The Grid | 50m | 16s | NORR

My thoughts:

1. Inglewood's history is real estate speculators wanting to get the train to inflate their real estate values and make it the core of the city. Beautiful facades, cheap buildings. I would say that density is strongly in favour of that history.
2. Who the developer is matters, of course. You can use all kinds of reasons to not approve something but capability to execute is important. No one wants to spend the resources and time if it is just a guy coming in to upzone and flip the land.
3. ARP's.... I think these are mostly totally useless. Used to gather current resident's opinions on why nothing can ever change except in the smallest, most inconspicuous, ways. A lot of developers will never even read these things because they are looking for what should be there, what people want, what will unlock value on the site.
4. However, I don't think that just handing out free density is the solution either. Edmonton and Calgary should both have some objective cost for additional density / height. In Mexico City, the SAC Tacubaya program allows developers to increase density at a cost of ~ 5% of total cost of land + building. You pay for the right to go above a height, add additional units, and those funds are used to improve local infrastructure.
5. Site is a good location for a commodity rental building. Nothing special, but with good arterial access, it could work.
 
So, the City just released the latest draft of the (now combined) Inglewood/Ramsay ARP:
https://engage.calgary.ca/applicati..._-_Draft_of_The_Historic_East_Calgary_ARP.PDF

Some of the things contained in this (still draft) ARP are worrisome to some residents:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-ramsay-inglewood-redevelopment-plans-1.4652835

What is notable for The Grid is, the map showing land use shows a bit more intensity on this site (see Map 1, page 8). As well, the map showing building heights shows an allowed height of 44m (map 5, page 32). Might not be the full 20 storeys originally sought, but still pretty substantial. It is higher than anything else except the proposed Crossroads Market TOD. Remember, this is still a draft plan, and needs council approval.
 
Definite density boost for Inglewood.

Image6.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Image6.jpg
    Image6.jpg
    144.1 KB · Views: 648
I'm gonna get racked over the coals for this comment, but here it goes...

Are we as Calgarians really that insecure about our inner city population density that we want to to slap a few 10 story towers(roughly 30m) into a +100 year old character neighborhood just for 'muh density'?

All honesty...do you really want to see streets like this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0409...4!1slGYP7zEXzywWhefLbDEUVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

transformer to something like this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.9860...4!1skcae7BUhWsnO5U4ABafVBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

We as a city should focus on developing 4-6 story mid-rise buildings with a higher quality of design within our inner city.

"Lets drop a 10 story building with a cheap crown spandrel(see Vevre's crown for reference) one block away from a historic character street."
1523699235645.jpg




Anyways! Happy Friday everyone
 
That google street view comparison is dubious at best. I get where you're coming from though, but I don't really see what is wrong with allowing increased height along the rail corridors. The increased height close to Atlantic/9 Ave is mostly pretty short, with most of it being 12 to 20 meters, and only two plots within two blocks of it being 31 meters. The extreme density around Highfield Station is pretty much perfect, it's the perfect opportunity for a very high density inner city TOD.
 
What a shame, developers are getting bullied all over the city because a loud minority are feeling the need to express their opinions which clearly are result of fear mongering and regressiveness. This one had its height reduced and so did the chinatown proposal, people are still not going to be happy. Kind of sad living in 2018 and seeing highrise nodes going up all over metro Vancouver and metro Toronto many reaching 40+ stories, yet Calgarians are still fighting to break the lucky 20 every once in a while outside of the downtown/beltline area.
 
I can't help but wonder if the end result is what the developer was possibly preparing for all along? Getting the main a 16 storey tower along with a 6 storey tower rather than one 20 storey tower is a decent compromise. I remember wondering if they were shooting high with the idea of lowering down a notch to get people on board.
 
I'm impressed with the quantity of discourse around this what-seems-to-me-as-a-minor project in the scope of changes in the city.

If I was building a 20 storey building, a location like this would be on my shortlist.

Inglewood is desirable, underdeveloped, and sure to become more livable in the coming decade.

The people who live there will have A+ access to transit, pathways, and roads. Only a fool would car commute to downtown from there, but some may travel against traffic to employment in the SE or NE. If Inglewood wants more foot traffic (which honestly it badly needs), this is exactly the kind of project it should welcome. If Inglewood wants more auto congestion, they should reject this project and push the market to buy in the SE suburbs.

One thing that must be stated is how terrible Deerfoot and Blackfoot are. The fact that Deerfoot swallows up so much prime riverfront is a tragedy, albeit a vital roadway. The magic of 8+ storeys is that highway seems less and less disruptive the higher you go. In some cases (ie. Bridgeland, south Macleod, south Deerfoot, etc), larger buildings almost serve and sound barriers.

I would approve this building with following concessions:

1) Improved public integration into pathway system and pedestrian and cyclist orientation around 17th ave and 19th st crossings. Your granny should be able to ride her tricycle in any of 5 directions from that spot.

2) Planters, trees, and landscaping to reduce noise and sight of Blackfoot without reducing access. Residents on 7th ave should feel farther from the highway and closer to the heart of Inglewood (***this should basically be the goal for every development!). Planters and other features also make drivers feel they are entering a slower road.

3) Environmental and social building design (stair access, LEED, limited water runoff, all about bikes, etc).

Gradually, I'd like to see that area better connected to both "Atlantic" and "International" Avenues. One day we should even build a pedestrian bridge at 26th ave and at Nose Creek (so I don't have to tiptoe across the train bridge anymore!)
 
gsunnyg said:
What a shame, developers are getting bullied all over the city because a loud minority are feeling the need to express their opinions which clearly are result of fear mongering and regressiveness. This one had its height reduced and so did the chinatown proposal, people are still not going to be happy. Kind of sad living in 2018 and seeing highrise nodes going up all over metro Vancouver and metro Toronto many reaching 40+ stories, yet Calgarians are still fighting to break the lucky 20 every once in a while outside of the downtown/beltline area.
Click to expand...

I have to respectively push back on your comment.

I don't really see the purpose and benefit of developing 'high rise nodes' in our historic inner city neighborhoods. Personally, I'd like to see Hillhurst, Sunnyside, Crescent Heights, Bridgeland, Inglewood, Ramsay and Marda Loop keep filling out with mid-rise developments(4-8 stories) instead of towers. It maintains feeling that you live in a neighborhood/community instead of a cluster of commuter towers.

Why can't we just let Toronto and Vancouver develop in their own way? Why do we Calgarians always have to compare ourselves to the other major cities? Why does the current year matter? Why is it so bad to put pressure on developers to design a higher quality building with an emphasize on context and nuance? How is it clearly fear mongering and regressive to want Calgary to develop in a methodical manner?
 
Last edited:
I agree with Rylucky (except about LEED as that's a really silly program ;) ). The density is in a good location. Inglewood's current boom is tenuous when you consider the timescale of neighbourhoods and the macro-trends in the city's growth. Not that the neighbourhood is likely to decline, just that stagnation and relative competitiveness as a destination and place to live can erode. Even the great micro-brewery / hipster boom of 2015 - present may one day end in the area :eek:. If we want 24/7 vibrancy, urban vibrancy or anything like that, there must be increased population regardless of the current trends.

The city still see 95 - 105% of it's growth outside of the developed core (largely a story of modest urban core growth, and 1970s, 80s & 90s built developed areas decline). Inglewood-Ramsay reality is one of quite low local population and density, nowhere near the amount to support resident-focused retail of much scale. The future trends in retail is also moving away from the local model as well which further clouds the picture.

Below is food for thought from the City's census records. The Inglewood-Ramsay area is only 6,100 residents in 2017, largely due to Inglewood's growth over the last 20 years. Ramsay has not seen any material change in population for 5 decades (although the 2040 picture might be much different with Greenline development).

While there is many ways to add population through the built-form that are debatable with pros and cons (mid-rise, high-rise etc.), the quality of the location, level of transport accessibility and public amenities invested in the area suggest to me that a modest growth/preservation mindset is a disservice to the city, a gross under-utilization of public investment and a major missed opportunity. That growth (assuming that is what the city experiences) will go somewhere and it would be hard to justify a better spot for it - both for this specific project, and for the specific area vs. others.

tJnqTsD.png

tJnqTsD
 
Last edited:
Social Justice said:
I have to respectively push back on your comment.

I don't really see the purpose and benefit of developing 'high rise nodes' in our historic inner city neighborhoods. Personally, I'd like to see Hillhurst, Sunnyside, Crescent Heights, Bridgeland, Inglewood, Ramsay and Marda Loop keep filling out with mid-rise developments(4-8 stories) instead of towers. It maintains feeling that you live in a neighborhood.community instead of a cluster of commuter towers.

Why can't we just let Toronto and Vancouver develop in their own way? Why do we Calgarians always have to compare ourselves to the other major cities? Why does the current year matter? Why is it so bad to put pressure on developers to design a higher quality buildings with an emphasize on context and nuance? How is it clearly fear mongering and regressive to want to Calgary to develop in a methodical manner?
Click to expand...
Your post pretty much covers everything I was going to say.
Well put.
 
gsunnyg said:
What a shame, developers are getting bullied all over the city because a loud minority are feeling the need to express their opinions which clearly are result of fear mongering and regressiveness. This one had its height reduced and so did the chinatown proposal, people are still not going to be happy. Kind of sad living in 2018 and seeing highrise nodes going up all over metro Vancouver and metro Toronto many reaching 40+ stories, yet Calgarians are still fighting to break the lucky 20 every once in a while outside of the downtown/beltline area.
Click to expand...
Height isn't everything, I think we should be taking more care to build complete neighbourhoods than just going as tall as possible. This site would benefit from midrise development similar to what's across 17th, we should work our way up to highrise, not just plop them down anywhere.
 
Last edited:
I think the updated design is a good compromise. There is still some height there, but not overly tall. It's my own personal bias, but I've always preferred low-mid rise buildings over really tall towers....except right in the core where there are already tall towers. The best neighborhoods in Calgary are the ones that have the mix of all styles of housing (SFH, duplexes, townhomes, and multifamly) and the multi-family is on the low to mid rise scale.

That said, a few taller towers here and there right near LRT stations is great. I'm fine with the taller building proposals at Banff Trail, Brentwood and Dalhousie.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top