haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Better than Riocan/Arris.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
kora
Active Member
From what I recall, that was phase 2. So it wouldn't be included if only a single tower was built in phase 1.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
This will be an un-informed, non-engineer comment but here is goes:
What's the deal with our floodplains and the silly steps up to buildings that are located in them? Surely there are countless cities around the world that are in flood plains but don't do these steps everywhere which do more to kill retail viability / street atmosphere than any flood actually would. I get that this design prevents or minimizes hypothetical flood damage every couple decades, but then what are other cities doing? is our flood risk actually that much more significant/common? Or are we just more sticklers engineering any possible risk out of buildings (as well as any possibility of a reasonable pedestrian realm)?
Can someone more well-versed in flood design, city comparisons and engineering help me out here as to why we are doing this and why (in my limited perception at least) no other place seems to try this hard? Much appreciated
maestro
Senior Member
Most places still building new communities on flood plains just don't care which is even worse.
I can think of a few alternatives. Don't build on a floodplain which isn't practical to Calgary. Raise the ground level which isn't practical either. More levies and dams which we wouldn't want either.
I can think of a few alternatives. Don't build on a floodplain which isn't practical to Calgary. Raise the ground level which isn't practical either. More levies and dams which we wouldn't want either.
kora
Active Member
What's the deal with our floodplains and the silly steps up to buildings that are located in them? Surely there are countless cities around the world that are in flood plains but don't do these steps everywhere which do more to kill retail viability / street atmosphere than any flood actually would. I get that this design prevents or minimizes hypothetical flood damage every couple decades, but then what are other cities doing? is our flood risk actually that much more significant/common? Or are we just more sticklers engineering any possible risk out of buildings (as well as any possibility of a reasonable pedestrian realm)?
Can someone more well-versed in flood design, city comparisons and engineering help me out here as to why we are doing this and why (in my limited perception at least) no other place seems to try this hard? Much appreciated
I'm not well versed, but it's to prevent the overland flow of water onto main floors and parkades below. It's only a mitigating design element anyway. I remember the Union Square building on 1st St and 13th Av SW which wasn't flooded but rather water seeped into the parkade from the groundwater. They were pumping their parkade for 2-4 weeks. So even properties that don't flood, still flood if their parkade is deep enough.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Thanks. I figured as much, but why do we seem to care about this while others don't? Perhaps we are uniquely at risk of overland flooding, but I would be surprised if our situation is particularly unique. The same logic seems to trigger an unusual amount of stormwater ponds in Calgary than other cities too. Sure we have thunderstorms but seems like that is hardly an uniquely Calgarian phenomenon.
I am only interested in this because of what we seem to give up when we design this way: density, accessibility and a successful pedestrian realm. Victoria Park is an perfect example of weird retail design and subpar outcomes (hasn't been rented since it was built 10 years ago)
MichaelS
Senior Member
Could you imagine the height of that curb? Wouldn't want to step off of it, or try to open the passenger side door of a car parked up against it.
kora
Active Member
Everything is bigger in the West. But speaking to the other point, I believe Houston is considering a 500 year flood in their land use planning since they've been hit bad multiple times in the last 15 years.
maestro
Senior Member
LOL I meant on a street like Macleod.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
I wish they would only build 3 of the towers and add the removed units from the 4th on top of the the other 3. These towers will significantly extend the view of our skyline southwards looking out from the east so I feel its important they build with that sort of vision.
I'm guessing the pedestrian bridge is being thrown into the render until the 25th ave plan is finalised.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
I don't know why, but the primary skyline seems so sparse in the above cropped image. Could just be angle of the photo and the significant height of Nose Hill above the downtown core (~200 meters difference).
GoVertical
Senior Member
its also an older image
Oddball
Senior Member
It's decent for now, and it'll become forgettable in the future, but I don't think it'll every be viewed as terrible for the area so long as they're well built. This is another case of empty lots being filled in so it's hard to judge it to harshly when that's what you're comparing it against. It's nice to see a realistic interpretation of Macleod in this render at least.
If it were to go forward largely as is and the Elbow Hat and 25th street revamp were to go forward the Cemetary Hill approach to downtown will be unrecognizable.
If it were to go forward largely as is and the Elbow Hat and 25th street revamp were to go forward the Cemetary Hill approach to downtown will be unrecognizable.