Social Justice
Active Member
I think the Grid is an important project because it sets the precedence and tenor in terms of height, quality and design in reference to the redevelopment of the Blackfoot truck stop site across the street.
The Grid | 50m | 16s | NORR
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
I think the Grid is an important project because it sets the precedence and tenor in terms of height, quality and design in reference to the redevelopment of the Blackfoot truck stop site across the street.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I would love to see the truckstop developed in a similar way to the Bridges, that's the perfect scale for the area.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
Look I don't entirely agree with ur view and thats fine because its about having a discussion about these things and maybe the majority of users on this forum doesn't support my view on high-rise nodes throughout the city but I know a lot of co-workers and ex-students I went to school with round my age who do. A lot of the younger crowd I talk to really like the idea of random popup towers littered all over the city and they always drag into the convo that I wish Calgary was more lie Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago...etc. A lot of it has to do with how our city is presented and working up on the Telus sky looking down at the city really made me start thinking hard about how much of unexciting city Calgary can look if you think about it. Its just mostly flat tied up suburbs after suburbs. Many of the younger guys i knew moved out of Calgary for these same reasons because the lack of city feeling to it. Now obviously my view is influenced by my surroundings but it can't help me stop thinking that we're at well over 1 million people yet we still think very much like a town. I support midrises and low rises too but whats wrong with having 20 storeys, 30 storeys or even 50 storey outside the core? I'd put my money on it any day that if a 50 storey condo was proposed somewhere in the NW/ SW etc. there would be a massive outrage by the NIMBYist even if it didn't effect them in parking or sunlight or any of the other excuses they like to make, they would probably bring up the some reasoning like I've heard on this forum that it just "doesn't fit in." I mean if u build one more will follow, thats the whole point. Now particularly regarding this project, its been discussed on here before, how the heck is it any where near the historical area of Inglewood, just because this community contains historical buildings doesn't mean it needs apply throughout the whole community. I for the sake of it just can't see what the fuss is about a 20 storey tower in the corner of no where. If that isn't fear mongering that I don't know what is. Europeans persevered their historical cities but they haven't rejected the idea of adopting with ever changing times. Calgary lives with this paranoia that we've destroyed all our history so lets surround ever thing we find historic with a 100m radius around for new development. Honestly if I was a high-rise developer I would think twice about investing in projects in this city the way some of these projects are being bullied. The one case were developer was right pissed off was the Highland one where he said that they had solutions in place but no one wanted to listen to their point. He even mentioned that NIMBYist always mention themselves as being pro development and when one of their arguments against a project is shut down they go on to nit pick something else. Times are changing and were not in a boom no more so if Calgary wants to attract investment and migration then we're gonna need to change with times like other cities have and are doing so. Urban meccas like London/NYC are great examples of that and have continued accepting innovative ideas as times changes. I was watching a small documentary recently on how clever developers are getting with the space left in Manhattan and while watching it I'm just thinking to myself we can't propose 30 storey condo around a LRT station without some grandma complaining about her sunlight. My intention was not to sound like I was attacking anyones belief but I feel we need to zoom out and look at the bigger picture as to where do we stand as a city and where we want to head. Competing with other cities in Canada is how we'll retain migrants and youth, trust me nothing pisses me off more than someone saying Calgary is boring but its hard to argue otherwise.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Calgary is going to start getting the TOD nodes, it will just take time. The difference between Calgary and cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago... is that they are very tight on space, while we are not, so there isn't the pressure on developers to really go all in on TOD. Brentwood is the first TOD type area we are seeing, and while there has been pushback from the community, they are getting it done. I think it could be done better, but it beats the massive parking lots from the shopping centre there.
Social Justice
Active Member
Good response! I agree with many of your points and respect your counter argument and I'm happy with the discourse here at SRC. However, there are a few things I'd still like to clear up.
I think there are many areas outside the core that are ideal for towers. Once again...context is everything. For example, I think the stretch of Macleod trail from Cemetery Hill to Shawnessey could undergo a complete redevelopment with 50-100m towers within 500-800m of C-train stations. The potential towers don't really affect any existing residential areas, the commercial area is already underutilized with strip malls from the 60's and it is has good proximity to some-what rapid transit.
I also think 36th street N.E., Currie Barracks, Brentwood, Northlands and Crowfoot Village could do with a few towers of varying sizes.
Totally agree. In my opinion Calgary's 'vibracy' or 'late night scene' has always been lacking when compared to other cities. However...this is just my personal opinion...I think we should focus on making the Beltline the go to place for arts, culture and for the young 20's crowd to hang out at. It's hard to explain it, but to me the neighborhoods Hillhurst, Sunnyside, Crescent Heights, Bridgeland, Inglewood, Ramsay and Marda Loop feel more chill/relaxed/quieter neighborhoods...'leafy urbanism'. That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for more development, densification and good urban design in these neighborhoods, but let's put our money on the fastest horse at the race track. That horse is the Beltline.
There's nothing fearful about it. I don't think the original design for Grid will have a big affect on traffic. I just think it's not great urban planning. I like to refer to this video about city planning:
I have to once again respectfully disagree. For a city of 1.2 million I think we punch above our weight class in terms of total number of highrises and transit ridership compared with other north american cities.
Louisville Kentucky. Population 1.2 million. Picture from wikipedia.
I agree that NIMBY's can be too much sometimes. WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN PLAY became kind of a meme on SSP. I hate to say it, but in the long run, I'd rather have more engaged citizens than having developers build what ever they want. Even if it is a rough process for potential developers.
I totally agree! I'm on board with you 100% and I've enjoyed our conversation so far.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
I definitely like a lot of your points! the way I'm coming at the issue is through frustration, like I said you hear all the wonderful stuff happening in Vancouver and Toronto that sometimes I feel we're getting left behind as a city. The recession has a lot to do with it so for me every time a developer comes around to bring some evolution to an area and NIMBYist come out in full swing, it can become really frustrating. One of the biggest letdowns so far is the Westbrook node that hasn't even been begun on yet which was approved 10 years ago, so like I said it can become quite disheartening when you wait and wait. The reason why I emphasize nodes also is the fact that they can really create a sense of a city, like I mentioned, you can ask tourists or lurk around on reddit and you'll find Calgary being described as a bunch of never-ending suburbs and not really a city. In any normal case I would ignore the haters but in this particular case you really want to sell your city to people so the impression we leave on others really does matter.Good response! I agree with many of your points and respect your counter argument and I'm happy with the discourse here at SRC. However, there are a few things I'd still like to clear up.
I think there are many areas outside the core that are ideal for towers. Once again...context is everything. For example, I think the stretch of Macleod trail from Cemetery Hill to Shawnessey could undergo a complete redevelopment with 50-100m towers within 500-800m of C-train stations. The potential towers don't really affect any existing residential areas, the commercial area is already underutilized with strip malls from the 60's and it is has good proximity to some-what rapid transit.
I also think 36th street N.E., Currie Barracks, Brentwood, Northlands and Crowfoot Village could do with a few towers of varying sizes.
Totally agree. In my opinion Calgary's 'vibracy' or 'late night scene' has always been lacking when compared to other cities. However...this is just my personal opinion...I think we should focus on making the Beltline the go to place for arts, culture and for the young 20's crowd to hang out at. It's hard to explain it, but to me the neighborhoods Hillhurst, Sunnyside, Crescent Heights, Bridgeland, Inglewood, Ramsay and Marda Loop feel more chill/relaxed/quieter neighborhoods...'leafy urbanism'. That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for more development, densification and good urban design in these neighborhoods, but let's put our money on the fastest horse at the race track. That horse is the Beltline.
There's nothing fearful about it. I don't think the original design for Grid will have a big affect on traffic. I just think it's not great urban planning. I like to refer to this video about city planning:
I have to once again respectfully disagree. For a city of 1.2 million I think we punch above our weight class in terms of total number of highrises and transit ridership compared with other north american cities.
Louisville Kentucky. Population 1.2 million. Picture from wikipedia.
I agree that NIMBY's can be too much sometimes. WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN PLAY became kind of a meme on SSP. I hate to say it, but in the long run, I'd rather have more engaged citizens than having developers build what ever they want. Even if it is a rough process for potential developers.
I totally agree! I'm on board with you 100% and I've enjoyed our conversation so far.
FCC1982
Active Member
I've watched that "How to Make an Attractive City" video about 3 times over the past 5 years or so trying to give it another chance but everytime I see it, its even more irritating.
Preaching what everyone is supposed to like and bashing capitalism and all those evil, greedy developers. I just find it infuriating. (end rant)
Preaching what everyone is supposed to like and bashing capitalism and all those evil, greedy developers. I just find it infuriating. (end rant)
Stephen Ave
Active Member
Has there been any update on this one ?
MichaelS
Senior Member
Likely waiting on the ARP to go to Council. I think it is scheduled for the fall sometime. I am not sure if it will be changed from the latest draft that was presented.
Reecemartin
Active Member
@SocialJustice, while I agree that Calgary isn't bad at all for North America, do remember the US does not set a very high bar . . .
MichaelS
Senior Member
The land use for this goes to CPC next week, item 7.2.17. Interesting that Administration recommends approval, but withholding 2nd and 3rd reading until the AVPA is amended or the property can be exempted.
Report is here:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=69609
The community association is not happy about it:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=69612
And they (community) seem to have an ally in the Airport Authority:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=69613
Report is here:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=69609
The community association is not happy about it:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=69612
And they (community) seem to have an ally in the Airport Authority:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=69613
Social Justice
Active Member
Good.
This seems like just another boring, banal and generic tower. "Good filler" as we say in Calgary.
This seems like just another boring, banal and generic tower. "Good filler" as we say in Calgary.
maestro
Senior Member
You're inferring high rise are paramount to making a dull place exciting. The irony of the places you listed is that the medium rise neighbourhoods tend to be where people gather. It's just a more likable scale and I love me a dense urban core. I prefer the planning structure of Chicago or New York than the free for all in Toronto or Vancouver. A couple 20 to 30 storey tower rising above a medium rise plateau is a distraction more than a net positive on the overall feel of the neighbourhood. Budgets allow few architectural statements in residential design as well.
Chicago is nothing like Toronto or Vancouver. There are assigned places where you can build very tall. Everywhere else you couldn't get 10 storeys approved. These low to medium rise Chicago neighbourhoods are grander than the new, mixed height neighhourhoods in Toronto or Vancouver Height is just numbers. Urban form is what's impressionable.
MichaelS
Senior Member
So a pretty big potential hiccup for this one. It went through CPC unanimously, however with the condition that the 2nd and 3rd reading at council be withheld until the AVPA report is out and restrictions updated.
For those not familiar, the AVPA is the Airport Vicinity Protection Area, and it outlines boundaries, in line with flight paths, where certain noise levels are (I think). Typically, no residential intensification is allowed in the zones that are scored 30 or higher (which The Grid falls in). There has been quite a bit of discussion about amending it, more information here:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/...-1P2007/Airport-vicinity-protection-area.aspx
The final report, to which the Grid was waiting on for Council's 3rd reading of approval, is going to the Committee on Planning and Urban Development tomorrow. The report can be found here:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=73187
Recommendations, here:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=73188
If I am reading these recommendations right (and I'd like to think I am), it means that intensification like what is proposed will not be allowed. In the parts of Inglewood that fall in the "30 or higher" zone, intensification is limited to infill's, secondary suites, and corner lot 4-plexes. No multi-family zoning.
I will be curious to see how this is received by Committee and Council. What is more curious, when looking at the detailed AVPA map, the new YWCA falls within the 30-35 range, not sure how it got approved (not considered residential?). Also, how did the condos north of The Grid, across 17th/Blackfoot, get approved?
gsunnyg
Senior Member
If that is a restriction then thats pretty stupid IMO. That literally cuts out more then 50% of the NE from ever getting any real densification along the blue line. IMO, when I look at the AVPA map I think it is way too cautious. Other cities get pretty darn close to their airports in terms of highrises. I mean aren't there 10+ storey highrises in Richmond right on the footsteps of Vancouver airport? I like the way the FAA recommended it in the US. Building height is limited to 49m within 3km and once you get further away it increases even more. Id rather choose a model like that instead of preventing a highrise from being built thats over 6km from the nearest runway just based on noise levels.