[1875]

Seems like a pretty easy sacrifice for a more substantial project on that corner once the lrt is in place. one floor, one business no historical value.

 

[Calgcouver]

Spolumbo's building is evidence that Beaux-Arts architecture is something that you actually needed to be trained in. You can't just stick a cornice on top of a brick wall and call it pretty. This is why so many faux-historical buildings look so ugly. The "architects" who design them have no skill. Spolumbo's is a genuinely ugly building because of its proportions, its ornamentation, its materials, etc. Unfortunately, Spolumbo's is also indicative of the typical faux-historical building (many of which you can find on 9 Ave).

Check out the PoMo building that has the knife shop a few doors down. It is a fantastic example of how blending in with historic buildings can be done correctly.

Agreed. Personally I really like projects that are well-executed examples of historical architectural styles (and properly proportioned buildings). Or taking inspiration from them and executing a style appropriately in the modern context. On a side note, I wonder if 3D printing will have an influence on our ability to reproduce or create detailed ornamentation (cornices, etc). I actually liked this Edmonton proposal that was intent on executing a Brownstone properly.

 

[Tarsus]

Nice one. Ding that bell Lloyd.

The Spolumbo’s building makes me feel like I’m going to buy tile in Foothills industrial and not entering a restaurant.

I’ll also never be ok with a corner entrance. It’s architecturally incorrect.

 

[FCC1982]

Hey Skyrise folks,

Some awesome engagingly juicy conversations. I‘ve seen lots of discussions regarding build-ability, intent, photo realism and execution. I can assure you we have done our best prior to even starting to far down this path that we had substantiated the foundation of this design. At its core its a concrete building and rather then stepping the concrete slabs as squares we‘ve made them go back as angles. The part that can change and will change through this journey is the facade. Is it mass timber, is it stee.l, is it steel with cladding on the exterior, are their balconies, how do we hit the right energy modeling Etc Etc etc. Which are all very great questions but unfortunately we can only invest so much down that path with out certainty we can even build the building. We’ve done our best to take a calculated risk that we can actually execute on this built form. And I am not afraid to say that in our companies short time frame we are making mistakes ! ( A LOT) and are learning as we go. I would love nothing more but to mimick things as rendered and know with 99% certainty that our buildings will look exactly like the renderings but if you know construction its just not the case. Things come up and things have to change thats with out the moving market considered. I would also tell you that we won’t change. The alternative of not pushing our selves and our consultants to do more innovative work is just not aligned with who we are as a firm. So if I have to live with people disappointed that we try to shoot a 3 but our foot was on the line and it was actually a 2 its something we are prepared to live with. We will try every single time to put our best foot forward and are confident as time goes by we will get stronger and stronger on our execution. I thank all of your for being so engaged. It’s why I am proud to be a born and raised Calgarian. It’s the spirit of this city that always brings me back home. Looking forward to council and continued debate on this and future projects. Always watching but not always commenting !!View attachment 257867View attachment 257866View attachment 257865

I love this proposal and desperately hope it gets built as designed. My biggest concern other than it receiving the green light from the City is how will it meet energy code requirements with so much glass. This is a real problem and annoyance of the NECB Energy Code regulations that have been forced upon new buildings (& renovations).
I’ve got my fingers crossed.

 

[JoeUrban]

Concentrate density on the main streets... or be prepared to really intensify all surrounding streets in all directions by a factor of 10 or 20 (over time). Ideally a bit of both.

The thing is Inglewood has ample former industrial land that is not developed to achieve this without affecting the main street.
This area here could be full of medium to high density development, but it sits vacant while towers are proposed among the historical strips.

 

[Roaring Flames]

The thing is Inglewood has ample former industrial land that is not developed to achieve this without affecting the main street.
This area here could be full of medium to high density development, but it sits vacant while towers are proposed among the historical strips.

View attachment 258954

Which would you rather live by:
9th Ave or a noisy railyard with scenic views of a car salvage yard?

 

[CBBarnett]

The thing is Inglewood has ample former industrial land that is not developed to achieve this without affecting the main street.
This area here could be full of medium to high density development, but it sits vacant while towers are proposed among the historical strips.

View attachment 258954

Technically this site probably sees more usage than the abandoned used-car lot on the historic strip, but I do get your point. Agreed we should stack some density here (and everywhere else).

I would be much more reserved in my support of the project if it were truly removing a heritage element, rather than preserving one as is the case for the CIBC building. Unlike previous heritage trade-offs (e.g. The "we-promise-to-put-back-the-York-Hotel-when-we-are-done-we-swear" Bow) this one isn't much of a trade-off; it's pretty much all benefit.

I get the resistance when we are tearing down great stuff for new things that may or may not be as great, but that really isn't the case here. Reusing the same heritage arguments from the historic main streets of Toronto or Montreal where *every* development is a heritage trade off (from the fact that 100% of pretty much all inner city streets is packed full of 100+ year old heritage buildings) just doesn't hold much water to me. The best argument against is really the height impacts of the shadows - particularly on the Lawn Bowling Club - but "save historic Inglewood" rhetoric is way overblown and disingenuous on this specific proposal (again, as it's not removing any heritage).

If we care about preservation perhaps we should return it to just an abandoned lot. In fact, checking the old aerial photos, as far as I can tell the RNDSQR property *never* has had a building on it (or at least never in nearly 100 years). Below is the 1924-26 aerial photo. From https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryImagery/

For the most prominent corner in the neighbourhood, it's remarkable it's never been anything that contributed to it.

 

[JoeUrban]

Which would you rather live by:
9th Ave or a noisy railyard with scenic views of a car salvage yard?

I mean that didn't seem to stop the Esker building which is closer to the rail yards than half of the parcel I pointed out.

 

[JoeUrban]

Technically this site probably sees more usage than the abandoned used-car lot on the historic strip, but I do get your point. Agreed we should stack some density here (and everywhere else).

I would be much more reserved in my support of the project if it were truly removing a heritage element, rather than preserving one as is the case for the CIBC building. Unlike previous heritage trade-offs (e.g. The "we-promise-to-put-back-the-York-Hotel-when-we-are-done-we-swear" Bow) this one isn't much of a trade-off; it's pretty much all benefit.

I get the resistance when we are tearing down great stuff for new things that may or may not be as great, but that really isn't the case here. Reusing the same heritage arguments from the historic main streets of Toronto or Montreal where *every* development is a heritage trade off (from the fact that 100% of pretty much all inner city streets is packed full of 100+ year old heritage buildings) just doesn't hold much water to me. The best argument against is really the height impacts of the shadows - particularly on the Lawn Bowling Club - but "save historic Inglewood" rhetoric is way overblown and disingenuous on this specific proposal (again, as it's not removing any heritage).

If we care about preservation perhaps we should return it to just an abandoned lot. In fact, checking the old aerial photos, as far as I can tell the RNDSQR property *never* has had a building on it (or at least never in nearly 100 years). Below is the 1924-26 aerial photo. From https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryImagery/

View attachment 258975

For the most prominent corner in the neighbourhood, it's remarkable it's never been anything that contributed to it.

Think this is missing the point, or complaint to some extent. There are two concerns as I see it
1 - 12 story buildings are probably not appropriate in a historical community
2 - Being that the density was approved in an area where 6 stories was written into the ARP, what is to stop the rest of the strip from being redeveloped into 12 stories? In my mind new 12 story buildings is not something anyone would consider a positive step to preserving a historical residential community

The 'historically the parcel was a used car lot' etc is irrelevant since I haven't heard a single argument that the parcel should not be redeveloped.

Lastly, I know people have varying opinions of the analysis done by Urban Strategies but this graphic from the report I think says the story. This is a photo of a view down 9th avenue today and one with 6 and 12 story redevelopment

Doesn't really say 'historical community' to me. And it also assumes the actual historic buildings will be retained which I think is laughably naive, since there's no evidence at all that they also won't come down one by one.

 

[haltcatchfire]

Insincerely reducing the setbacks of all of the massing buildings in that image isn't going to gain any support.

Look how this tall building is destroying a historical street.

 

[JoeUrban]

Look how this tall building is destroying a historical street.
View attachment 259002

Yes exactly! Thanks for that, that does show that a ~7 story building is far more appropriate than the 12 story one planned, like everyone has been saying.

 

[haltcatchfire]

It’s actually eight plus mechanical penthouse so effectively nine. Three extra floors wouldn’t make a lick of difference in how people perceived the street, or neighbourhood. It would go completely unnoticed past construction completion. Quality architecture is way more important than height.

Want to be in a neighborhood with a low rise amenity street? Move to Nanton.

Yes exactly! Thanks for that, that does show that a ~7 story building is far more appropriate than the 12 story one planned, like everyone has been saying.

 

[Beazley66]

Chill everyone. I’m not done thinking, and writing .Here’s a storm probability pre-op To keep all of us pre-op’d. Shit will fly, in no uncertain terms.

WMI AHSP Web Interface

www.wmiradar.com

 

[CBBarnett]

Think this is missing the point, or complaint to some extent. There are two concerns as I see it
1 - 12 story buildings are probably not appropriate in a historical community
2 - Being that the density was approved in an area where 6 stories was written into the ARP, what is to stop the rest of the strip from being redeveloped into 12 stories? In my mind new 12 story buildings is not something anyone would consider a positive step to preserving a historical residential community

The 'historically the parcel was a used car lot' etc is irrelevant since I haven't heard a single argument that the parcel should not be redeveloped.

Lastly, I know people have varying opinions of the analysis done by Urban Strategies but this graphic from the report I think says the story. This is a photo of a view down 9th avenue today and one with 6 and 12 story redevelopment

View attachment 258989

Doesn't really say 'historical community' to me. And it also assumes the actual historic buildings will be retained which I think is laughably naive, since there's no evidence at all that they also won't come down one by one.

But what's being debating is one building, on one site not the whole street. I know that is frustrating, but one building is all that is debated today - other hypothetical buildings in the future will have their own debate or their own merits and trade-offs.

That's what some miss from "saving 9th Ave". It's not save-able, nor should it be. Some buildings might be, specific lots and interesting businesses might be (assuming the owners or market they serve doesn't change), but the corridor as a whole isn't really a thing that should be locked in and "saved". If the community could sell it's historic main street as a feature when it's 2 /4 of it's most prominent corners are dilapidated parking lots, I am fully confident it can do it with a slick, 21st century 12-storey building that brings another 100-200 local residents/customers in the area and creates another landmark.

A near-iconic design (subjective to my opinion, I know) replacing a used car lot at a prime corner, preserving and integrating an actual heritage property, on an underpopulated main street two blocks from a future multi-billion dollar rapid transit line isn't where I would dig in. I think we should save the ammunition for the truly community-destroying projects. I don't see how the RNDSQR one is that community-destroying one except it's first (1) and it's tall (2).

If the goal is to preserve Inglewood's historic main street's relevance and economic sustainability, accepting this proposal brings you closer to that goal than rejecting it.

 

[JoeUrban]

But what's being debating is one building, on one site not the whole street. I know that is frustrating, but one building is all that is debated today - other hypothetical buildings in the future will have their own debate or their own merits and trade-offs.

That's what some miss from "saving 9th Ave". It's not save-able, nor should it be. Some buildings might be, specific lots and interesting businesses might be (assuming the owners or market they serve doesn't change), but the corridor as a whole isn't really a thing that should be locked in and "saved". If the community could sell it's historic main street as a feature when it's 2 /4 of it's most prominent corners are dilapidated parking lots, I am fully confident it can do it with a slick, 21st century 12-storey building that brings another 100-200 local residents/customers in the area and creates another landmark.

A near-iconic design (subjective to my opinion, I know) replacing a used car lot at a prime corner, preserving and integrating an actual heritage property, on an underpopulated main street two blocks from a future multi-billion dollar rapid transit line isn't where I would dig in. I think we should save the ammunition for the truly community-destroying projects. I don't see how the RNDSQR one is that community-destroying one except it's first (1) and it's tall (2).

If the goal is to preserve Inglewood's historic main street's relevance and economic sustainability, accepting this proposal brings you closer to that goal than rejecting it.

I get what you're saying, but the problem is every city that matters in the world has methods to protect their historic sites. Calgary on the other hand seems completely unable to do it, it's the most incredible 'Can't Do" attitude I've ever seen. And the 'leave it to the market' methodology that gets advocated has lead to the the lost of hundreds of amazing buildings in Calgary. And there's no reason to assume that won't continue until they're all or almost all gone. So what happens is in the face of 'everything is at threat', we get 'everything needs to be fought' Because you can't rely on letting lessor sites or areas go and fight for the best ones, because it's likely the best ones aren't any more likely to survive. I think it's very unrealistic to think that a 12 story building on a parking lot won't lead to every new development in Inglewood being proposed for 12 or more stories on parking lots, 70s run down buildings, and every heritage building in the community. There's just no reason to think that won't happen since almost every new development tries to push the rules and tends to get their way. And the more that do, the more they can be pointed at to say 'Well you let THEM do it, that's now the new normal" I think it's a real concern that a cool 12 story building on a parking lot will lead to a few decades from now 9th Avenue just looking like another nondescript part of downtown, a new high-rise canyon to add to the count. I'd love for that not to be the case, for Inglewood to be an eclectic mix of heritage, cool new developments, and maintain the funky character it's had for decades, but one thing I've learned is unless there is policy that dictates that, everything will be lost, and as new precedents appear that loss will accelerate.

I really am concerned for a time when people have to leave town to go find cool historic areas "like Calgary used to have"