biospherian
Active Member
If you want the title back in Calgary, then you'll have to beat Vancouver's (Burnaby's) upcoming Pinnacle Lougheed project, proposed at 259m, 80fl.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
If you want the title back in Calgary, then you'll have to beat Vancouver's (Burnaby's) upcoming Pinnacle Lougheed project, proposed at 259m, 80fl.
15 years ago I would have cared about getting the title back. Today I couldn’t care less.
It’s always executing to get a new tallest, but I’m just as excited about filling empty parking lots with low rises.
It’s always executing to get a new tallest, but I’m just as excited about filling empty parking lots with low rises.
maestro
Senior Member
Many traditional residential developers got their start building tract housing in the suburbs. Equity managers (ex. with capital in their names) have been jumping into developing residential on their own than partnering with those developers over the last decade. You don't have to have any knowledge on the construction end. You don't need to know all that much on the development end. There are many full service firms that will do that for you. You just need to be good at raising money.
JTron
Active Member
Wow, possibly a 46 story tower in the beltline and another one that’s taller. Fingers crossed, these get built it’ll be a complete skyline change for the Beltline.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I'd love to see a 300m tower on the Oxford site one day, perfect location in the skyline for it. In the meantime I'm far more concerned with improving the streetscape in Calgary and adding many, many more residents to the core. Spent some time in Vancouver this summer and they absolutely blow us away in terms of the street level and the amount of people out and about all times of the day. A project like this one should go a long way to improving our cityscape!
DiscoStu
Active Member
Yeah, I stopped caring about height a long time ago. Tall buildings are great for postcard skyline shots, observation decks, and egos...but not much else. They are almost always the coldest and most oppressive feeling areas of any cities. And, unlike many people on here, I frankly also care little about the un-ending push for "density"...because I don't think simply adding more people is some magical panacea either. I've been to fantastic cities with 500,000 people, and awful ones with 3M+.
I'd much rather a focus on quality over either of those. Quality design and materials, quality streetscapes, and quality human-scaled experiences. Almost every great neighborhood around the world has some combo of those things going for it. If Calgary only built less-dense, but well-executed, low-rise buildings with excellent streetscapes from now on, I would take that any day over a sea of 50+ story condos. You couldn't pay me enough to live in Mississauga.
Having said all that... there's something wrong with the bums up in Shelbyville having the tallest title outside Toronto. I don't even care if Vancouver takes it, it's just not right.
Albertasaurus
Active Member
I go to the GTA frequently to visit family and Mississauga's town centre area with all the towers is brutal. Ditto with the new towers going up in Vaughan - they are so out of scale with the rest of the surrounding low density landscape that they look as ridiculous as parts of Dubai. In fact, the best parts of Toronto have few to no skyscrapers; its a great city, but its best parts are not where the skyscrapers are.
Beltline is turning into a dense, eclectic mixed use area with a good mix of buildings of different heights and scales. I do want to see a lot more of those parking lots replaced by towers, but I'd hate it to turn into an investor-driven hellscape like the Toronto waterfront.
Beltline is turning into a dense, eclectic mixed use area with a good mix of buildings of different heights and scales. I do want to see a lot more of those parking lots replaced by towers, but I'd hate it to turn into an investor-driven hellscape like the Toronto waterfront.
trtcttc
Active Member
A big difference I've noticed here is that many buildings are rentals, whereas in Toronto, it's mostly condos. Developers try to increase price psf by advertising heights, views, etc. whereas here, many developers are conscious about having too many units and the units are actually of livable size.
DiscoStu
Active Member
You see it over and over around the world. Even with cities known for the great skyscrapers, almost without fail, the most desirable neighborhoods to actually live and be in are low/mid-rise. A focus on density and height often make sense on paper and in the boardroom...but it's a focus on well-executed human-scaled design (and trees!) that actually makes the greatest neighborhoods.
It's also partly why I've done an about-face on historical-inspired architecture. Although a lot of it around here is executed poorly, you often have more of an emphasis on the qualities that intrinsically feel right. We've been doing this city-thing for a few millennia now...I think a lot of what works and what doesn't has been figured out...so I don't think there's anything wrong with going back to the well when something has a proven track record.
Last edited:
Woosh
New Member
It all comes down to good at-grade commercial and pedestrians not feeling like they might be killed by a driver at every intersection.
Having an enjoyable city just comes down to having streets that are safe, comfortable, useful, and interesting for pedestrians.
Density alone won't fix our streets, but it will improve the political dynamic. Unfortunately, Calgary has largely sacrificed the quality of our downtown so as to appease suburbanites. Every fast one way street and surface parking lot might make it helpful to drive from Evanston to downtown, but it will make the destination much worse once you leave your car.
Density will be useful for changing this dynamic, because it will tip the power away from folks who live an atomized existence, driving from storefront to storefront, and put it in the hands of the people who actually use the sidewalk.
Having an enjoyable city just comes down to having streets that are safe, comfortable, useful, and interesting for pedestrians.
Density alone won't fix our streets, but it will improve the political dynamic. Unfortunately, Calgary has largely sacrificed the quality of our downtown so as to appease suburbanites. Every fast one way street and surface parking lot might make it helpful to drive from Evanston to downtown, but it will make the destination much worse once you leave your car.
Density will be useful for changing this dynamic, because it will tip the power away from folks who live an atomized existence, driving from storefront to storefront, and put it in the hands of the people who actually use the sidewalk.
100%
DiscoStu
Active Member
Woosh, I don't necessarily disagree with your points, although you sure seem to love coming at these topics from a confrontational angle. I think Calgarians have more depth than you give them credit for, and plenty of suburbanites use and enjoy many aspects of a more people-focused inner city even if they don't want (or can't) live there.
In general, I think when building good neigborhoods/buildings, it's best to approach it from a good-design viewpoint, rather than trying to stick it to the other guy. There are still plenty of examples where it doesn't seem like either of them was really considered.
In general, I think when building good neigborhoods/buildings, it's best to approach it from a good-design viewpoint, rather than trying to stick it to the other guy. There are still plenty of examples where it doesn't seem like either of them was really considered.
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
Condos will outnumber rentals with hundreds of towers under construction. Toronto has its share of rental towers underway.
There's Mirvish Village
This one is twin towers; one rental; one market.
Sixty Five Broadway | UrbanToronto
Sixty Five Broadway, Toronto by 1, Wallman Architects
This one is enormous
Bloor & Dufferin | UrbanToronto
Bloor & Dufferin, Toronto by 1, Turner Fleischer Architects
the same layouts of condo developments
trtcttc
Active Member
There's so many programs it's hard to keep track but I think that's a more recent phenomenon with some changes in CMHC and loans. Noticed rentals started to be more common after 2020. But that could be just where I was living at the time up by Yonge and Eg (where 65 Broadway is). It's a bit crazy how that maybe 1km square area from Yonge to Mount Pleasant and Soudan to Erskine have 10 buildings with each around 40 stories and 500 units under construction, and many more proposed. To bring it back to Calgary, as much as I enjoy following developments like this one, I hope that Toronto density never makes it here.Condos will outnumber rentals with hundreds of towers under construction. Toronto has its share of rental towers underway.
There's Mirvish Village
This one is twin towers; one rental; one market.
Sixty Five Broadway | UrbanToronto
Sixty Five Broadway, Toronto by 1, Wallman Architectsurbantoronto.ca
This one is enormous
Bloor & Dufferin | UrbanToronto
Bloor & Dufferin, Toronto by 1, Turner Fleischer Architects
the same layouts of condo developments
Urb
Active Member
They have set up some billboards on the site with the new renderings. It looks fantastic! The public realm treatment is the very good. Hopefully they don't VE the crap out of it. Will try to get some photos next time.