[Disraeli]

My only counter to this is that the cheaper the lots, the easier it is for a single person/company to acquire multiple properties and assemble them into one large parcel for redevelopment. The higher the lot price, the higher the barrier to entry for redevelopment. We'll probably have to wait ten years or so before we know which one of our perspectives is the correct one.

It might be cheaper to assemble lots but that’s only because the development potential of the lots are limited by the land use bylaw. The difference between lots zoned for say townhouses and a lots zoned for higher density can be hundreds or even thousands of units. That is why having higher density zoning as a means to disincentivize a developer buying up heritage parcels to redevelop isn’t a reality because the economics for demolishing increase exponentially when the FAR, density and height limits allowed in the bylaw increase. If you combine that with a hot market like you see in Vancouver and Toronto, it translates into a lot of lost heritage buildings (and also impacts affordability). It's why municipalities have schemes such as density transfers to help save heritage buildings but they have limited effectiveness.

What are the impacts of empty lots and used car dealerships? Inglewood has like 3 blocks of actual character on about 10 blocks of 9th ave, the rest is extremely under developed.

I think chopping off a couple floors is the right answer, faux historicism is not..

the DC in place right now isn't preventing those lots from being developed. Those are still primed for re-development with the Green Line coming up.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

To anyone who didn't get the email from the RNDSQR representative about emailing council - here is what I wrote and some instructions. Feel free to copy and paste.

Email: PublicSubmissions@calgary.ca and cc Gian-Carlo.Carra@calgary.ca

Subject: RE: July 27 Public Hearing: Bylaw 84D2020/LOC2019-0188


To City of Calgary Councillors and the Mayor,

I am writing in support of Bylaw 84D2020 to accommodate a mixed use development while preserving the historic CIBC Building.

This project will have a positive impact on the community of Inglewood in several ways. First, the ground level inclusion of a MAX Purple Station is much needed in the community, as the current stop doesn't even have a shelter. Secondly, the preservation and activation of the CIBC Building will ensure its longevity, in the face of a neighbourhood which has seen much of its history annihilated for abominable structures such as the car dealership and parking lot on which this beautiful development will be built. Third, this project will bring more people into one of Calgary's most beloved neighbourhoods, within close proximity to Inglewood Green Line Station, fulfilling the city's goal of population densification near transit nodes. Finally, the mix of uses this development aims to bring - including new retail opportunities and a rooftop restaurant on the historic CIBC Building - are perfectly in line with the Municipal Development Plan and Calgary Mainstreets initiative.

Calgary must continue being a national leader in unique, modern architecture. RNDSQR Block will contribute to the densification of our core areas, not only aiming to be a beacon of Inglewood, but a symbol of Calgary's future.

Thank you,

NAME - MAILING ADDRESS (required for inclusion in council agenda)

 

[maestro]

But wouldn't restricting building heights as the community wants also have large negative impacts in neighbourhoods like Inglewood? The BIA prepared a report that points to the three new six story buildings on the west end of 9th as the desired outcome versus a 12 story point tower. Yet AVLI sits on a large lot and the other two buildings essentially take up entire blocks.

I have a friend who develops infill midrise projects in the 4-6 story range and the first thing he looks to do is assemble multiple adjoining parcels to get the largest footprint possible to make the economics of mid-rise work. The economics of a small lot with a 12 story point tower works, that same lot with a six story concrete mid-rise does not. So we end up with cheap wood buildings like Torode or quality large footprint mid-rises like we see in Bridgeland and Kensington.

Personally I think limiting development to 6 stories in Inglewood dramatically increases the threat to the heritage buildings and the feel to the street as developers will work hard to assemble multiple parcels and tear down existing buildings so they can make the economics of mid-rise work better.

The costs are usually higher for an infill point tower on a small lot than a larger tower occupying a large lot above a one storey podium. Fire codes occupy a minimum amount of square footage. The smaller the floor plate, the higher the percentage that isn't revenue generating. It's cheaper and saves time to dig one underground level in a confined space than two or three. It's not a necessity to have a large lot with the ability to build higher. It's still preferred.

I'm always concerned when renderings aren't very realistic. There's nothing yet to know for sure. I'm waiting to see how Courtyard 33 turns out. The difference between all the different media are vast. The renderings posted here are incredible for Courtyard 33. There are others that are far from spectacular. This tower design demands the higher quality.

 

[Mountain Man]

The accuracy of the renders is one of my biggest questions, RNDSQR projects don't ever look nearly as polished as the renders, much value engineering is apparent.

 

[Alkarimd]

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 !!

 

[haltcatchfire]

Oh wow, it’s even better than before. The openings for the balconies lighten up the mass and on the east corners give it some needed texture. The point of the corner at the intersection is super cool looking now.

The details feel much more resolved and the way the grid comes to the triangles at the ground level feel more open, light, yet sturdy.

Am I in London?

 

[gsunnyg]

^ Yea after seeing those renderings, i'm 100% on board now. In addition, a sheltered MAX BRT station would be great also. I can see this only enhancing the street activation and vibrancy. I can think of multiple heritage streets Ive been to around the world where old and larger new buildings have co-existed very well.

 

[Urb]

Thanks for sharing - your engagement efforts are much appreciated. This could be something very special. Hell - the City might want to designate this as a heritage asset someday! Best of luck

 

[Patrick.1980]

Thanks for posting those new renderings. Definitely a show stopper I'd love to see get built...even if we lose a car lot in the process /S

 

[haltcatchfire]

Thanks for sharing - your engagement efforts are much appreciated. This could be something very special. Hell - the City might want to designate this as a heritage asset someday! Best of luck

I can see the bronze plaque now.

“5468796 envisioned a building to carry forward and represent the historic traditions of the prominent property. Sleek, glassy and sharp, much like the cars that once roamed the land.”

 

[1875]

great looking building.
its certainly not intrusive and as for heritage, its not just 2020 heritage that needs consideration its 2070 heritage and 2100 heritage as well.
at some point the blues can is going to meet the wrecking ball, im ok with that if its something like this replaces it rather than a torode project that comes in under the height restriction.
and as for modern structures that dont fit in, how about an eiffel tower, think that worked out ok.

also, as with every project being built (especially on corners like this) please dont have a one floor podium, they are ridiculously short sighted.

 

[luk_o]

Beautiful. Shovels in ground!

 

[Mountain Man]

Appreciate the post Al, definitely a fan of what you guys do and what you try to do for the urban fabric of our city.

 

[googspecial]

Here is the report commissioned by the BIA : https://drive.google.com/file/d/18E7_GM9QEp2jJ4rja9goqnZvRW-eiqC1/view

They offer some really good illustrative analysis with pedestrian views, shadowing etc. It's pretty thorough and has some good points, but I disagree with most of the negative view point against the developments. To be honest, it makes me like the existing proposals even more. The primary argument seems to be that the city doesn't provide rationale for allowing a 12-storey building on a main street. IMO the report doesn't counter-argue that effectively. They don't explore these answers themselves either, but consistently say the feel would be more like "a secondary centre within the city and less like being on a neighbourhood main street." Why shouldn't that be some part of the goal? Why can't it be both a centre within the city, and a neighbourhood? These new renderings especially show that "neighborhood feels" can be pulled off with proper street level interaction and integration. Perhaps the city isn't being directive enough with how an increased height building should interact with the neighbourhood, but at least this particular proposal has worked to accomplish that in the some really good ways.

 

[Beazley66]

I’ll put my thoughts together after the weekend. I volunteered with ICA and BIA, and am against the proposal. I’ll be at the hub tomorrow talking about it. Your welcome to drop by Al , we can have a chew about it. Yes I live in Inglewood, no I’m not a NIMBY, and I am concerned about this project. It’s not about“ Fit where you Live“, it’s about this doesn’t fit where we live, and prescribed living. I’ve probably burned the few bridges I have here with this, but so be it, I’m fine with that. Keep in mind that this is part of a larger discussion that has at this point, prior to Council, is questioning due process. Anyway, look forward to chatting with anyone who wants to.