The Hub | ?m | 28s | Campus Suites | ARK Inc.

General Rating for this project

  • Great

    Votes: 2 3.2%

  • Very Good

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • Good

    Votes: 28 44.4%

  • So So

    Votes: 7 11.1%

  • Not Very Good

    Votes: 10 15.9%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 12 19.0%
  • Total voters
    63
gsunnyg said:
I’m not arguing on behalf of what an ideal development would look like from a density perspective, I’m saying that when these towers are proposed, why do people have to resist with stupidity? There’s clearly a market for this tower to go up otherwise it would have not been built so then why must a group of Nimbyist assemble and give a developer a tough time over pathetic issues like privacy. You don’t see developers and the city halls in metro Vancouver cave in as much to the demands of a few mongering Nimbyist because their consistent with approving developments where sites allow for high density taller buildings. So why do people in our city still get rattled up over a 30 storey tower in the suburbs when areas like Banff trail already have ARP’s approved for tall buildings, that’s my concern. I love midrises and high rises equally and theirs rooms for both depending on the location but again my problem is not with which ones should be prioritized it’s more so with the NIMBY attitude in a city of 1.3 million people against tall structures in areas that have been already allowed for high density/tall buildings under city land use bylaws
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's entirely true.

globalnews.ca

Vancouver hospice fights proposed townhouse development - BC | Globalnews.ca

A battle is brewing in Vancouver between a hospice society and a townhouse developer.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca


The fear and opposition to change is not tied to any particular geography. I agree that opposition is often grounded on false pretenses - but the attitudes here are largely consistent with elsewhere.
 
CCF said:
I'm not sure that's entirely true.

globalnews.ca

Vancouver hospice fights proposed townhouse development - BC | Globalnews.ca

A battle is brewing in Vancouver between a hospice society and a townhouse developer.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca


The fear and opposition to change is not tied to any particular geography. I agree that opposition is often grounded on false pretenses - but the attitudes here are largely consistent with elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Ya it is just as bad in Vancouver, it is just that people try to pretend to be more caring and are more politically correct.
 
CCF said:
I lived in Waterloo during a period of rapid growth when many of these developments were going up. The increased density was welcomed but there was a complete lack of oversight or dictation as to how these buildings intereacted with the street. Definitely did not help contribute to create better and more liveable streets.
Click to expand...

This is getting off topic, but I need to get this rant off my chest. Waterloo has had the kind of office and residential development activity that most cities could only dream of, and they've completely screwed it. All the residential towers are massive commieblocks with little to no retail at grade level. Meanwhile the office buildings are almost all low-rise and surrounded by a sea of parking lots. All of this development has occurred within the last 15 years, but it looks like it was built in the 1970s.

Imagine what the city could have looked like if all this development had been better planned around basic design features that are taken for granted in most cities: retail podiums+point towers to avoid shadowing, transit oriented development, improved street design for suburban arterials, integration of office, retail, and residential in the same neighbourhood rather than clusters of high-rise residential towers across the street from sprawling low-rise office parks.
 
gsunnyg said:
I’m not arguing on behalf of what an ideal development would look like from a density perspective, I’m saying that when these towers are proposed, why do people have to resist with stupidity? There’s clearly a market for this tower to go up otherwise it would have not been built so then why must a group of Nimbyist assemble and give a developer a tough time over pathetic issues like privacy. You don’t see developers and the city halls in metro Vancouver cave in as much to the demands of a few mongering Nimbyist because their consistent with approving developments where sites allow for high density taller buildings. So why do people in our city still get rattled up over a 30 storey tower in the suburbs when areas like Banff trail already have ARP’s approved for tall buildings, that’s my concern. I love midrises and high rises equally and theirs rooms for both depending on the location but again my problem is not with which ones should be prioritized it’s more so with the NIMBY attitude in a city of 1.3 million people against tall structures in areas that have been already allowed for high density/tall buildings under city land use bylaws
Click to expand...

IMO, there is nothing more important than attaining the ideal form and function for a development. The private equity group building this tower only concern is maximizing their return on investment. The communities concerns are similar; protecting their assets. I don't understand the implication here that developers are on the side of good and neighbourhood concerns are pathetic. As i have said before, even the most ridiculous NIMBY claim ( I have heard someone complain a new development will block his view of the skyline) can produce an idea that no one would ever thing of that and greatly improves the development. We are a community. We shouldn't bend over to developer's whims.

We've become jaded with height over a decade that has dizzying benchmarks fall one after another. 30 storeys is still a very tall building which effects a large area with it's presence (particularly in a suburban, lower rise area) All considerations whether a tall tower is a suitable development should be debated. Take the time. You don't want to make a mistake because there is no going back. Suburban Vancouver and Toronto are full of planning failures that generations will have to endure.
 
maestro said:
IMO, there is nothing more important than attaining the ideal form and function for a development. The private equity group building this tower only concern is maximizing their return on investment. The communities concerns are similar; protecting their assets. I don't understand the implication here that developers are on the side of good and neighbourhood concerns are pathetic. As i have said before, even the most ridiculous NIMBY claim ( I have heard someone complain a new development will block his view of the skyline) can produce an idea that no one would ever thing of that and greatly improves the development. We are a community. We shouldn't bend over to developer's whims.

We've become jaded with height over a decade that has dizzying benchmarks fall one after another. 30 storeys is still a very tall building which effects a large area with it's presence (particularly in a suburban, lower rise area) All considerations whether a tall tower is a suitable development should be debated. Take the time. You don't want to make a mistake because there is no going back. Suburban Vancouver and Toronto are full of planning failures that generations will have to endure.
Click to expand...
Im not saying residents should cave into developers either, everyones voice needs to be heard but Im saying the mentalities need to change and irrational fears need to be given less importance in the decision making process (example, initially people living in the community across the highway from this site were worried about parking even though there was a fence and a highway isolating their community, a completely irrational fear imo and most people that commented on this forum earlier seemed to agree).

If the ARP had already designated this area of the Banff Trail for a higher height years ago then why do we need to go through another redundant process of height being an issue? Again, as I mentioned, Im not talking about what we need to follow or do to make an ideal urban experience, thats a whole another topic, but highrises do have their place outside of the core area. Im strictly talking about this constant trend of height as an issue when cities like Toronto and Vancouver visually speaking have overcome it a long time ago. Yes they still do face a lot of NIMBYism but visiting those cities will show how the presence of designated land use and existing tall buildings has already set a precedent for more tall high rises to be constructed. Plus there are many people that would love to see more mini downtown nodes outside of our core area including me and some of my friends Ive talked to on this topic, it makes the city visually more appealing IMO but may not always be practical. Example a highrise (shitty podium included) on a mainstreet is a big no no for me and most people on this forum but hidden away on a discrete street to help boost density in an area? why not? We can all be winners here.

BTW, I too think this design is utter crap aesthetically and practically but Im hoping it'll open up Calgarians to the idea of having more highrises outside of our downtown in areas where they may serve a useful purpose. That was what I was trying to get at.
 
I don't understand. What changes were made to this dumpster fire by giving the people across the highway a voice? This is a dysfunctional proposal that sets an ugly precedence for the rest of the area. This is really not the thread to stage an argument for more height

Height is still the main focus in Toronto and Vancouver. There is way too much focus on height. Direct Control Zoning in Vancouver and Calgary at least puts a community's most desirable density at the forefront. It doesn't address form. The Beltline would look grander with more density distributed to the street level than towards the height of the point towers. At least, it's not the clusterfuck Toronto is slowly becoming.
 
Making itself more noticeable. Sorry for the quality.
0C378FB4-44DB-4424-9BE9-CA3C3A4635A3.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top