South Bank | 18.3m | 5s | Opus Corporation | Kasian

General rating of the project

  • Great

    Votes: 20 46.5%
  • Good

    Votes: 18 41.9%
  • So So

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • Not Very Good

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Terrible

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    43

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
3,197
I suspect that the older black one was always imagined to be replaced once development moves in but now that it happened a bunch of people are point fingers at each other of whose job it is to take down. Alternatively no one other that yourself has noticed that yet. You'd think that all the assets would be tracked and having an extra pole would be worth adding back into the inventory? Like if a friend borrowed a BBQ then bought their own BBQ I wouldn't say "no worries, have two BBQs". I would want it back, no?

Regardless of the reasons the result is the same - an unnecessary and supersized street light pole / gravity base will disrupt pedestrians for years an otherwise impressively done pedestrian realm with few notably avoidable flaws. If the worst comes to pass and the two streetlights survives a year,I'll post it into my passing-the-time COVID project / Calgary Public Realm Catalogue
Actually, I am pretty sure the Community Association and Business Improvement Area has noticed, but the City can't seem to get its act together on this issue:
From that article, when the old style lamp post blew over in Inglewood last fall:
"
But Rebecca O'Brien, executive director of the Inglewood Business Improvement Area, says the new lampposts ruin the feel of the neighbourhood and could actually hurt local businesses' bottom line.

O'Brien described it this way to the Calgary Eyeopener on Tuesday morning.

"Picture a Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, and Mr. and Mrs. Cratchit walking down a snowy London street. Picture a four-metre lamppost giving out a cozy, pedestrian, human-scale feeling. Then juxtapose that with the Superstore parking lot in Southland and the kind of lighting you would have there," she said.

"
 

haltcatchfire

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
969
Reaction score
1,966
Location
Hillhurst
I suspect that the older black one was always imagined to be replaced once development moves in but now that it happened a bunch of people are point fingers at each other of whose job it is to take down. Alternatively no one other that yourself has noticed that yet. You'd think that all the assets would be tracked and having an extra pole would be worth adding back into the inventory? Like if a friend borrowed a BBQ then bought their own BBQ I wouldn't say "no worries, have two BBQs". I would want it back, no?

Regardless of the reasons the result is the same - an unnecessary and supersized street light pole / gravity base will disrupt pedestrians for years an otherwise impressively done pedestrian realm with few notably avoidable flaws. If the worst comes to pass and the two streetlights survives a year,I'll post it into my passing-the-time COVID project / Calgary Public Realm Catalogue
The future residents will notice.

 

luk_o

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
89
Reaction score
226
Ya, still not sure about the weathered steel component either...mixing in the perforated ones, especially the excessive cluster of them around the windows at the back seems a bit tacky or unnecessary...or something. I need to sit on a lawn chair and stare at for a while with a six pack of PBR to decide where I stand.
 

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,294
Reaction score
7,255
Location
Mission
This one turned out totally excellent. Differentiated store fronts, space for patios, street trees, public art, good materials, and rental apartments. A total win on all counts.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
3,197
So here is a fun wrinkle with this one. They want to install a pergola on the roof to go with the rooftop patio. The bylaw allows a building height of 20 meters, and that is what they built. Because the pergola is 1.5m tall and going on the roof, it is considered too tall, and has been refused. The developer has to appeal the refusal and hope the board overturns the refusal, to allow them to install a pergola.

Nevermind the fact that the rooftop mechanical equipment will be taller than the pergola, that doesn't count towards building height. Also never mind the 12-15 storey towers proposed by Hungerford and RNDSQR.....

To the City's credit, in the report, it basically sounds like planning has no choice but to refuse this, based on how the bylaw is written..... All of this laid out in the SDAB report:

Provided they do end up with permission to build the pergola, the plans show what it will look like:
 

zagox

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
178
Reaction score
380
Location
Sunnyside
So here is a fun wrinkle with this one. They want to install a pergola on the roof to go with the rooftop patio. The bylaw allows a building height of 20 meters, and that is what they built. Because the pergola is 1.5m tall and going on the roof, it is considered too tall, and has been refused. The developer has to appeal the refusal and hope the board overturns the refusal, to allow them to install a pergola.

Nevermind the fact that the rooftop mechanical equipment will be taller than the pergola, that doesn't count towards building height. Also never mind the 12-15 storey towers proposed by Hungerford and RNDSQR.....

To the City's credit, in the report, it basically sounds like planning has no choice but to refuse this, based on how the bylaw is written..... All of this laid out in the SDAB report:

Provided they do end up with permission to build the pergola, the plans show what it will look like:
I doubt this is going to be anyone's political priority, but the treatment of pergolas in the bylaw is idiotic. At the major development scale, it creates a mound of paperwork and now an SDAB appeal. In the average person's backyard, they have got to be among the most common illegally constructed additions because the permitting requirements are so out of line with the amount of lumber involved.
 

haltcatchfire

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
969
Reaction score
1,966
Location
Hillhurst
A pergola in a residential backyard doesn’t require a permit so how can one be illegal? Edit: I figured I should look it up since I suppose an attached pergola could, and you’re right. If it’s attached to a house it requires permitting. In which case I bet near zero have done so.

I wonder if someone shot those search spot lights into the sky from the roof of a building in Inglewood the residents would lose their minds because it makes an element of the building appear taller? Are they frightened by spires and flag poles too?
 
Last edited:

Top