526 - 4th Ave | 112m | 32s | LaCaille Group | S2

Golfing guy said:
What does it matter in the long term what they look like? Empty buildings are now going to be full of new residents that will bring more life, retail and restaurants to the area. So much complaining on this site about what they look like. Not the celebration that we have new life in old structures
Click to expand...
Sorry for wanting my downtown and city to look attractive. There have been many conversions that look really good including Cube, Tek Place, and others. You can convert old buildings and still make them look somewhat attractive, it doesn’t have to be an either or.
 
The Familia said:
Sorry for wanting my downtown and city to look attractive. There have been many conversions that look really good including Cube, Tek Place, and others. You can convert old buildings and still make them look somewhat attractive, it doesn’t have to be an either or.
Click to expand...
Your argument might be the difference in a conversion going forward or not. The millions it would cost to change the exterior could be the difference between go or not go.
I’ve been to cities all over the world. Honestly the vibrancy the best ones offer isn’t because the buildings are all pretty. It’s because they are full of residents. Which in turn brings life the area. It also brings more value in the long run to the buildings. Which might encourage the building owners to upgrade them. In the meantime let’s start with them being occupied
 
It is fair to criticize the look of a project though. Sure, it might not have been viable if it included an exterior renovation but that choice can still be critiqued. The popularity of these must mean there is an economic argument to them. Heads in beds matters, it is the biggest factor but this is a development forum and form matters too.

Having this development beside Eau Claire Place I and II means they will fade into the background so look doesn't really matter here, they are not prominent.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
It is fair to criticize the look of a project though. Sure, it might not have been viable if it included an exterior renovation but that choice can still be critiqued. The popularity of these must mean there is an economic argument to them. Heads in beds matters, it is the biggest factor but this is a development forum and form matters too.

Having this development beside Eau Claire Place I and II means they will fade into the background so look doesn't really matter here, they are not prominent.
Click to expand...
But it goes back to what the intent of these projects is...it's density and property values, not aesthetics. Downtown Toronto and Vancouver are full of ugly 70's/80's condo projects, nobody cares because they are full and serve a market. The more money they have to spend of construction, the higher the unit costs
 
Last edited:
Golfing guy said:
What does it matter in the long term what they look like? Empty buildings are now going to be full of new residents that will bring more life, retail and restaurants to the area. So much complaining on this site about what they look like. Not the celebration that we have new life in old structures
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Just think better design choices could make these more attractive without adding cost
 
Calgcouver said:
I agree with you. Just think better design choices could make these more attractive without adding cost
Click to expand...
To be honest most people (not associated with the site ) don’t care that much on what the outside of the building looks like. The quality of the units, location and surrounding amenities probably are the most important selling features
 
Tothewest said:
But it goes back to what the intent of these projects is...it's density and property values, not aesthetics. Downtown Toronto and Vancouver are full of ugly 70's/80's condo projects, nobody cares because they are full and serve a market. The more money they have to spend of construction, the higher the unit costs
Click to expand...
The funny thing is though, instead of just leaving the exterior the way it was, they chose to redesign it, and made it SO ugly. I agree that adding density is the top priority, but if you’re spending the money anyways to upgrade the exterior, then I think it’s fair for us to want it to look half decent.
 
Golfing guy said:
What does it matter in the long term what they look like? Empty buildings are now going to be full of new residents that will bring more life, retail and restaurants to the area. So much complaining on this site about what they look like. Not the celebration that we have new life in old structures
Click to expand...
Overall I agree with this sentiment. Each vacant building replaced with residents builds moment, it's not merely additive. The prospect of more restaurants, retail, and nightlife/bars will be a boon for locals and the city's coffers.
 
More important is the urban form of a building and within the context of the broader neighbourhood and the broader neighbourhood's provisions itself. However, aesthetics do matter in attracting dollars from outside of the neighbourhood and outside of Calgary.

Critical mass hasn't been achieved. There's been a lull in tall tower development. I still don't think settling for something that you personally find unattractive because it potentially increases the local population as good enough. Urbantoronto has also shifted from fanatical high expectations to the number of homes being provided. The housing crisis is the perfect argument. It all makes me feel old nostalgic for the early days.

This tower is hard to call ugly as it doesn't have a design. Most of the details are a matter of the operational function. The one purely aesthetic detail is the common place hat. It's adquate infill. There's too much adequate infill being erected. Worse if not for Truman.
 
I am holding out hope that the conversions will look alright once done. The one on the right actually looks promising so far. Cornerstone, which made the unforgivable sin of replacing brick with beige hardyboard, actually looks OK (IMO) now that its done, in large part because they got the treatment of the first couple of floors right, which helps distract the eye from the crappy part.
 
PXL_20241126_223712189.jpg
 
I have said it previously and still believe it.....4 Ave could become a hot area.....hear me out.

Yes, there is a lot of cars. We also have a decent amount of people living there already. In addition to this project and the ones across the street, potentially another 1000 people. New hotel a block away, a conversion to hotel and more residential conversion. Add The Westin and the small office to hotel conversion from a few years ago. The Keg, Owen's Landing, the old Pig &Duke, the old Celeis and a bunch of smaller bars and restaurants actually make it somewhat lively.

There are some problem spots, but I could even see some of them becoming better. The spot in the Shell (now CNRL?) Towercould convert to retail with a massive patio. The spot with AB government offices, I think Registries could also convert from office to retail by simply cutting a door or two facing the street.

Then there is talk about the west riverwalkwith a pool, sauna, beach etc.....potentially a dead zone after hours.....or it may draw more residents to 4 Ave and even Kensington, keeping it active.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top