Bland and boring, but it adds density. We just need the builds at the portion by the train station, to U/D type levels and it'll all be fine.
Westbrook Multi | 21m | 6s | Truman | NORR
- Thread starter Shaganappian
- Start date
Sosossa
New Member
New project plans are up, are they adding a public library!?
CT_
Active Member
Looks like there's a CPL branch (extension?) going into the ground floor now.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Interesting. Anyone know why they would put this in this project, given there is a relatively new branch right across the street?
CBBarnett
Senior Member
The current space is pretty weird and tiny split between two floors - I forget my West LRT history, but always felt this LRT was some sort of consolidation push to centralize a few services into a single building. Given how the design of the Westbrook office block turned out, it's very clear the building was an office/control centre building first priority, bus loop second priority, and library a very distant third place in the design requirement. They kind of shoved the library into the remaining space, awkwardly above a garage ramp.
If I had to take a guess it's that enough time has passed and the frustrations with a non-standard space built up they finally are looking to resolve with what seems to be a more conventional, larger single-floor design.
The bigger question is always why we couldn't just have a solid library in the first place rather than chase these small, incremental and opportunistic library designs for the area. Everyone love the library, but they don't get a ton of budget and seem more interested/more incentivized in opportunistic partnerships than making dedicated, major investments. They don't all need to be this way, but I would love to see stand-alone libraries again, with some more confident and permanent designs rather than chasing retail bays or losing priority in multi-use city projects.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Wasn't this a specific Council direction from about 12 years ago? No more "stand alone" civic facilities, because mixed-use is best! I have heard the fire department does not like this policy either, look at the saga surrounding the (yet to be built) Inglewood fire hall / affordable housing project for instance. Anyway, maybe this council will repeal this requirement.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I hope they're going away from this, it required too much in one parcel, space that isn't very readily available where we're adding density in the inner-city or the area just outside of that.
The large rec centre, library facility works for greenfield where you have the space and can plan for it. In the inner-city, Lindsay Park or whoever sponsors it now, is pretty well tapped out. Scotia Place comes with a community arena so there is that. But as was stated in the Kennsington Yards thread by someone, we need to start working some civic facilities into new developments. There's a need for schools and things beyond some pocket park in these new developments, some neighbourhood benefit would be a good way to bring surrounding residents on side.
It is surprising this library couldn't be worked into a development on the empty Westbrook lands that could also include a school, arena, fieldhouse as the base of some residential.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I think mixed-use facilities can be the great - but the services/uses involved got to work together and compromise, and more honestly audit what they really need as a facility requirement v. what is a legacy, niche industry culture, or made-up "nice-to-haves" masquerading as strict requirements. Unfortunately, a Council policy that says "you guys must share land and build facilities together" isn't clear enough to overcome this cultural barrier, let alone more real technical ones if the groups really can't work together.
To your point, not all things are compatible - and therefore a blanket policy probably isn't needed - but there wouldn't be a million examples everywhere (including here) of mixed-use buildings making it work with no issues if it wasn't possible at all to share a site between several things. The blame is shared - perhaps the non-expert elected representatives Council under-estimate the technical complexity of integrated designs, while some of the technical experts seem to exaggerate how many of their standards are really absolute non-negotiables when working together on a shared design.
Overall it's a great move if this development helps the library get the space they need in a really key and accessible location. In the long-run, there better be some more consistent effort to really make city services easier to fit together on city-owned land - the city doesn't go out of business, libraries are likely critical community amenities forever. We probably don't want to be at the whims of a landlord forever in such a scenario.
Last edited: