News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 4.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 3.8K     0 

General Construction Updates

Surrealplaces said:
We have enough new steel and glass office towers downtown, it'd be nice to keep these older buildings.
Click to expand...
Ya that is why i think creating a "Heritage" District out of these specific blocks would be a smart move. Create architectural guidelines that reflect the history (similar to guidelines present in Gastown, Chinatown and DTES in Vancouver). Strengthen historic protections on existing buildings, while allowing for conversion to residential, and infill the remainder with heritage-style buildings. The Theatre Junction building would be amazing as apartments. Buildings along Stephen Ave would be way cooler as lofts. On the not historically protected or empty lots, infill with good architectural Guidelines like this building in Gastown:
Gastown Apartment
I think by creating a distinct heritage area out of these blocks we could ensure they stay preserved, and new development is historically sensitive. Then we can stop people like Encana from tearing down heritage protected buildings like the York Hotel. Because currently it seems the strategy for them is to let the St Regis fall into disrepair until they can justify demolishing it because it is "too far gone".
 
Calgcouver said:
Strengthen historic protections on existing buildings
...
Then we can stop people like Encana from tearing down heritage protected buildings like the York Hotel. Because currently it seems the strategy for them is to let the St Regis fall into disrepair until they can justify demolishing it because it is "too far gone".
Click to expand...

Just a couple of comments. In Alberta there are really only three ways to protect a heritage building: a) the owner volunteers b) the Province protects against an owners will (which they have done maybe 3 times in 40 years) c) the municipality buys it. That said, about half of the buildings on Stephen Ave are provincially protected, so that's a start.
 
JoeUrban said:
Just a couple of comments. In Alberta there are really only three ways to protect a heritage building: a) the owner volunteers b) the Province protects against an owners will (which they have done maybe 3 times in 40 years) c) the municipality buys it. That said, about half of the buildings on Stephen Ave are provincially protected, so that's a start.
Click to expand...
With today's mindset being a little more enlightened, maybe the province will start doing that more often. I remember coming here for work a few times in the 90's and the mentality seemed to be 'out with the old, and in with the new' which frankly surprised me. Back in Ontario there were way more heritage buildings and people seemed to care more about them, whereas here in Calgary there is a limited amount. I would hate to see any more heritage or older buildings get torn down. Time to fix them up and celebrate them.
 
Zoom said:
With today's mindset being a little more enlightened, maybe the province will start doing that more often. I remember coming here for work a few times in the 90's and the mentality seemed to be 'out with the old, and in with the new' which frankly surprised me. Back in Ontario there were way more heritage buildings and people seemed to care more about them, whereas here in Calgary there is a limited amount. I would hate to see any more heritage or older buildings get torn down. Time to fix them up and celebrate them.
Click to expand...

Well I believe of the ~3 times the Province has designated against an owners will, two of the times was the current NDP government.
Really, regardless of what legal tools a government has at their disposal, political will has typically been the one most lacking when it comes to heritage protection. In theory the city could just downzone all heritage sites to match their built form, and I believe similar actions have gone to court with the case law being that when it comes to density via zoning a municipality can give and take as it pleases without requiring nor giving compensation. Not actually suggesting they do that, but political will is needed.
 
JoeUrban said:
Well I believe of the ~3 times the Province has designated against an owners will, two of the times was the current NDP government.
Really, regardless of what legal tools a government has at their disposal, political will has typically been the one most lacking when it comes to heritage protection. In theory the city could just downzone all heritage sites to match their built form, and I believe similar actions have gone to court with the case law being that when it comes to density via zoning a municipality can give and take as it pleases without requiring nor giving compensation. Not actually suggesting they do that, but political will is needed.
Click to expand...
That's what it all comes down to. I like the idea of the zoning rules restricting it to be the same size. It seems like a fair compromise, but I suppose there would be disgruntled owners who bough the land with ideas of redeveloping it.
 
Penn west-gulf bridge this morning:
20181119_080645.jpg
 
Calgcouver said:
Ya that is why i think creating a "Heritage" District out of these specific blocks would be a smart move. Create architectural guidelines that reflect the history (similar to guidelines present in Gastown, Chinatown and DTES in Vancouver). Strengthen historic protections on existing buildings, while allowing for conversion to residential, and infill the remainder with heritage-style buildings. The Theatre Junction building would be amazing as apartments. Buildings along Stephen Ave would be way cooler as lofts. On the not historically protected or empty lots, infill with good architectural Guidelines like this building in Gastown:
Gastown Apartment
I think by creating a distinct heritage area out of these blocks we could ensure they stay preserved, and new development is historically sensitive. Then we can stop people like Encana from tearing down heritage protected buildings like the York Hotel. Because currently it seems the strategy for them is to let the St Regis fall into disrepair until they can justify demolishing it because it is "too far gone".
Click to expand...


I agree with almost everything. New development should be sensitive in form and function; narrow storefronts and similar height as examples for both.I disagree that it needs to look like the old. You still need spaces/buildings for services like lawyers, accountants and doctors which shouldn't occupy ground floor spaces and live/work isn't an option.

This is an extreme example that can only happen in New York. I love it anyways
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/10...e5482cf0e99cbf90!8m2!3d40.780597!4d-73.956394
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
I agree with almost everything. New development should be sensitive in form and function; narrow storefronts and similar height as examples for both.I disagree that it needs to look like the old. You still need spaces/buildings for services like lawyers, accountants and doctors which shouldn't occupy ground floor spaces and live/work isn't an option.

This is an extreme example that can only happen in New York. I love it anyways
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/10...e5482cf0e99cbf90!8m2!3d40.780597!4d-73.956394
Click to expand...

You're right it doesn't neccessarily have to look old, just something i would like to see a bit more of in Calgary. I just want to see more of this historic scale built to add to the area I had outlined. Here is a decidedly modern one in Chinatown that I love that fits under the HA-2 'historic' zoning code (in Vancouver); https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2785...4!1sVdfQ8e46ItGXBDP40PVyYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
 

Attachments

  • 1542652120889.png
    1542652120889.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 278
Last edited:
Yeah I think when it comes to new development in historic areas/districts the ways to go are similar scale, similar materials, or both. What I quite dislike is 'fake historic', particularly because the original styles tend to be too expensive to do now so you end up with a historic brick and sandstone building next to a new building with red and beige stucco to try to fake that and it looks terrible. Alternately, if you do successfully mimic the historic style now you create confusion as to which buildings are actually historic, and it can lead to the public valuing the new replicas over the actual historical structures due to the new ones looking 'fresher'. For example, I recall going to a public engagement about a new building planned next to a historical site and someone in the audience complained about the 'modern' style and said the developer should be building a 'historical building', using that to just mean an aesthetic rather than a value.

That all said, I have no problem with the big contemporary developments in Inglewood (although many use brick), mainly because for the most part they are book-ending the historical cluster and not inserted within.
 
JoeUrban said:
Yeah I think when it comes to new development in historic areas/districts the ways to go are similar scale, similar materials, or both. What I quite dislike is 'fake historic', particularly because the original styles tend to be too expensive to do now so you end up with a historic brick and sandstone building next to a new building with red and beige stucco to try to fake that and it looks terrible. Alternately, if you do successfully mimic the historic style now you create confusion as to which buildings are actually historic, and it can lead to the public valuing the new replicas over the actual historical structures due to the new ones looking 'fresher'. For example, I recall going to a public engagement about a new building planned next to a historical site and someone in the audience complained about the 'modern' style and said the developer should be building a 'historical building', using that to just mean an aesthetic rather than a value.

That all said, I have no problem with the big contemporary developments in Inglewood (although many use brick), mainly because for the most part they are book-ending the historical cluster and not inserted within.
Click to expand...

I agree it can look contrived to add on too many faux-historix elements. I do think it is important to dictate materials and to make sure that the scale and setbacks are faithfully executed however. Good examples would be this;
1542653260361.png

1542653300022.png

1542653368769.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top