MJC
New Member
Newby question... why is Calgary so attached to Fort Calgary here? Why not expand EV to Inglewood and move Fort Calgary to Heritage Park?
The Hat | 88.08m | 28s | Cidex Group | NORR
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Newby question... why is Calgary so attached to Fort Calgary here? Why not expand EV to Inglewood and move Fort Calgary to Heritage Park?
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Isn't this the original location of the fort? In fact, isn't the location pretty much the only thing that attaches the current building to the original fort? It's not like the building is original or anything.
Also, the abundance of cultural institutions and parkland is what is driving the redevelopment in the EV, VP, and Inglewood. If we start shutting those things down and moving them to the 'burbs, then what's the point?
MJC
New Member
Parkland is a form of sprawl too and they have the whole river pathway system. Just saying.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Inner city parkland is actually not part of sprawl. I'm afraid I can't agree with having half a square kilometre of parkland removed just for more roads and high-rises. I imagine that the majority of people on this forum wouldn't agree with it either.
Zoom
Active Member
I value inner city parkland, but also wonder if the land around the Fort Calgary area couldn't be better utilized. Do we need that much park space all in one spot? I would be okay with more development along 9th ave to better connect East Village to Inglewood, and having park space more toward the river.
UrbanRED
Active Member
Well before we get talking about removing some of our nicer inner city parkland, let's develop the south side of 9th ave... seeing as it's empty dirt right now.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
I would be amenable to having a more urbanized 9 Avenue for sure. But agreed with the above that let's worry about the south side.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Does anyone know if there’s a shadow restriction on the Fort Calgary lawn?
Zoom
Active Member
Sure, definitely get the south side going first if possible. The problem is those parcels are not desirable for developers. I can tell you that there is zero interest in those parcels. If someone develops them it's going to have to be a public works project, similar to what's been done so far... a district energy plant and a yet to be built parkade, and that's it. Too bad the Salvation Army site wasn't built there instead, maybe it could be an anchor?
I think the city would be wise to work on a plan to do both sides, as the south south would be more desirable if developers knew the north side would be developed also. If not, those south side parcels won't get developed in our lifetime.
As a side note, when I refer to development on the north side, I'm talking only a strip of land with low rises, essentially an urban bridge so to speak, between Inglewood and East Village.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I never understood this. Calgary - a city with significant more open space than many of our counterparts - tends to place significant value on open space for the sake of it: not useful open space. Much of this is understandable; flood-plains, steep escarpments etc. but much of it is harder to understand like Fort Calgary. Preserving space just for the sake of it isn't a good policy, space has to be useful at the time. The current Fort Calgary was built over a railyard in the 1970s, it's not like it's a sacred site that should be prevented from changing again.
I would not necessarily advocate for it to be converted into EV-like development, but surely it can be adapted to be achieve higher utilization and be more useful. The area's value is entirely different than the 1970s and the park should be changed to accommodate this. Some examples:
- The concrete outline of the historic fort (installed in the past few years, another reminder that the area is hardly a sacred historic spot) restricts the size and infrastructure of the festivals that are hosted there, pushing them elsewhere.
- The field has poor drainage or any infrastructure that makes it easy to hold festivals or temporary events year-round.
- The parking lot area along the south edge is larger than the size of all the interpretive centres/fort outlines put together and is almost never utilized anywhere close to capacity (another element that wasn't there historically obviously).
Cowtown
Senior Member
Count me in as one of those who would like to see the Fort Calgary area tweaked. I'm fine with the Fort being there, and having the parkland, but IMO, it's a lot of land that isn't being used very well. Parks don't need to be large to be effective. Keep the park space adjacent to the river, but do something with the 9th ave side. 9th ave south badly needs some love, but I agree with Zoomi, I don't see any one stepping up unless the north side of 9th gets some development of some sort.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
One of the defining features of sprawl is the destruction of greenfields. In that sense parkland is, almost by definition, not sprawl. In fact, protecting green space from development just encourages density in the surrounding areas.
Take it from a former Torontonian: once the inner city fills up with enough density, we will be happy that we preserved large pieces green space along the riverfront even if they are somewhat underused at the moment. Toronto notoriously let its entire central waterfront get developed for "useful" purposes. Now the entire central core is starved for green space.
No one in Chicago laments the fact that Grant Park was saved from development, even though the vast majority of the park is open fields that are often pretty empty. With all the redevelopment in EV, VP, Inglewood, and Bridgeland, the parkland around Fort Calgary (combined with St Patrick's Island) could eventually serve a similar function as Grant Park: as a green oasis in the middle of the city.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Wasn't there plans to add more stuff to Fort Calgary? something like an interpretative centre with a modern design and big cantilevers? I think it would be cool if they did more events celebrating the history of the area, RCMP musical ride and more Native events would be the obvious.
Anyway, I think we should keep the big open area much as it is, maybe add some permanent structures for festivals and shows similar the the stage in Prince's island. As inner city Calgary builds out, there will be lots of pressure to develop green space, but once it's gone we won't get it back, so I think it would be a shame to let it go.
Anyway, I think we should keep the big open area much as it is, maybe add some permanent structures for festivals and shows similar the the stage in Prince's island. As inner city Calgary builds out, there will be lots of pressure to develop green space, but once it's gone we won't get it back, so I think it would be a shame to let it go.
I know where you're coming from, but I'm on the fence about this. One of the great things about Grant Park, and Central Park etc, is the way they are surrounded by city, and the urban space around the parks has good continual urban flow.My concern with a large urban park in that location is that Inglewood and Ramsay doesn't really have a good urban tie into downtown. Starting from south to north you have the Stampede grounds, and the train tracks, and then Fort Calgary, until butting up against the Bow. Inglewood and Ramsay to me feel cutoff from downtown. 9th ave is the only real opportunity to tie the two areas. There is space along the south side of 9th, but it's very slim....I'm not sure it can even be developed unless the tracks move, or maybe 9th ave moves further north?
Last edited:
