zzkwilliamcanada
New Member
anyone know when the West Village tower 3 will start? they wont left that huge hole over there forever right?
and also i saw the land besides it is for sale (car rental place) any update for those land?
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
and also i saw the land besides it is for sale (car rental place) any update for those land?
DiscoStu
Active Member
Never is a long time!
How about just a single one, thats a meter taller than the Stantec Tower in Edmonton, and then we can call it a day for a while.
FriendlyDrunks
Active Member
Could just add a spire to Brookfield Place and call it a day?
konradiical
Active Member
I wonder if Calgary decides to get a new “tallest tower” if itll be a super tall. In 10 years time I could see one of the premium lots go for it. Lots of use cities are now building supertalls in lots of cities now.
I saw Edmonton a couple years ago propose that Aldritr tower that was super close to that status. Not sure the status of that project.
I saw Edmonton a couple years ago propose that Aldritr tower that was super close to that status. Not sure the status of that project.
DiscoStu
Active Member
Perhaps if the spire is in the shape of a middle finger, directed north.
Ideally though, it would be nice to have a true signature tower as our tallest. While higher quality than Stantec, Brookfield Place isn't particularly that noteworthy from a design standpoint either.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Lets resurrect the plan to double the height of the Calgary Tower!
trtcttc
Active Member
We'll be lucky to bring vacancy down to a reasonable level, it's improving but still very high. Offices in most North American cities are struggling, and if you watch any CDN bank's earnings call, a decent amount of questions are on their US Commercial RE loans. We might be able to get a supertall if it was a commercial/hotel/residential mixed use. Pure office buildings have very little demand and I think it improves the city if we start getting more offices in different locations around the city, that our city can move away from a commuter-centered transit/roadway design.
Dārayavauš
Active Member
A vote would pretty much kill it. I believe in a democratic system, but votes in the hands of the misled and uniformed can backfire.
trtcttc
Active Member
With Gondek looking like a one term mayor maybe she’ll use all of her remaining political capital to defeat the motion
Also is it clearly stated anywhere that the federal housing money is dependant on the rezoning? The article wasn’t very clear
CBBarnett
Senior Member
This is part of the whole problem and why this distortion is frustrating - we have a democratic system. We elect representatives and they (at least in theory) are supposed make decisions on behalf of the public that are in their public interest.
It's literally why politicians exist and why it's a full time job - we can't operate a democracy if we asked everyone for their opinion all the time, on everything. We have to pay someone to represent us and get into the details.
Following the logic presented, if the issue is we should have plebiscites for issues that impact everyone, or a large group of people, that's about 99% of everything every government does. Just have a weekly ballot of the issues of the week - parking changes, to taxes, to drought restrictions.
A plebiscite is a total shirking of responsibility of those we elect, and is against the principles of our established democratic process. If a Councilor doesn't think R-CG is in the public interest, just vote against it. If they do, then vote for it. Don't hide behind a plebiscite so you don't have to pick a side.
LocalLoafer
New Member
Really unfortunate if the base zoning change goes to a plebiscite. The opposition to it has essentially outlined a large part of the problem in their reasoning for dislike, asset values. Calgary needs more affordable housing, R-CG allows for this to be reality through the reduced level of difficulty to build density into established neighborhoods. I also largely disagree with the argument, more people in an area creates greater opportunity for business and naturally brings amenities to an area with it if done correctly. This does not hurt asset values.
If this does end up in a public vote, I can see it failing to go through due to the activism around false information.
If this does end up in a public vote, I can see it failing to go through due to the activism around false information.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
Might be sooner than we think. I went past yesterday and there were some workmen in the area where tower three would go.
They used to be workmen in that spot when they were building the two towers, but I haven’t seen any there for a while, until yesterday.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I do think this is a fishing expedition by some on council. There seems to be enough champions of progress on council to change the zoning. I assume the motion to do a plebiscite will be defeated.
YYCALGARY
New Member
I tagged along with a friend while he was apartment hunting and we viewed a couple units in the West Village towers. We ended up chatting with the building manager and he said Tower 3 will commence in the summer after some spring prep. So, we should start to see a lot of activity there very soon.
Some cheeky pics from the amenities areas. Not great quality... was fast and didn't want to make it seem like I was only interested in grabbing photos
