News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.7K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.9K     0 

General Construction Updates

Love those old pics of the building. That lobby was really quite cool back in its time!

Definitely. When I'm walking through campus, I often look at the decaying and generally ugly interiors of the older buildings and imagine what they might have looked like when they were first built, before decades of hasty and ill-conceived renovations. This is a great example of what we've lost. Interior designs are so rarely preserved.
 
If the reclad turned out exactly like the rendering, I would be happy. I don't find it a bore at all, those nice big glass windows look great.

Like Darwink said though, its an older conceptual drawing.

It's a glass box. It's no better or worse than what is there now. It's just looks new. It's adequate for a filler office building in the commercial core. Institutions are the best hope for consistent exceptional architecture. The city has done well. The Calgary universities really aren't living up to this standard.
 
I don't usually like re-clads bit I would be happy to see the social Sciences building re-done. I've never liked the fact that there is not much for windows..
 
McKimmie is a stuffy old box, I think the reclad could do it some good. I think the Admin building and the central connector to the library are kinda classy though. I'm not sure how I feel about them being included in the reclad. They need more interior work than exterior.

I don't usually like re-clads bit I would be happy to see the social Sciences building re-done. I've never liked the fact that there is not much for windows..

If I could do anything on campus, I'd probably start by demo-ing Craigie Hall and building something newer and nicer in it's place, but then Social Sciences would be next on my hit list for sure. I go to the U of C gym now and they're doing something to the exterior of the SS tower (... sounds sinister), but I'm not sure what. It's like what's going on with that old green painted condo tower downtown. They've gone up and down the sides and bashed a bunch of holes, but I'm not sure to what effect. It's probably structural, but there's hope.

It's a glass box. It's no better or worse than what is there now. It's just looks new. It's adequate for a filler office building in the commercial core. Institutions are the best hope for consistent exceptional architecture. The city has done well. The Calgary universities really aren't living up to this standard.

The U of C is or at least was a tragedy when it comes to architecture. Perhaps because it's a younger institution, only 50 years old. Things have been improving though. Not in any radical way mind you, but the boiler plate modern of today does at least look better than it's 60s counterpart. Mostly. I always like to bang my drum for the international students residence/Hotel Alma. It is a relatively small and very elegant building though, certainly not an eyegrabbing centrepiece.

Such a shame that the U of C missed out on all that awesome collegiate gothic revial stuff from 30+ years earlier. :(
 
Last edited:
I like the international residence and Hotel Alma. nice addition to the university. I like the EEEL building too....even thought I know some people who hate it.
 
McKimmie is a stuffy old box, I think the reclad could do it some good. I think the Admin building and the central connector to the library are kinda classy though. I'm not sure how I feel about them being included in the reclad. They need more interior work than exterior.



If I could do anything on campus, I'd probably start by demo-ing Craigie Hall and building something newer and nicer in it's place, but then Social Sciences would be next on my hit list for sure. I go to the U of C gym now and they're doing something to the exterior of the SS tower (... sounds sinister), but I'm not sure what. It's like what's going on with that old green painted condo tower downtown. They've gone up and down the sides and bashed a bunch of holes, but I'm not sure to what effect. It's probably structural, but there's hope.



The U of C is or at least was a tragedy when it comes to architecture. Perhaps because it's a younger institution, only 50 years old. Things have been improving though. Not in any radical way mind you, but the boiler plate modern of today does at least look better than it's 60s counterpart. Mostly. I always like to bang my drum for the international students residence/Hotel Alma. It is a relatively small and very elegant building though, certainly not an eyegrabbing centrepiece.

Such a shame that the U of C missed out on all that awesome collegiate gothic revial stuff from 30+ years earlier. :(

I don't agree the styles and qualities of today are any better than the 1960s.

Aurora Hall is eye catching. The rest like Hotel Alma, EEEL, the Taylor Library don't quite grab the attention as a triangular, bright red residence. They don't stand out compared to what other campuses are building.
 
U of C major problem it is poorly integrated in almost all ways to the surrounding city. It is single-handily the biggest wasted opportunity for creating an interesting urban environment that this city has. Thanks to a poorly-oriented, inward looking layout, we waste a huge source of vibrancy, youth and culture in the city. The buildings are nice enough, but all the nice buildings and quads in the world won't solve U of Cs main problem.

The campus is surrounded on all sides by 1970s style expressways or over-built boulevards, while every entrance is surrounded by large, unattractive parking lots. Most nearby land is locked into large single-family housing (University Heights), a car-oriented research park, or other university-owned land reserves; all but guaranteeing a large share of the student body will commute by car, even if they live relatively nearby. There is simply too far of a distance to travel in most directions to where people studying or working at U of C might live.

Instead of placing its student residents near the LRT, residences are located at the back of the site, in the least-transit oriented spot possible, a full 15 minutes walk to the LRT. The LRT station and pathway to it were clearly ignorant that it is the most used entrance to the campus. It's narrow, noisy from Crowchild, and reminds you that the university really doesn't take transit or urban integration seriously.

This also situates the 3,000-person student population (about the population of Sunnyside) as far as possible from any local services, bars or restaurants. Again, wasting significant vibrancy benefits of a youthful population that may want to go elsewhere in the city.

Charleswood / Banff Trail fair a bit better with many houses converted for student life, however they again fail to provide any services: too low density matched with single-use residential zoning. Brentwood TOD is really beginning to change the area, however it can only do so much as a freeway-adjacent tower development. If you are looking for an example of how to waste a major activity centre's urban potential U of C is it.

I am aware that starting from scratch things problem would be different. I am also aware that the City also has played a strong role in preventing the University from developing into something better connected and part of life here. However, all built-form evidence suggests that the University never really cared about being part of the city; just a tiny kingdom of car-oriented, provincial power blissfully self-satisfied in its own planning decisions to the detriment of student culture, youth and the city overall.

I do have hope it is changing though. Brentwood, the NCBRT, the University District (although repeats many of the same problems by being a weird, isolated district), and general infill are all helping. Perhaps we can cut out a lane or two of the overbuilt 24th or 32nd Avenues to add a high-quality, ultra wide promenade/bicycle path to help mend the lack of connectivity all around.

Apologies for the rant, it is just frustrating to see every other major city in Canada have a strong youth culture that drives, arts, tourism, and urban life that eminates from well designed institutions while our universities offer some... but much less. It's a big missing piece of Calgary's vibrancy puzzle. /endrant
 
Let us choose how to orient the residence complex in 1960:
1961Capture.PNG

http://contentdm.ucalgary.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/uc50/id/2317/rec/14

Here it is in 1966
1966Capture.PNG

http://contentdm.ucalgary.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/uc50/id/2441/rec/15

Early there was a plan for a full second residence complex in the NE of campus, but demand was never really there.

The current plan:
Capturelanduse.PNG

https://www.ucalgary.ca/campusforward/files/campusforward/lrdp-2016-v2.7.1_2017_03_03.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1961Capture.PNG
    1961Capture.PNG
    1 MB · Views: 234
  • 1966Capture.PNG
    1966Capture.PNG
    1 MB · Views: 256
  • Capturelanduse.PNG
    Capturelanduse.PNG
    1.6 MB · Views: 418
I don't disagree that 1960s residences had less to work when planned, they couldn't have known. But U of C has spent a couple hundred million building residences since 1987 (when the LRT was opened). That's 30 years of residences (2,000+ units) not located anywhere transit or retail accessible. Residences have no inherent design rationale that requires them to be located next to previously existing ones.

When the university owns several acres of vacant land immediately adjacent to an LRT and the campus, that location is superior every time.
 
"Residences have no inherent design rationale that requires them to be located next to previously existing ones. "
Food services. And the Olympic residences needed to be with the rest due to Olympic security. And why put residence near LRT? So residents can go off campus twice a week more easily versus an academic building with a high staff and student load.
 
Last edited:
"Residences have no inherent design rationale that requires them to be located next to previously existing ones. "
Food services. And the Olympic residences needed to be with the rest due to Olympic security. And why put residence near LRT? So residents can go off campus twice a week more easily versus an academic building with a high staff and student load.
So we should be locating a few hundred million dollars worth of housing because a cafeteria is pre-existing? We shouldn't plan for students to be able to leave campus easily? A cafeteria's location should not be a deciding factor for the location of this facility.

I don't disagree with your assertion though, I bet that the food services is a key reason that was used to justify the location being what it was. But that's the problem, a cafeteria's location shouldn't be a valid reason. Many other universities don't concentrate all their residences and get along just fine. Many have far more vibrant student scenes and cultures too - partly because students are better integrated into the communities around the campuses.

This gets to my problem with U of C's planning: it pretends that the students, as if the university is self-contained and only needs to be nice on the inside of the site, once people arrive by car. No attention to being part of the community or acknowledging the role that universities can play in improving a city's vibrancy.

As for the LRT area: I would be all for an academic building with a high staff and student load being located near the university.... but when is that happening? Sure its on the master plan, but every building built since the LRT opening - space for thousands of students and staff - has happily ignored the vacant lawns and parking lots immediately adjacent to the LRT. The pathways remain narrow and dark. Clearly whoever campus plans the U of C doesn't take the LRT.
 
As for the LRT area: I would be all for an academic building with a high staff and student load being located near the university.... but when is that happening? Sure its on the master plan, but every building built since the LRT opening - space for thousands of students and staff - has happily ignored the vacant lawns and parking lots immediately adjacent to the LRT. The pathways remain narrow and dark. Clearly whoever campus plans the U of C doesn't take the LRT.

The way the University integrates with the LRT has always been a pet peeve of mine. The area in blue seems like such a waste when the University's LRT station is right there. There should be a large pedestrian boulevard going from the station right into the university, and another large straight boulevard for both cars and pedestrians running perpendicular ..... and that boulevard should have a variety of buildings along it, such as residential, retail, restos etc...
Image1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Image1.jpg
    Image1.jpg
    359.5 KB · Views: 230
Last edited:
U of C major problem it is poorly integrated in almost all ways to the surrounding city. It is single-handily the biggest wasted opportunity for creating an interesting urban environment that this city has. Thanks to a poorly-oriented, inward looking layout, we waste a huge source of vibrancy, youth and culture in the city. The buildings are nice enough, but all the nice buildings and quads in the world won't solve U of Cs main problem.

The campus is surrounded on all sides by 1970s style expressways or over-built boulevards, while every entrance is surrounded by large, unattractive parking lots. Most nearby land is locked into large single-family housing (University Heights), a car-oriented research park, or other university-owned land reserves; all but guaranteeing a large share of the student body will commute by car, even if they live relatively nearby. There is simply too far of a distance to travel in most directions to where people studying or working at U of C might live.

Instead of placing its student residents near the LRT, residences are located at the back of the site, in the least-transit oriented spot possible, a full 15 minutes walk to the LRT. The LRT station and pathway to it were clearly ignorant that it is the most used entrance to the campus. It's narrow, noisy from Crowchild, and reminds you that the university really doesn't take transit or urban integration seriously.

This also situates the 3,000-person student population (about the population of Sunnyside) as far as possible from any local services, bars or restaurants. Again, wasting significant vibrancy benefits of a youthful population that may want to go elsewhere in the city.

Charleswood / Banff Trail fair a bit better with many houses converted for student life, however they again fail to provide any services: too low density matched with single-use residential zoning. Brentwood TOD is really beginning to change the area, however it can only do so much as a freeway-adjacent tower development. If you are looking for an example of how to waste a major activity centre's urban potential U of C is it.

I am aware that starting from scratch things problem would be different. I am also aware that the City also has played a strong role in preventing the University from developing into something better connected and part of life here. However, all built-form evidence suggests that the University never really cared about being part of the city; just a tiny kingdom of car-oriented, provincial power blissfully self-satisfied in its own planning decisions to the detriment of student culture, youth and the city overall.

I do have hope it is changing though. Brentwood, the NCBRT, the University District (although repeats many of the same problems by being a weird, isolated district), and general infill are all helping. Perhaps we can cut out a lane or two of the overbuilt 24th or 32nd Avenues to add a high-quality, ultra wide promenade/bicycle path to help mend the lack of connectivity all around.

Apologies for the rant, it is just frustrating to see every other major city in Canada have a strong youth culture that drives, arts, tourism, and urban life that eminates from well designed institutions while our universities offer some... but much less. It's a big missing piece of Calgary's vibrancy puzzle. /endrant

Pretty much all universities have main campuses that, in varying degrees, are separated from their surroundings. UofC is a suburban campus and more comparable to a York University than the hundred year old institutions located in downtown areas. I think York is ahead of UofC, architecturally, and in developing a comprehensive, urban minded, community master plan . It's still an island surrounded by parking lots and suburbia. I'm not sure their efforts will pay out.
 

Back
Top