News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 4.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 3.8K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

gsunnyg said:
With that design, I'll take the car dealerships for another 2 decades in hopes that one day the site may become a potential for a vibrant neighborhood that incorporates good urban design. Until then, I'd like to see Victoria park build-up, East Village completed and our downtown core turned around. Had West Village gone with that atrocious design, it would have become an area even more costly fix not to mention an opportunity lost for generations to come.
Click to expand...
There's an expression that goes, "the best time to build affordable housing was 60 years ago, the second best is now." Same goes personal savings, with planting trees, developing an urban environment and culture....

Pure speculation of course but for the thought exercise: had this 1960s era project been constructed, we'd have another 2,000 - 4,000 residents in the city centre. Those towers would be approaching the end of their useful lives so the same dreams of redevelopment we have for West Village could still be accommodated. Indeed, we'd might even have further progress because we have a whole other inner city community advocating for it. It would be hard to know whether adding more buildings to the lawns of 60 year old development or redeveloping a 60 year brownfield mess of highways and creosote would be cheaper or more likely to happen.

I guess it depends on what the goals are, but I can't think of many examples where 60-80 years of land banking as a highway interchange and parking lot is better for a city than 60 years of centrally located high density housing.
 
Your right, there aren't many examples of where a parking lot is better than high-density housing but at the same time, there aren't many examples where multiple highrise concrete condos are demolished, especially in Canada. At best, these buildings would have got renovations and reclads. The concept reminds me of sections of Vancouver's West End where the condos along English Bay do an utter garbage job of engaging with pedestrians along the beautiful oceanside. As far as affordable housing goes, that's one area I can agree on, but at the same time, the extra supply of housing in West Village would've just prevented highrise developments in other parts of the Core/beltline. There's only so much demand for apartment-style living at any given time. Price points, government policies, location, demographics, etc. all factor into this demand.

I guess to each their own opinion. I just think with such a valuable location, the design needs to be bang on. Once you stick up highrise concrete structures, they're likely going to be permanent for generations to come. A development like East Village isn't perfect, but once it's fully built out, due to its design, I can see the potential for it to be a vibrant neighborhood for decades.
 
gsunnyg said:
But that's the thing, does something really need to happen on this site? We got so many unfinished master plans, why not get those completed and maybe save this for last? after learning from mistakes.
Click to expand...

gsunnyg said:
Your right, there aren't many examples of where a parking lot is better than high-density housing but at the same time, there aren't many examples where multiple highrise concrete condos are demolished, especially in Canada. At best, these buildings would have got renovations and reclads. The concept reminds me of sections of Vancouver's West End where the condos along English Bay do an utter garbage job of engaging with pedestrians along the beautiful oceanside. As far as affordable housing goes, that's one area I can agree on, but at the same time, the extra supply of housing in West Village would've just prevented highrise developments in other parts of the Core/beltline. There's only so much demand for apartment-style living at any given time. Price points, government policies, location, demographics, etc. all factor into this demand.

I guess to each their own opinion. I just think with such a valuable location, the design needs to be bang on. Once you stick up highrise concrete structures, they're likely going to be permanent for generations to come. A development like East Village isn't perfect, but once it's fully built out, due to its design, I can see the potential for it to be a vibrant neighborhood for decades.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Design should be paramount - we are very lucky for East Village's level of design and all new and existing urban communities should improve the level of interaction with the street from previous eras - or even just have adequately wide and flat sidewalks in reasonable condition (a simple, but tall order it seems). 1960s tower design like the West End certainly isn't a panacea - but Vancouver had to start somewhere. IMO, it's precisely because they started with the West End - for all it's innovation (for the time) and notable failures that they even have something far better in design, and far wider reaching into all other areas of urban life: streetscapes, transit, active transportation etc.

Fast forward 50 or 60 years and the calibre of design in Vancouver is next level, towers and mostly everything else. Are they smarter or better than designers here? Nope - they just have been at it longer. Dumb rules that hold back good urban environments were challenged earlier, fixed (to some extent) and are starting to bear fruit with several decades of acceptable, good or stellar urban design remaking much of the city.

Calgary will forever be paying back the debt of not starting it's urban identity earlier. Every mistake and dumb design has the lifecycle problem you mentioned - even a small feature like a parkade ramp facing onto the street rather than an alley will interfere with the pedestrian realm for decades as many of Calgary's 1970s era urban developments choose to do. Fortunately, progress is being made. We have attacked many dumb rules and policies that hold back good urban form. We have more than few good local examples to build off of. Good design ideas travel faster than ever and we made some stellar progress in short order over the past decade or two. As I suggested, the best time to start would have been 60 (or 160) years ago, the second best time in right now. We chose the latter option, but it's still the right one.
 
Last edited:
My building proudly has two garage entrances onto streets, crossing two sidewalks and two bikelanes, instead of using the alley. Nothing will ever fix it.
 
Torontonians have regretted not dodging this bullet for over 40 years. Once you block off your waterfront with commieblocks and parking garages, there's no getting it back. These buildings were vertical suburbs. They would have created about as much urbanity and vibrancy for the West Village as the Riverside Towers creates for Parkland further up the river.
 
That would have been totally car oriented, sort of a Mississauga type development without any interesting design lol. WV can wait until we can do it properly.
 
CBBarnett said:
Totally agree. Design should be paramount - we are very lucky for East Village's level of design and all new and existing urban communities should improve the level of interaction with the street from previous eras - or even just have adequately wide and flat sidewalks in reasonable condition (a simple, but tall order it seems). 1960s tower design like the West End certainly isn't a panacea - but Vancouver had to start somewhere. IMO, it's precisely because they started with the West End - for all it's innovation (for the time) and notable failures that they even have something far better in design, and far wider reaching into all other areas of urban life: streetscapes, transit, active transportation etc.

Fast forward 50 or 60 years and the calibre of design in Vancouver is next level, towers and mostly everything else. Are they smarter or better than designers here? Nope - they just have been at it longer. Dumb rules that hold back good urban environments were challenged earlier, fixed (to some extent) and are starting to bear fruit with several decades of acceptable, good or stellar urban design remaking much of the city.

Calgary will forever be paying back the debt of not starting it's urban identity earlier. Every mistake and dumb design has the lifecycle problem you mentioned - even a small feature like a parkade ramp facing onto the street rather than an alley will interfere with the pedestrian realm for decades as many of Calgary's 1970s era urban developments choose to do. Fortunately, progress is being made. We have attacked many dumb rules and policies that hold back good urban form. We have more than few good local examples to build off of. Good design ideas travel faster than ever and we made some stellar progress in short order over the past decade or two. As I suggested, the best time to start would have been 60 (or 160) years ago, the second best time in right now. We chose the latter option, but it's still the right one.
Click to expand...

Love this reply, bit of a chicken/egg problem. Either we started 60 years ago and have to remedy the poor planning, or we wait and miss out on the density/community for the sake of easily incorporating good design later. Not sure there is a correct answer, but there's definitely copious examples of failures on both approaches, but also successes, see Amsterdam/Paris.

I think it comes down to demand more than anything, if there are buyers/renters developers will put the work in. Problem is there's not enough demand in Calgary right now to warrant that scale of redevelopment when there's already so many empty parking lots.
 
Hard to know what was motivating planners 50-60 years ago when the city was planning the downtown. The demand for office space was on the rise so decisions had to be made on what land was available to build on. Then transportation routes had to be integrated. Of course that was the height of the automobile. Everyone had to own one. Everyone had to drive it to work because there was no other practical way of getting there. Can't forget parking!
Like many North American cities, Calgary lacked a long term vision that both current and future government plus business collaborated on. When I think of other great cities around the world, I usually point to Europe. Unlike North American cities, Europe was never planned with automobiles in mind because of course it has only been in the last 100 years or so that they have become the dominant transportation mode here. Instead Europe incorporated trains for moving people.
Speaking of trains, let's be glad that decades ago there was an idea, maybe even got to the planning stage, to shift the train tracks from the middle of downtown Calgary, and run them along the Bow River. Think if we were stuck with that lack of foresight today.
 
JonnyCanuck said:
Speaking of trains, let's be glad that decades ago there was an idea, maybe even got to the planning stage, to shift the train tracks from the middle of downtown Calgary, and run them along the Bow River. Think if we were stuck with that lack of foresight today.
Click to expand...

For the CPR rail route discussion, here's 272 pages on this exact debate - sounds like quite the debate on the whole rail route redevelopment full of money, politics, elections and intrigue. Cities are defined as much by what they build as they are by what they don't build it seems:
https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120222_99Z_Foran_2013-Development_Derailed.pdf
 
First render of Jemm Properties on 9A St NW just south of Pixel in Sunnyside.

1610128113208.jpeg


Height: 26.93m or 8-9 storeys. The applicant’s proposed ARP amendment included one extra metre to account for the City’s main floor flood requirements.
Floor Area Ratio: 4.99
Residential Unit Count: 140 homes
Parking: 35 resident stalls; 11 visitor parking stalls; 1:1 bike parking/unit ratio
Building Square Metres: 10,860 m2 total

The design of the proposed development is 9 storeys and steps down to 8 storeys to the south. The proposed design is vertically terraced on the 9A St side and set in on the south side to have a similar front setback as the adjacent single detached house, ending in a “plaza” on the southeast corner. The applicant has proposed fewer automobile parking stalls, due to the location, available walking-distance amenities in the neighbourhood and expected car-free lifestyle for future residents.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top