Maybe they're shooting for 12 and hoping for 8? I would be okay with this same vision but pared down to 8 floors, but if it went in at 12 I'd be okay with that too, mainly because if you're going to do 12 floors in Inglewood, that's the location to do it.
 
Habanero said:
Yeah, if those who are still left at SSP don''t like it, it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

terrible like the tokyo prada building

E0250EAE-E408-43A5-AAC0-AC4BE3CC6C30.png
 
My impression with Inglewood is that it's less about these 'one off' tall buildings being the issue, and more that a 12 story building in the middle of the strip will encourage and facilitate additional adjacent attempts to do the same, erasing the historic mainstreet. Particularly since currently the old telephone exchange and the fire hall are the only protected buildings on 9th avenue. Currently there are now two proposals completely ignoring the ARP and trying to get council to also ignore it. What happens when there's 8 of these proposals looking to demolish 9th avenue turning Inglewood's main street into something that instead appears to be just be an extension of the East Village.

I do agree though that key intersection deserves something better than two parking lots. Just consider that this is the most historic community in the entire city.

TLDR; I would be concerned that enough 12+ story overrides of the ARP will defacto rezone 9th avenue to 12+ stories, destroying the historic mainstreet.
 
As long as their not tearing down historic buildings I’m fine with larger newer buildings given that the design will be high quality and encourage pedestrian traffic. Plenty of main streets across the world exist in harmony with new modern buildings and older historic midrises. If any of the proposals so far in inglewood were to tear down an historic building, I would automatically switch over to the NIMBY side. Can't afford to lose what little we have. So far it’s a bunch of crappy architectural buildings or parking lots that are being replaced.
 
Patrick.1980 said:
Let the fireworks begin. This one will be interesting as I get the feeling the community will come out strongly against it. we'll see how serious the city is about increasing density in developed areas.
Click to expand...
These kinds of projects are always interesting because it's a step-change for the neighbourhood, stepping from a less intense form to a larger, more urban one. With all the growth and development of the past 20 years, very few places have really "transformed" and moved up a rung in the urban hierarchy. A highly subjective, non-scientific list of examples of change:
  • Several pockets of the Beltline went from mid-density/parking lots/urban explorers only to big-city/high-density/urban style (1st Street SW & 17 Ave / 8th Streets SW being the most notable). Honourable mention to the Co-op cluster, but hasn't quite sorted out what it is yet.
  • Marda Loop from a quasi-suburban strip mall land to mid-density pedestrian-oriented retail area
  • East Village
  • Bridgeland and Kensington are honourable mentions for also markedly stepping up a rung in the urban form, but perhaps to a lesser extent than the others (for now: Bridgeland's continual boom will change this soon)
Almost all other areas of the inner city with growth was far more iterative rather than revolutionary: more buildings, population and vibrancy in a general sense rather than a wild change from what existing previously. Inglewood/Ramsay's growth is far more of a story of retail gentrification and becoming an attractive destination neighbourhood than one of significant growth and change (so far).

TL/DR: excited for this one. Will be a gong show from community resistance but a corner parking lot on a popular main street next to the core of a 1.5 million person city should be expecting this type of development.
 
gsunnyg said:
As long as their not tearing down historic buildings I’m fine with larger newer buildings given that the design will be high quality and encourage pedestrian traffic. Plenty of main streets across the world exist in harmony with new modern buildings and older historic midrises. If any of the proposals so far in inglewood were to tear down an historic building, I would automatically switch over to the NIMBY side. Can't afford to lose what little we have. So far it’s a bunch of crappy architectural buildings or parking lots that are being replaced.
Click to expand...

Fair points, I tend to come at it in a 'if the historical buildings are not actually protected, they will be lost' point of view because that is what tends to happen, and the higher the land use, the higher the pressure to 'just demolish this one', which slowly degrades the area until 'well so much is lost, it's not worth saving anymore'.
 
The success is always in details and approach with these developments, and that often just comes down to who is involved. As one can imagine, there is a difference between how RDSQR would handle something and how a Torode would. But that's probably why I'm more in favour or more protective standards being the norm, and letting them be stretched or challenged on a case by case basis.
 
I really hope this gets approved and built, but I would be lying if I didn't say that I think it would look even better in the East Village. Imagine this along the Riverwalk? Would be fantastic!
 
That's just it. I would love to see a bldg like this on that one particular lot, and I'm okay with the scale because it doesn't have houses as neighbors and it's on a busy corner filling an empty parking lot.I wouldn't want to see too many of these in Inglewood however. If you could limit larger scale bldgs to parcels located between Elbow River and 12th, and between 9th ave and the tracks that would work for me.

And to your point, yes as soon as bigger projects go in, land becomes more valuable, and existing buildings less valuable as a structure.Can be a slippery slope.

JoeUrban said:
My impression with Inglewood is that it's less about these 'one off' tall buildings being the issue, and more that a 12 story building in the middle of the strip will encourage and facilitate additional adjacent attempts to do the same, erasing the historic mainstreet. Particularly since currently the old telephone exchange and the fire hall are the only protected buildings on 9th avenue. Currently there are now two proposals completely ignoring the ARP and trying to get council to also ignore it. What happens when there's 8 of these proposals looking to demolish 9th avenue turning Inglewood's main street into something that instead appears to be just be an extension of the East Village.

I do agree though that key intersection deserves something better than two parking lots. Just consider that this is the most historic community in the entire city.

TLDR; I would be concerned that enough 12+ story overrides of the ARP will defacto rezone 9th avenue to 12+ stories, destroying the historic mainstreet.
Click to expand...
 
A beacon for the neighborhood would be a good thing. A cool structure taller than everything seen in the distance from the Riverwalk or east Beltline could draw people to check out Inglewood or just express that there’s something happening in that direction.

There’s been many cities that I’ve travelled to where I’ve seen an interesting structure in the distance, and realized there was possibly an interesting area to explore that I would have otherwise missed. Quite common in Europe where some cities are mostly low-mid rise, and commonly I’m disappointed when I get there and it’s yet another church.
 
One tallish building would be okay. Something to signify the intersection as the center of the neighborhood. I think the way this is structured, it wouldn't be overpowering either. The problem comes when everybody will want to do a 12 storey building.
haltcatchfire said:
A beacon for the neighborhood would be a good thing. A cool structure taller than everything seen in the distance from the Riverwalk or east Beltline could draw people to check out Inglewood or just express that there’s something happening in that direction.

There’s been many cities that I’ve travelled to where I’ve seen an interesting structure in the distance, and realized there was possibly an interesting area to explore that I would have otherwise missed. Quite common in Europe where some cities are mostly low-mid rise, and commonly I’m disappointed when I get there and it’s yet another church.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top