Brentwood Commons | ?m | 40s | Quarry Bay | Riddell Kurczaba

gsunnyg

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 26, 2017
Messages
543
Reaction score
1,006
Wow I was really hoping for that 40 stories, it would have been a game changer for high-rise development outside the core. I think they still could have got away with 35 storeys. They should have at least added some of that removed height to the 23 storey building. Two 30+ story towers would have looked great.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
1,971
To be 'given' a traffic light, they should need to continue the road. Just shift building 4 a bit
 

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
7,514
Reaction score
17,742
Location
Calgary
To be 'given' a traffic light, they should need to continue the road. Just shift building 4 a bit
I would love to see them move building four traffic light or not, just so that there's a clear streetway, through to the rest of Brentwood. My biggest gripe about this project is the way it cuts itself off from the east side of the area. If the grocery store could be moved to the north side of the property instead, then they could open up that street. My guess is they want to build in phases and want to build the new store first, before shutting down the old store.
 
Last edited:

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
1,971
Its possible the roadway continues under building 5, but they haven't made it that clear.
 

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
7,150
Location
Mission
I would love to see them move building four traffic light or not, just so that there's a clear streetway, through to the rest of Brentwood. My biggest gripe about this project is the way it cuts itself off from the east side of the area. If the grocery store could be moved to the north side of the property instead, then they could open up that street. My guess is they want to build in phases and want to build the new store first, before shutting down the old store.
That's exactly the reason. In the project page that I linked in my post, all of the facilities will remain open until their new counterparts are brought online. This is why everything is on the opposite side of the site from where it currently is.

The primary tower will still be the tallest building north of the Bow River, and likely the tallest suburban high rise in the city. I'd estimate it at 105 meters. Tower 2 will also be one of the tallest in the suburbs at around 85 - 90 meters, just taller than the SAIT residence, taller than Encore (Westgate 2), and around the same height as The Hub.
 

ByeByeBaby

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
63
Reaction score
197
Location
403/YYC/T2R
I would love to see them move building four traffic light or not, just so that there's a clear streetway, through to the rest of Brentwood. My biggest gripe about this project is the way it cuts itself off from the east side of the area. If the grocery store could be moved to the north side of the property instead, then they could open up that street. My guess is they want to build in phases and want to build the new store first, before shutting down the old store.
Sure looks to me like there is a very clear passage through the site, right past the front door of the Coop onto the pathway in the park. I don't understand what the benefit would be of adding a car road through Blakiston Park; there's already a good pathway there.
 

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
7,150
Location
Mission
Sure looks to me like there is a very clear passage through the site, right past the front door of the Coop onto the pathway in the park. I don't understand what the benefit would be of adding a car road through Blakiston Park; there's already a good pathway there.
That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about connecting the Coop-controlled site (Brentwood Commons) to the Rio-Can controlled site (Brentwood Village/University City). This plan does call for connection of these sites, but it's an ineffective connection in that the new grocery store and tower 2 effectively block off the new road connection. At least there will finally be a road connection between the two sites though, rather than an arbitrary cutoff as there always has been up to this point.
 

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
7,514
Reaction score
17,742
Location
Calgary
Yeah, the way the grocery store cuts off the laneway/roadway from the east side of the area annoys me. I also don't care for the way the store comes up against the pedestrian bridge from the LRT. I know why they are doing it of course. It's great for COOP to have people leaving the LRT station to come down the pedestrian ramp and arriving at the entrance of the grocery store. This whole plan is good for COOP, but for the development of Brentwood TOD as a whole, not great. It could be articulated better.
Sure looks to me like there is a very clear passage through the site, right past the front door of the Coop onto the pathway in the park. I don't understand what the benefit would be of adding a car road through Blakiston Park; there's already a good pathway there.
That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about connecting the Coop-controlled site (Brentwood Commons) to the Rio-Can controlled site (Brentwood Village/University City). This plan does call for connection of these sites, but it's an ineffective connection in that the new grocery store and tower 2 effectively block off the new road connection. At least there will finally be a road connection between the two sites though, rather than an arbitrary cutoff as there always has been up to this point.
 

CBBarnett

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
613
Reaction score
1,459
Yeah, the way the grocery store cuts off the laneway/roadway from the east side of the area annoys me. I also don't care for the way the store comes up against the pedestrian bridge from the LRT. I know why they are doing it of course. It's great for COOP to have people leaving the LRT station to come down the pedestrian ramp and arriving at the entrance of the grocery store. This whole plan is good for COOP, but for the development of Brentwood TOD as a whole, not great. It could be articulated better.
Also how the truck bays for the store will kill off any attempt at making that roadway nice from the direction of the park. I imagine they are specified for 2 - 4 bays for semi-trucks to reverse, hardly a nice continuation of a tiny, upstart node of a more urban realm. I am sure there are ways to mitigate the impact of the truck bays, but I am not confident they have the interest or enthusiasm to end up with something better (a critique of the project as a whole as well)
 

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
7,514
Reaction score
17,742
Location
Calgary
It's too bad this whole parcel belongs to CO-OP, because the layout isn't good, for anyone but CO-OP. It's extra density, which is good for the area, but outside of that, not really any better than what's there today, which is a large parcel of land next to an LRT station that's poorly aligned with its surroundings.
 

Social Justice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
477
Reaction score
617
It's too bad this whole parcel belongs to CO-OP, because the layout isn't good, for anyone but CO-OP. It's extra density, which is good for the area, but outside of that, not really any better than what's there today, which is a large parcel of land next to an LRT station that's poorly aligned with its surroundings.
Totally agree. The new proposal does not integrate well with the surroundings. It turns it's back to University City, the parking lot in the middle is a waste of space and that one tall building is so banal I almost forgot it existed.

Oh well...at least the city get more 'muh density' out it.
 

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
7,150
Location
Mission
The old proposal did the exact same, so I'm not sure what you mean by "new proposal." The update is significantly better, with less surface parking, no drive-through, and better integration with Blakiston Park. Of course it's not perfect, but it could be (and was) worse.


Also, I just noticed that there is a road and pedestrian tunnel through the 12-storey tiered building, which for some reason is very pleasing to me :p
 
Last edited:

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
2,946
Still not a fan of the large amount of surface parking in this proposal. If I were to bet, I say this doesn't make it through CPC.
 

gsunnyg

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 26, 2017
Messages
543
Reaction score
1,006
I think after the backlash city hall got for rejecting the oakridge one they might have no choice but approving it. Its got high density and its the best looking IMO from all the other Co-op proposals. Just wish they would add a few more stories on to the 23 story tower because they did scale down from 40 to 31 stories on the larger tower. It would help create a nice little mini high rise node along with the university city towers.
 

Top