badc0ffee
Active Member
It's so obvious, with the red/white colours and the blue "open late" sign.
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Well that's a disappointment. Also, the LDV building to the east looks off in those renders... lol
A disappointment for sure. I would be okay with the generic Shoppers' at the base if they had a few floors of apartments on top. I can't help but wonder how much underground parking played a role in their decision to keep it a one story plaza?
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Gross. Keep your large, plain, flat, alucibond paneled single storey boxes in your suburban power centers.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Less interesting architecture, low rise density, and with a purpose to try to drive the local indie shop out of business, what's not to hate?
trtcttc
Active Member
Bridgeland was getting some nice density the last few years but now every proposal along the Main Street is just replacing old buildings with a similar scale new building.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Not a fan of this one for these reasons, but still it’s doing something so rare - a new pedestrian-only retail development on a Main Street.
I’m starting to think a bit differently about density on Main Streets - if it’s walkable, who cares if it’s a single storey? Density can go a block off or anywhere else nearby. Completes the Street but simpler and not reliant on larger projects, that come with larger risks, more issues, more fickle market demand.
More density, mixed use, and just a better programming/design aesthetic would be preferred, but I will compromise and encourage single-storey chain retail if it is pedestrian-centric.
Last edited:
Unknown User
New Member
With a slope like that this lot would be a prime location for some outdoor waterslides.
DougB
Active Member
Maybe the Hell's Angels would be interested in rebuilding Bonzai Waterslide. I miss waterparks from the pre-safety days.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
Thanks for the link.
City seeks public input on East Elbow Pathway design plans
The city has launched an engagement study in the hopes of improving one of Calgary's oldest neighbourhoods.calgary.ctvnews.ca
More pathway related, but also general urban development related.
What a stupid piece of engagement.
It's a systemically important connection, connecting the Elbow and Bow pathways.I regularly ride through there, and the open pathway on the west bank of the Elbow is too narrow and is badly deteriorating. This link is even more important given that the cycle entrance to the downtown via 12th Ave/4th St E is continuously being changed (and removed) due to Green Line work. It's also a vital pedestrian connection under the CPR between Inglewood and Ramsay, which is important since the closure of 8 St. It obviously needs to be built, and there's no real question about it on the engagement page.
It's 400m of pathway, in an incredibly constrained site (below the bridges, above the Elbow, on a 10-20m wide strip of land with a steep side slope). There's a real limit on what could plausibly be done here, and there's already a design on the engagement page. So there's very little value that could possibly be gained from engagement.
What could possibly be accomplished by engagement on this project, other than six months of delay and a box ticked?
darwink
Senior Member
Given the confluence, First Nations consultation is extra necessary, so not like other consulting is extra time, just simultaneous. The delay is minimal and known versus the risk of an unknown length of delay and unknown chance. When the city is doing things, it is better to consult.
Last edited:
DougB
Active Member
Shouldn't this be combined with extending the RiverWalk along the west bank of the Elbow? The west bank will require some sort of berm for flood control that I would expect to influence the design of the east bank
DougB
Active Member
Is consultation actually required any more so than it would be on any other municipal park land? I agree it would be respectful to do so. I shudder to think of the nightmare of having to consult on changes to any municipal or provincial parkland.
darwink
Senior Member
Required is an interesting thing. Could it involve changing the watercourse, yes. Is it close to a major cultural/spiritual site? Yes.
My gut says a court would block work if there wasn't an attempt and a FN filled for an injunction. Also other levels of government would block funding for it, and block other necessary permits.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Isn't there going to be some indigenous site at Ft Calgary? Given that, some consultation should happen, but I feel like we are moving towards consultation on almost any public project, whether it affects first nations or not.