Cowtown said:
I'm not sure why people are using this development as an argument against highrises as density. It's barely a high rise at 12 storeys. I agree that it would be better at say, 9 floors, and that's probably what the end result will be, but Inglewood isn't going to be a neighborhood with high rises any time soon.
As for The Grid, it was a true high rise, but with it's location, the height wasn't an issue.
Click to expand...

You're right it is specifically off topic to some extent, and Council made similar arguments when the LOC for for the "Fairs Fare" book site came up, but with both projects there is a concern about Inglewood being redeveloped which each site being considered in a vacuum rather than as part of a thoughtful master plan or guidelines for the entire historic community.
 
JoeUrban said:
You're right it is specifically off topic to some extent, and Council made similar arguments when the LOC for for the "Fairs Fare" book site came up, but with both projects there is a concern about Inglewood being redeveloped which each site being considered in a vacuum rather than as part of a thoughtful master plan or guidelines for the entire historic community.
Click to expand...

The city started working on an ARP update in January 2015. That was the opportunity to create a thoughtful master plan. Five years later Community Planning is still fussing around with it, hiring new consultants to comment on the work of other consultants. It is yet another example of how "engagement" in Calgary planning translates to "write down everything that anyone wants, then hide/delay/obfuscate when it's time to choose between competing objectives." I am completely supportive of the majority at Council who have basically said, no more waiting, let's consider each site individually
 
zagox said:
The city started working on an ARP update in January 2015. That was the opportunity to create a thoughtful master plan. Five years later Community Planning is still fussing around with it, hiring new consultants to comment on the work of other consultants. It is yet another example of how "engagement" in Calgary planning translates to "write down everything that anyone wants, then hide/delay/obfuscate when it's time to choose between competing objectives." I am completely supportive of the majority at Council who have basically said, no more waiting, let's consider each site individually
Click to expand...

But if the delay is due to Community Planning it doesn't seem fair for council to say to the community "Well we can't get our shit together so we're just going to do this ad hoc"
 
Fair points. In the context of 9th ave, 12 floors is high, it would much better at a lower height of maybe 8 floors, and I do think most other spots on 9th should be even less than 8 floors, and more like 6 maximum. I think there are other parts of Inglewood that could take up to 10 or 11 floors.

As far thoughtful guidelines, I agree, that there should be some, in particular for 9th ave. Other parts of Inglewood could be done on a one of basis.
JoeUrban said:
You're right it is specifically off topic to some extent, and Council made similar arguments when the LOC for for the "Fairs Fare" book site came up, but with both projects there is a concern about Inglewood being redeveloped which each site being considered in a vacuum rather than as part of a thoughtful master plan or guidelines for the entire historic community.
Click to expand...
 
What I would love to see:
a) Finish the Inventory of Historic Resources for Inglewood, it's never been completed
b) determine which portions, blocks, have the highest concentration of historic resources
c) have very restrictive development guidelines within that area
d) apply a more 'city-wide' guideline to the rest
e) apply a relaxed density allowance to the current and former industrial areas to help make up for c)
 
I have seen too many comments about the NIMBY attitude in Inglewood. If more people would be active in what is happening in their backyard we would be much better off. I live in Inglewood, and while I personally am not generally opposed to this project, I think that there are some pros and cons that need to be considered. Finding the right mix requires engagement - name calling does not help.

Pros -
1) While 9th Ave Automart was a good tenant, I would prefer something more positive for the community.
2) The idea of a boutique hotel in Inglewood I think is positive, and would be great for local businesses, and a great place for people to visit.
3) I like that the building, as proposed, has some unique design characteristics, including some glass to provide some brightness to the skyline ( although I do hope that they ensure that it does not cause a lot of glare on the road and into peoples houses.
4) I like that it incorporates and respects the historic CIBC Bank building.

Cons.
1) My largest concern with this specific building is that the height is twice what is currently allowed in Inglewood. At 12 floors it would be way out of scale from the rest of the neighborhood.
2) Related to the height - Being someone that lives on 8th Avenue myself, I do not want that precedent to impact what is behind my house n( call it NIMBY if you will - but we have in good faith participated in discussion on our community and don't want these type of precedents)
3) Also related to the height, I expect that this building will have a significant shadow impact on the Lawn Bowling Club.
4) It is hard to tell from the drawings, but it appears that behind the glass and timber? skeleton, the building itself looks fairly plain.
5) Not specific to this building are the concerns raised above re: not considering the engagement with community. Surely, there are those in the community that do not want any change, but there are also a lot of good suggestions and feedback, that I have seen ignored from past engagements.
 
MJC said:
A few thoughts:
- Overall, I think we should be cautious about concentrated density in city building. My personal take is that lower density that is spread out is more comfortable and better for pedestrians. Mexico City is 25 million in greater area and few buildings are above 6 storeys.
Click to expand...

I have to respond to this, because I hear it over and over again. The assertion is that places like Mexico, Paris or Barcelona are quite dense, but have few buildings above 6 storey buildings. This is a fallacy (I call it the urban tourist fallacy) and I'll tell you why.

First, large swaths of Paris, Barcelona and Mexico are packed with 12-16 storey apartment slabs. Like massive swaths. Check out Lloreda in Barcelona. 12 storey slab apartment central. Or any Paris suburb for that matter. There are apartment towers ALL OVER MEXICO CITY. The reason people believe this fallacy is that they travel to certain areas of the city that only have 6 storey buildings, and then think the entire city is like that. Google Earth has a 3D building feature. It is easy to see just how many tall buildings these cities have.

Second, yes, most buildings don't exceed 6 storeys in these cities. But, the corollary is that very few buildings are below 6 stories, especially in the master planned cities of Barcelona and Paris. It is very rare to find a shorter building than 6 stories, and it is often a cultural building (a museum) or like a market. The VAST majority of buildings in these cities are around 6 stories tall. That's how they are dense. Everything is a mid rise building. You can't find a single detached house until you get way out into the suburbs, and even then, they are very rich enclaves. So if you want European density and argue that buildings shouldn't be more than 6 storeys, then you have to accept that buildings also shouldn't be LESS than 6 storeys.
 
CBBarnett said:
It's all relative when it comes to density, and I don't always agree that height is a problem, but design can be (in which height and street interface, shadows, flexibility of spaces are components). Here's a random brain dump and some useful statistics that might be worth throwing into the conversations:


  • The densest Census Tract in Alberta is in Calgary, in the Beltline's most developed core area - roughly 14 to 8 St W, 10 to 17 Ave S. This stretch has a 2016 population of 8,109 and a density of 14,134 / km2. This area will see further density increases in 2021 census due to all the residential towers near the Midtown CO-OP that should be counted by then.
  • We *may* have a third CT over the density threshold in 2021, essentially the other central chunk of the Beltline from 10 to 17 Ave S and 8 St W to Macleod-ish due to the growth in the area
  • Interesting side-fact: Alberta only had 3 census tracts with over 10,000 people / km2 in 2016 (2 Calgary, 1 Edmonton)
  • Inglewood gets unfairly screwed in Statscan analysis by the geographic threshold of it's CT, it's too small of a population so get lumped into a giant area including the railyards with only 4,078 people. Obviously this creates a very low density (770 people / km2). The City's geographies are more generous, giving the neighbourhood somewhere double that (~1,500 people/km2) if we use the City's neighbourhood boundary.
  • In general Calgary's density takes a hit for CT-based density calculations due to our far greater supply of open space getting lumped into the area calculations. This is due to mostly to our far above average supply of park space and rivers/floodways, followed closely by our really low lot coverage rations from lawns, setbacks and wasted space between built structures..
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. Just want to point out that Calgary's densest neighbourhood is less dense than the AVERAGE density of Paris (20K/km2) or Barcelona (16K/km2).
 
retrofiturbanism said:
I have to respond to this, because I hear it over and over again. The assertion is that places like Mexico, Paris or Barcelona are quite dense, but have few buildings above 6 storey buildings. This is a fallacy (I call it the urban tourist fallacy) and I'll tell you why.

First, large swaths of Paris, Barcelona and Mexico are packed with 12-16 storey apartment slabs. Like massive swaths. Check out Lloreda in Barcelona. 12 storey slab apartment central. Or any Paris suburb for that matter. There are apartment towers ALL OVER MEXICO CITY. The reason people believe this fallacy is that they travel to certain areas of the city that only have 6 storey buildings, and then think the entire city is like that. Google Earth has a 3D building feature. It is easy to see just how many tall buildings these cities have.

Second, yes, most buildings don't exceed 6 storeys in these cities. But, the corollary is that very few buildings are below 6 stories, especially in the master planned cities of Barcelona and Paris. It is very rare to find a shorter building than 6 stories, and it is often a cultural building (a museum) or like a market. The VAST majority of buildings in these cities are around 6 stories tall. That's how they are dense. Everything is a mid rise building. You can't find a single detached house until you get way out into the suburbs, and even then, they are very rich enclaves. So if you want European density and argue that buildings shouldn't be more than 6 storeys, then you have to accept that buildings also shouldn't be LESS than 6 storeys.
Click to expand...

One thing that is missing for me from these new and useful facts is how do the areas with 12-16 story apartment slabs compare to the primarily 6 story communities as far as desirability, street life, and general quality of life? What I'm trying to get at is are the 12-16 story zone better than the 6 story ones, the same, or a place you'd try to move from to the lower rise areas if possible?
 
Last edited:
retrofiturbanism said:
I have to respond to this, because I hear it over and over again. The assertion is that places like Mexico, Paris or Barcelona are quite dense, but have few buildings above 6 storey buildings. This is a fallacy (I call it the urban tourist fallacy) and I'll tell you why.

First, large swaths of Paris, Barcelona and Mexico are packed with 12-16 storey apartment slabs. Like massive swaths. Check out Lloreda in Barcelona. 12 storey slab apartment central. Or any Paris suburb for that matter. There are apartment towers ALL OVER MEXICO CITY. The reason people believe this fallacy is that they travel to certain areas of the city that only have 6 storey buildings, and then think the entire city is like that. Google Earth has a 3D building feature. It is easy to see just how many tall buildings these cities have.

Second, yes, most buildings don't exceed 6 storeys in these cities. But, the corollary is that very few buildings are below 6 stories, especially in the master planned cities of Barcelona and Paris. It is very rare to find a shorter building than 6 stories, and it is often a cultural building (a museum) or like a market. The VAST majority of buildings in these cities are around 6 stories tall. That's how they are dense. Everything is a mid rise building. You can't find a single detached house until you get way out into the suburbs, and even then, they are very rich enclaves. So if you want European density and argue that buildings shouldn't be more than 6 storeys, then you have to accept that buildings also shouldn't be LESS than 6 storeys.
Click to expand...
Glad someone finally addressed it. You can't half a** density if you want a vibrant community. If we're truly trying to make areas like Kensington and Inglewood vibrant year around then we're going to need to increase our population in those areas to go along with the retail, attractions, businesses, and other services that encourage people into an area. Im fine if Calgary wanted to full stop building high rises outside of downtown but would residents be willingly open to accepting 6 storey midrises on streets that have detached homes? Which is why highrises do the trick in helping bring density to areas that are targeted to be vibrant.

Best example I can think of outside of Europe is Vancouver where mainstreets are boosted by midrises and highrises in inner city communities. South Granville is a great example of this which has mainstreets much more vibrant than any mainstreet outside of our downtown. Heck somedays it looks even busier than our downtown. Other examples we can pick are certain streets in Vancouver and Toronto downtown where podiums are built in a manner that allow for an enjoyable pedestrian experience while also providing density with taller towers. Now its blatantly obvious if you're proposing something like West Village towers in the inner city your going to have a sterile area but something like 500 block which isn't perfect but a step in the right direction can help increase vibrancy the right way.

As far as this project goes, Im fine with the height and design as long as Inglewood continues to preserve its older buildings (excluding detached homes). It has the potential to become a unique community where it develops for the future but showcases its beautiful historic architecture. It can be hard at times embracing change but a few short highrises isn't going to destroy the significance of Inglewood.
 
I respectfully disagree. I feel like Kensington and Inglewood are already vibrant enough. Increasing the population is fine of course, but I would prefer to see the continuation of more low rise density throughout the neighborhoods. That's not to say both neighborhoods couldn't use a few bigger projects here and there, but I would rather see those neighborhoods add density slowly and thoughtfully while the city concentrates on increasing density in the next ring neighborhoods like Killarney, Renfrew, Capitol Hill, etc..
gsunnyg said:
Glad someone finally addressed it. You can't half a** density if you want a vibrant community. If we're truly trying to make areas like Kensington and Inglewood vibrant year around then we're going to need to increase our population in those areas to go along with the retail, attractions, businesses, and other services that encourage people into an area. Im fine if Calgary wanted to full stop building high rises outside of downtown but would residents be willingly open to accepting 6 storey midrises on streets that have detached homes? Which is why highrises do the trick in helping bring density to areas that are targeted to be vibrant.
Click to expand...

IMO, Montreal is by far the best example of European density. Medium density throughout large parts of the city. Vancouver has a few small areas similar to Europe, but by in large most of the city reminds me of KL's density. Clusters of highrises here and there surrounded by patches of low density.
gsunnyg said:
Best example I can think of outside of Europe is Vancouver where mainstreets are boosted by midrises and highrises in inner city communities. South Granville is a great example of this which has mainstreets much more vibrant than any mainstreet outside of our downtown.
Click to expand...
 
Alex_YYC said:
I respectfully disagree. I feel like Kensington and Inglewood are already vibrant enough. Increasing the population is fine of course, but I would prefer to see the continuation of more low rise density throughout the neighborhoods. That's not to say both neighborhoods couldn't use a few bigger projects here and there, but I would rather see those neighborhoods add density slowly and thoughtfully while the city concentrates on increasing density in the next ring neighborhoods like Killarney, Renfrew, Capitol Hill, etc..


IMO, Montreal is by far the best example of European density. Medium density throughout large parts of the city. Vancouver has a few small areas similar to Europe, but by in large most of the city reminds me of KL's density. Clusters of highrises here and there surrounded by patches of low density.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with your assessment of Montreal's historic style of development at density without much height. Much of the low-rise section of the city ranges from 15,000 - 25,000 people / km2 (more to 2x the density of the densest part of Beltline with its far taller buildings and 10 - 25x as dense as Inglewood is currently). It's vibrant and walkable culture is a direct result.

From my time living and researching there the key factors for it's success:
  1. Zero/minimal setbacks (including narrow roadways)
  2. Zero parking requirements
  3. Minimum open public space only concentrated into small plazas and large prestigious parks
  4. Historic cultural preference to renting (a huge market for multi-family/apartment living from the very beginning)
Of course, to make that all was economics and time - often the trick in successful urbanism tends to be just be a booming city in the 1800s - early 1900s pre-automotive era. We don't have the luxury of being older, but can emulate Montreal by removing lawn, parking and open space requirements - and for extra Calgarian head-explosions - converting all under-utilized public space and useless parks, right-of-ways and other pointless parcels to developable land. I can think of several random acres worth in Inglewood alone (while maintain all the good stuff along the river).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top