The Hat Elbow River | 177.99m | 56s | Cidex Group | NORR

[gsunnyg]

Im gonna save my final views until I see the renderings. I know people here aren't liking the street interaction or river interaction but for me this is just a massive filler of density which will fuel the entertainment district down the street. The density is whats got me amped up about this project. The fact Macleod trail will most likely not change from being a freeway/highway style road anytime in the next century is why I could care less about prioritizing street interaction. Ya the lack of river interaction seems like a bummer but Im also really happy how massive in scale this is, enough to extend our skyline southwards even more. Again if we look at how this project will contribute to the entertainment district with its massive density rather than looking at how its podium is going to be pedestrian friendly, I think we'll enjoy this project a lot more.

 

[Calgcouver]

Im gonna save my final views until I see the renderings. I know people here aren't liking the street interaction or river interaction but for me this is just a massive filler of density which will fuel the entertainment district down the street. The density is whats got me amped up about this project. The fact Macleod trail will most likely not change from being a freeway/highway style road anytime in the next century is why I could care less about prioritizing street interaction. Ya the lack of river interaction seems like a bummer but Im also really happy how massive in scale this is, enough to extend our skyline southwards even more. Again if we look at how this project will contribute to the entertainment district with its massive density rather than looking at how its podium is going to be pedestrian friendly, I think we'll enjoy this project a lot more.

I agree with waiting for better renderings and I understand that it is a gravel parking lot currently, and their is nothing wrong with fairly non-descript developments, but I think we need to get away from being okay with a building because it is filler, especially if it is waterfront. If we keep treating this Macleod Trail corridor as such, it will be a neighbourhood of filler. I feel like the interaction with the river is the redeeming quality of this site, it would be a shame if they didn't treat the interaction correctly.

River district in south Vancouver scale and interaction would be fine imo;

Maybe 3 towers this size on the riverfront with a nice retail and amenity space using the waterfront;

and if they need to do aboveground parkade, use materials that are transparent or frosted, maybe something like three of these facing the river with retail or amenity space. Thin towers with a nice podium along the waterfront, maybe a smaller scale;

My usual 25 cents.

 

[Surrealplaces]

That's something I've thought about many times with these multi tower highrise projects that are proposed or going up. I like tall towers, and will take them if they are built, and it's nice to have some of them around but given the choice I would easily take 20 x Lido type 60 unit buildings instead of a multi tower 1250 unit project.

Building up density is great, but I think Calgary needs to build up its streets and corridors. Density will be attracted to an area with a good corridor and come on its own. Just this morning I was driving down 4th street NW lamenting the fact that new infills going up along the street are SFH's or Duplexes. If the city had have rezoned some of these arteries earlier, they could be small multi family developments instead, and even contain some retail.

That's a permanent shadow zone for a large swath of the area for much of the year. This single project would soak up a huge amount of demand for apartments in a format that isn't conducive for good street-life or vibrancy generation (expect for the sheer magnitude). As we see on many projects, other issues on the location aren't really the developers fault - e.g. anti-pedestrian Macleod Trail couplets - but this project's massing seems to be leaning into poor local planning. It's like they decided McLeod Trail is pretty unpleasant so they might as well add near permanent shadows. The river is not very usable there so block it off.
Is the site really so difficult that it needs this kind of density to make sense financially? Cut everything by 1/3 or a half and my objections could be reduced by 2/3. Is there any projects from other cities of this scale (and podium) that actually have enjoyable street interfaces? Can the density alone generate the pedestrian traffic to activate the area?

Cut every dimension by 1/3 or 1/2 and my objections could be reduced significantly.

 

[maestro]

As long as Calgary grows, development will continue to intensify smaller buildings with large ones. Increased density is guaranteed. For that reason, density doesn't excite me. Development with finer grained interactivity excites me such as the Chinatown proposal or several developments in the East Village. This one appears to be another multi towered, mega block with some commercial thrown in along it's perimeter. It's boring following a formula repeated a thousand times over across urban and suburban Canada.

 

[Calgcouver]

As long as Calgary grows, development will continue to intensify smaller buildings with large ones. Increased density is guaranteed. For that reason, density doesn't excite me. Development with finer grained interactivity excites me such as the Chinatown proposal or several developments in the East Village. This one appears to be another multi towered, mega block with some commercial thrown in along it's perimeter. It's boring following a formula repeated a thousand times over across urban and suburban Canada.

Agreed. Their is nothing thoughtful or fine grain about this. I don't hold any hope that this isn't going to be a VE'd pile of shit that crams as many units as possible in, and doesn't even consider giving this any sort of sense of place, or a good interaction with the river and street. This is why this whole Macleod Trail corridor is dog shit. It might have towers that provide density, but the feel of the area is garbage. While the conversation is about scale, honestly I think something of this scale like this would be better here;

 

[Social Justice]

Im gonna save my final views until I see the renderings. I know people here aren't liking the street interaction or river interaction but for me this is just a massive filler of density which will fuel the entertainment district down the street. The density is whats got me amped up about this project. The fact Macleod trail will most likely not change from being a freeway/highway style road anytime in the next century is why I could care less about prioritizing street interaction. Ya the lack of river interaction seems like a bummer but Im also really happy how massive in scale this is, enough to extend our skyline southwards even more. Again if we look at how this project will contribute to the entertainment district with its massive density rather than looking at how its podium is going to be pedestrian friendly, I think we'll enjoy this project a lot more.

I'd rather have a gravel parking lot than this dystopian piece of shit with a 12 storey podium/bunker.

The density will come, just be patience. Calgary needs more buildings with a higher level of design. We need buildings built on a human scale with context and nuance in mind. Buildings which integrate with the surroundings. Density is not everything, just look at how shitty West End downtown currently is. I'd rather live in West Hillhurst than West End downtown.

Yes, it sucks that this site is flanked by two freeways but here are some things that can be done:

1. Build a cycletrack on the east side of 1st street.
2. Give Macleod trail a road diet
3. Extend 17th ave to Stampede Park
4. Build a riverwalk type pathway from the cycletrack to Stampede park
5. Scale the building so that the south and river facing units have large patios. (See Waterfront in Eau Claire)

 

[Mountain Man]

I hope it doesn't happen so I can keep my cheap parking spot! $6 / day bitches!

 

[CBBarnett]

Agreed with the points about density. I feel the way this proposal has been positioned (and the comments) points to a big failure of the city overall in terms of policy and vision. Density will come with development (reminder: any level of density is infinitely more dense than this site is currently which is zero). But the city should look at it's own house, it seems we are generally pro-density and development, but we don't have a vision of why we are doing it (apart from cost savings) and how far-reaching a vision could be if it was adhered to and followed through on.

For example, McLeod Trail couplet (to clarify the inner city portion from Elbow River to Downtown) has clearly led to a vibrancy killing, suburban car driver, capacity-focused auto-corridor. Almost everything the city has ever done has reinforced this outcome:

• decades of road expansion (1960s & 1970s)
• city-funded blockbusting and the destruction of Victoria Park as a neighbourhood to expand of Stampede Park, reorganized for mega-events (1960s-1990s)
• LRT expansion to further divide the area in the name of commuter throughput/mega-event support rather than neighbourhood benefit (1980s)
• rejection of cycle-track on 1st Street SE despite it's proven and documented over-built automotive design (2010s)
• "green-wave" signal timing for high-speed vehicles rather than any other mode (1980s to present)

Now comes the boom in inner city population (2000s-present). Thousands of units have been added to the corridor. However all those structural issues of creating a good dense, urban environment that is livable have only been lightly touched. Sure, zoning and set-backs have allowed a wide sidewalk on some of the east side of 1 St SE (developer built). The city did put in part of the 13th Ave Greenway as well (although it was originally supposed to go all the way to 8th Street). Parking minimums have been tweaked. The Greenline will show up in the late 2020s.

Compare the light touch to rebuild the urban environment against the heavy-handed intervention to destroy it; making the area less livable, walkable and attractive over the past 50 years. Hell, the city provided the Stampede funding for decades to purchase and tear down whole swathes of Victoria Park, but currently seems willing to wait for 40 years for a developer rather than fill in simple unneeded curb-cut or a missing links in the sidewalks.

Back to this development and why I am concerned: for a site so impacted by poor, vision-lacking decisions made by the city, a developer can only do so much to improve the area - and that's assuming they are bringing a thoughtful design, consideration for integration with surroundings, a vision of livable density etc. An 12 storey podium doesn't strike me as a thoughtful choice - and we haven't even seen the ground-level rendering yet, you know they will have that bizarre flood-plain 3-steps-up design the rest of the Vic Park condos have.

I understand cities aren't built in a day - it took 50 years to destroy Victoria Park after all - and all scales are needed, but there is little we know so far about this one that seems to be working to achieve a vision of a livable and dense urban space.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Here's a question regarding density. If the city did a better job increasing the zoning for more density throughout the city, would it take pressure off of developers to build massive towers in the Beltline? I've from from various people that Beltline land is expensive partly because of its proximity to downtown, but also because the zoning for high density is there. Landowners can realize that density easily, so the land is higher priced, and in turn developers want to make sure they get the most density they can out of their parcels. Kind of a catch 22.

That said, it is nice to have a highrise area in the city for those who like the tall towers, but I wish some of the units getting developed in the core were spread out over smaller to medium sized projects.

 

[MichaelS]

There is no shortage of density (or, more accurately, multi-family) zoned lands in the City. In fact, there is a huge glut of it. I think I have heard something like a 30 year supply available right now. Not necessarily for highrise development, but no shortage of multi-family. Lots and lots in the greenfield, but also quite a bit inner-city as well. The City up-zoned a lot of the lands around Westbrook LRT when the C-train went in, to date we have seen two four storey condos get built. That's it.

 

[Surrealplaces]

There is no shortage of density (or, more accurately, multi-family) zoned lands in the City. In fact, there is a huge glut of it. I think I have heard something like a 30 year supply available right now. Not necessarily for highrise development, but no shortage of multi-family. Lots and lots in the greenfield, but also quite a bit inner-city as well. The City up-zoned a lot of the lands around Westbrook LRT when the C-train went in, to date we have seen two four storey condos get built. That's it.

Lots in greenfield areas for sure, but couldn't there be density increases in the inner city areas that are desirable? I don't have a map of all the zoning in inner city neighborhoods, but a couple of examples would be the north side of 1st Ave NE in Bridgeland, or say in Sunnyside where Glo was proposed (and shot down because it was too large). It seems there are areas in the inner city that have increased density but nobody is building, and other areas where people want to build but can't.

 

[gsunnyg]

I think people misunderstood me, when I meant density I meant its gonna give the area massive density boost to help fuel the future entertainment district, not the overall city/belt line density. Over 2000 people is massive and the future entertainment district is right down the road so I don't know why people are so adamant on making this project interact more with the Macleod. Macleod is a doomed road and I don't see it ever changing in my lifetime. As far as the anti sentiment of throwing up massive buildings, last I checked no ones sends a postcard picture of Calgary with Sunnyside in it, they send one with skylines. At the end of the day Calgarys a North American city not a European one so we sell our city with our skyline, thats the impression we leave on others who've never visited the city. When I picture Toronto I think of the CN tower dominating there large skyline whereas its the exact opposite for cities like Vienna/Paris. Seeing the location of this building, its cutoff by two highways and stampede grounds is flanking it on one side so I can't think of a better place to put up massive towers which clearly will never have the sort of pedestrian friendly location people are hoping for. Yes we can do a better job with street interaction but when I envision the future of the Beltline and Downtown, I see it being Manhattanized the shit out of. Leave the 4-6 buildings for Marda loop, Sunnyside etc.

 

[Nimbus]

Nah, we got a baller skyline already (and it will continue to grow) so our focus should be on good filler projects and making sure continued advocacy occurs to help change roads like Macleod over time.

 

[Calgcouver]

I think people misunderstood me, when I meant density I meant its gonna give the area massive density boost to help fuel the future entertainment district, not the overall city/belt line density. Over 2000 people is massive and the future entertainment district is right down the road so I don't know why people are so adamant on making this project interact more with the Macleod. Macleod is a doomed road and I don't see it ever changing in my lifetime. As far as the anti sentiment of throwing up massive buildings, last I checked no ones sends a postcard picture of Calgary with Sunnyside in it, they send one with skylines. At the end of the day Calgarys a North American city not a European one so we sell our city with our skyline, thats the impression we leave on others who've never visited the city. When I picture Toronto I think of the CN tower dominating there large skyline whereas its the exact opposite for cities like Vienna/Paris. Seeing the location of this building, its cutoff by two highways and stampede grounds is flanking it on one side so I can't think of a better place to put up massive towers which clearly will never have the sort of pedestrian friendly location people are hoping for. Yes we can do a better job with street interaction but when I envision the future of the Beltline and Downtown, I see it being Manhattanized the shit out of. Leave the 4-6 buildings for Marda loop, Sunnyside etc.

I think this is a major difference in opinion for me then. I think what makes a city a good place, is continuous streetwalls of buildings, not VE'd Spandrel monstrosities like this will be. Might make for a better photo for a skyline, which i don't care about, but does not contribute to the livability of the city. To me the biggest killer of urban livability in the downtown and beltline are the lack of human-scaled blocks and very few continuous street walls of buildings that are interrupted by surface parking lots. ie;
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0486...4!1s0yJVeifp3xdYYRpJOt4DiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0471...4!1svfRUrm2H2PzQiuUv9veXWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0418...4!1sr0zVeNHT9oYjWBgM8kIoQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And East Victoria Park is an embarrassment, this shit makes decaying Detroit look urbane;
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0399...4!1stgWjhSwpNwIyRG_3kutaTQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As Michael S touched on, Calgary has no scarcity of under-utilized land zoned for high-densities. Zoning for higher densities everywhere inflates the speculative land costs and drives up the height and density of what is viable to make the site work financially. Then we get cold mega projects like this. I would honestly prefer if all of these surface lots/gaps in the urban environment filled in before we let a 1,300 unit monstrosity like this go up. We can build this, and make sure East Victoria Park and other parking lots stay as they are for another 30 years, but hey! We got three enormous spandrel towers, it is a win! Or we could lower densities and encourage turnover and development of under-utilized blocks and build an actual city. These 1,262 units could have been spread out in six-storey buildings over numerous blocks in East Victoria Park, and then it wouldn't have a couple of towers surrounding by wasteland.

I would prefer to see under-utilized sites in the beltline and downtown develop sooner and at a much smaller scale. Also i think that people are grossly over estimating the demand for condos in Calgary, we have a glut of units as it is and it is going to take forever to fill in all of these sites if we keep building enormous multi-tower projects like this. Spread the units out and and create a cohesive urban fabric. That will make for a way more livable and beautiful city, and it doesn't have to be amazing buildings just normal low-rise projects you get all over Vancouver's corridors. Like these;
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2488...4!1sNQnFRhjjEh89vmXDuT21wA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2603...4!1sxiM7zSFBKD1wi3SWu65tDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

[1875]

the only tall building i need in calgary is a supertall on the oxford site. the rest can all be 20 floors or lower and ill be happy.