaching it's true potential, south of the river anyway.
 
If they reduced 14th northbound south of the river to 1 traffic lane and added street parking a 1 lane roundabout opening up to 2 lanes would flow swimmingly.

I think every single major inner city intersection should be a single lane roundabout though.

I hate the dual lane roundabouts because people will never understand them.
 
There is now a proposal to develop the area around the Telus Convention Centre into a Downtown Convention District. Not sure how that will mesh with the BMO expansion.

It will be at odds with the BMO. The group is trying to position the Convention District as the location for small/medium conventions and the BMO for large scale ones. The reality is, there will only be so much convention business coming to Calgary whether we have the facilities or not. We will never be a destination like a Las Vegas, New Orleans, Orlando or even Vancouver. I am sure the BMO expects to attract all sizes of conventions. They won't want their facility to sit empty weeks or months in-between large conventions.
 
It will be at odds with the BMO. The group is trying to position the Convention District as the location for small/medium conventions and the BMO for large scale ones. The reality is, there will only be so much convention business coming to Calgary whether we have the facilities or not. We will never be a destination like a Las Vegas, New Orleans, Orlando or even Vancouver. I am sure the BMO expects to attract all sizes of conventions. They won't want their facility to sit empty weeks or months in-between large conventions.
Even more so taxpayers. We are paying for BMO
 
Dual lane roundabouts cause more grief than good. If used properly they work pretty well, but they are never used properly .
If they reduced 14th northbound south of the river to 1 traffic lane and added street parking a 1 lane roundabout opening up to 2 lanes would flow swimmingly.

I think every single major inner city intersection should be a single lane roundabout though.

I hate the dual lane roundabouts because people will never understand them.
 

Back
Top