UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
5,246
Reaction score
29,457
Yeah, wasn’t the final calculation for the main tower to be 214 meters? That would put it as fifth tallest in the city, sixth tallest outside of Toronto.
 

O-tac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
341
Reaction score
807
City:
Calgary
Sounds like there may be some tweaks to this development coming in about 2 weeks. Also disappointed in the Mayor's comments in this article. Telus Sky is an enhancement to our skyline, not to the area. The streetlife and vitality of that corner is far less today than it was when Art Central was on there. So in terms of postcard photos, Telus Sky is a win. In terms of a vibrant downtown, it was a loss. Same as the Bow. The Triovest proposal will kill the vibrancy in the same way but will do so on Calgary's most important downtown street and without delivering any sort of signature tower into the skyline either.




I can't see past the paywall. What did Gondek say? At least there's finally talk of retaining more than facades. Hopefully some attention gets paid to 7th Ave as that is the worst feature of the entire proposal. I have my doubts though. Still wish this wasn't happening.
 

O-tac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
341
Reaction score
807
City:
Calgary
Got through the paywall and read the article. I have zero hope now. Gondek and Wong (who is a terrible replacement for Farrell btw) both sound desperate to rubber stamp any large development DT at any cost. Development for the sake of development. Calgary’s ethos that has led us to this point of windswept corporate plazas and taxpayers footing the bill to convert now useless and empty office buildings. I’m so disillusioned by this city and how much it sucks corporate dick. Triovest must know this council will be afraid to stand up to them or be painted anti development next election.

Also I was surprised that it said it would only retain the exterior of the BMO building. I thought that property was outside the scope of the project.
 

cameronhowe

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 15, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
277
Got through the paywall and read the article. I have zero hope now. Gondek and Wong (who is a terrible replacement for Farrell btw) both sound desperate to rubber stamp any large development DT at any cost. Development for the sake of development. Calgary’s ethos that has led us to this point of windswept corporate plazas and taxpayers footing the bill to convert now useless and empty office buildings. I’m so disillusioned by this city and how much it sucks corporate dick. Triovest must know this council will be afraid to stand up to them or be painted anti development next election.

Also I was surprised that it said it would only retain the exterior of the BMO building. I thought that property was outside the scope of the project.
Which is ironic, isn't Wong the one who's so anti-development in Chinatown?
 

goodcitywhenfinished

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
131
Reaction score
563
To be fair, from a purely economic perspective this development is a no-brainer when council has been so focused on downtown revitalization. The cultural nuances of historic preservation and the inherent walkability of more intimate urban spaces like Stephen Avenue are lost when the discussion centers squarely around economic benefits.

Unfortunately in Calgary we have a very strong imbedded culture of commerce and efficiency with little regards for the more intangible and longer term benefits of preserving a space such as this.
 

outoftheice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
480
Reaction score
3,111
City:
Aarhus
I would push back on that point a little bit. I would agree that from a purely economic perspective this development would be good if it weren't for the fact that the City of Calgary is currently spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to remove excess office space from the downtown inventory. This project is going to add a significant amount back in which means by approving it, Council will be working against their own economic objectives, of which they are spending (and plan on spending) significant amounts of taxpayer dollars to achieve. It's crazy to me and hopefully a point the press picks up on if this project nears approval.
 

outoftheice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
480
Reaction score
3,111
City:
Aarhus
Looks like a more formal opposition to this project is starting up. I had heard a revised application was supposed to have been submitted by the end of September but haven't heard anything further. Anybody else hear anything similar?

 

Top