[Robo]

Agreed, just because a site is hard, doesn't mean you need to excuse mediocrity. A lot of times the own-goals come from simple things like bad color choices or material combos, which don't necessarily have anything to do with the site or money (in fact, sometimes I think some thoughtfully editing would probably save developers money).

Fair enough, but what else could be changed for the same cost? We’re basically talking about changing the color of the panels. I’d personally prefer white or cream over the gray or add accent colors but it’s not really a big improvement. Not a big enough improvement to please the critics.

 

[1875]

first rule of calgary development. if you can see it from all angles it has to be terrible.

 

[Albertasaurus]

Good points on both sides. However, considering we can't even fill in the parking lots in Eau Claire, getting something that may yet turn out pretty good on such a tricky site is a big win IMO. I don' t think it will suck - at worst, it will be merely mediocre. But I see the built form and mixed use nature of the project, and design touches like the mural (and even the mesh - at least it's an attempt at creating visual interest, we'll have to see how it turns out) as things to be lauded.

 

[DiscoStu]

Fair enough, but what else could be changed for the same cost? We’re basically talking about changing the color of the panels. I’d personally prefer white or cream over the gray or add accent colors but it’s not really a big improvement. Not a big enough improvement to please the critics.

I wasn't necessarily just talking about this project, but sure, even something simple like the panels being a cream, or a dark gray/black (like in that latest rendering where it looks like a black/bronze scheme) would have resulted in a not-insignificant improvement over the penitentiary grey it ended up with. Maybe because Im a graphic designer, I put more emphasis on color choices, but I think it's important in overall impact.

I do think the mural was a good ROI though. It's not my favourite mural (as I mentioned before, they all look the same to me now) but it's probably cheap in the grand scheme of things, and it's a very visible wall because of the flyover, so is a great spot for something like that.

 

[Tarsus]

If this was on a main retail corridor then yes, I’d push for better, but sometimes we need to pick our battles.

‘Sometimes we need to pick our battles’ sums up quite well. Parcels that are more desirable, such as ninth Avenue in Inglewood, 10th St., in Kensington, etc. need more scrutiny but some sites don’t.

 

[Mountain Man]

It's really not that tricky of a site, it just sucks that there is a giant overpass right there.

 

[CBBarnett]

It's really not that tricky of a site, it just sucks that there is a giant overpass right there.

I think the city should look inward in these cases - the building can be designed better and with better materials, but it's main defining feature regardless of what is built will always be a high-speed commuter arterial fly-over 3-stories high. This was decided completely by the city that it's a good and appropriate design for what is otherwise a walkable inner city area.

Granted, the fly-over was built a lot time ago before much of the modern growth in Bridgeland, but all the time we still consider similar examples at more local scales - we retain overly-generous slip lanes, wide sweeping curves and ongoing struggles to do basic walkability improvements in inner city areas everywhere. If we solve that stuff that the city fully controls, then anything that's built will fit better and be encouraged to integrated more appropriately to it's surroundings.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Agreed, just because a site is hard, doesn't mean you need to excuse mediocrity.

Describing this as "mediocrity" is being extremely generous. The only way this vinyl shed could be considered "mediocre" is if it was located in some kind of mining outpost up north.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I agree it's not a tricky site, at least no more tricky than any other flat parcel at the end of a cul-de-sac, but I also agree that we have to pick our battles. This development isn't a hill I'd prepared to die on, I'd rather push hard for better designs in other areas of the city. The site was forever put at a disadvantage when the flyover was built, and if I were a developer I wouldn't want to invest extra money in it either. We have enough trouble trying to get things built on empty lots in more desirable locations.

 

[Mountain Man]

I'm amazed by the apathetic response to this hideous building that is super prominent for so many people driving into the city centre. How in the hell is an ugly grey box looming over the flyover better than the park with a couple trees that was there before, or worth a shit-tastic design just because it's close to an overpass? Every single time I will drive into downtown on the flyover I'll cringe at this fugly beast.

 

[Always_Biking]

It depends on what’s more important for people. How something appears from the outside, or what function does it provide overall? For some people it’s more important to have and ugly building supplying extra housing in a central walkable area, than it is not having to look at an ugly building, I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, but that’s a viewpoint many have.

As it stands as a plain gray building, it’s ugly to look at, but I can live with it. A few different colour choices and placement of colours could’ve made it look a better, but we still have to see how it’ll look with the mesh. I’m also assuming the gray was chosen because it works with the mesh better than other colours or having multiple colors.

 

[potatopizzafan]

Im a little confused why we're judging this building before the exterior mesh feature has even been started. That is clearly the focal point of the building.

 

[Mountain Man]

Parts of the mesh are installed and look extremely underwhelming.

 

[konradiical]

I'm amazed by the apathetic response to this hideous building that is super prominent for so many people driving into the city centre. How in the hell is an ugly grey box looming over the flyover better than the park with a couple trees that was there before, or worth a shit-tastic design just because it's close to an overpass? Every single time I will drive into downtown on the flyover I'll cringe at this fugly beast.

because people have different opinions and values?

maybe you want something incredibly that looks amazing architecturally and others just want the density and housing on a trash lot.

 

[CBBarnett]

I'm amazed by the apathetic response to this hideous building that is super prominent for so many people driving into the city centre. How in the hell is an ugly grey box looming over the flyover better than the park with a couple trees that was there before, or worth a shit-tastic design just because it's close to an overpass? Every single time I will drive into downtown on the flyover I'll cringe at this fugly beast.

It's a weird site actually, this whole conversation has gotten me interested in the past. Turns out, the whole area has been restructured several times over the decades, and is probably one of Calgary's best examples of modernist thinking of highways-through-neighbourhoods where it actually came true.

1962: before Memorial or the Fly-over. An actual main street existed on Edmonton Trail, only a single road. Everything south of the site (circled in green) would eventually be converted to ramps, lawns and setbacks from the major roads:

1972: Nieghbourhood clearing begins for Edmonton Trail's east couplet, and Memorial Drive, you can also see the start of the 5th Ave bridge:

1979: Couplet complete.

1982: Flyover constructed, you still can see the land clearing. The house on the site itself finally is torn down. The ramps between 5th Ave Bridge and Memorial adjusted again.

2022: Present day. The LRT joined the party in the late 1980s, triggering yet another adjustment to the ramps between 5th Ave and Memorial. On the picture you can also see the lane reversal implementation and the addition of the Edmonton Trail cycletrack, the only reduction in car capacity since the couplet began service:

From 1983 - 2013 the site was a green lawn with a few trees: here's a streetview of what it looked like in 2012. Not really a "park", more of a remnant parcel subject to the whims of the transportation department:

From 2013 - 2016: the site was a lay-down yard, likely for the Benevity building across the street? Not quite sure. But clearly wasn't very protected or imagined to be anything interested or you wouldn't be tearing down some admittedly ragged looking, 30 year old trees:

Finally back to a interim grass strip with some trees in 2017:

Interesting site, with some weird history. The big takeaway is the destabilizing impact of the Memorial Drive, the now overbuilt Edmonton Trail couplet, and the fly-over all contributed to a pretty tough place to have a neighbourhood. This doesn't really give any insights to what the site "should" look like and be developed. It along with much of the neighbourhood has been victim of interim thinking for decades, combined with commuters prioritized over the livability of the neighbourhood since the 1970s.

Luckily, the main streets upgrades and private development has started to transition the area back into something closer to what it was before all this intervention.