Agree. They needed to use a higher quality black panel than what they opted for. The panels should have also been larger. The small vertical strips looks extremely cheap.
 
Alex_YYC said:
It looks like I’m in the minority here, but I like the black.
Click to expand...
The black as a color is fine. I wish they had have used something of better quality, for example a dark charcoal brick instead would have kicked ass and made it into an example of what to build. With the current materials, I still like the project in general, but it's so close to being a fantastic project.
 
MichaelS said:
We do, sort of. There is the Urban Design Review Panel, and also the City has a Chief Urban Designer (who is quite excellent BTW). The problem is, these authorites are not given very strong authority, most often (always?) being advisory I think.
Click to expand...
TBH, both should have their leashes significantly tugged. The UDRP is in danger of becoming a subcomittee for CPC, and has significantly pushed the scope of its reviews. The process was meant to be much less formal and interative. Instead the process is another hearing which generates a report and churn, and requires significant consultant time to prepare for and respond to.
 
I'm just happy they finally opened up that damn turning lane on 5th. For a building of this size and the available sidewalk space they already had to work with, the length of time that lane was closed for was insane.
 
IceCreamMan said:
I'm just happy they finally opened up that damn turning lane on 5th. For a building of this size and the available sidewalk space they already had to work with, the length of time that lane was closed for was insane.
Click to expand...
Aw yeah, my favorite part about this corner of 17th Ave is - *checks notes* - quickly driving a vehicle through it.

/s
 
darwink said:
TBH, both should have their leashes significantly tugged. The UDRP is in danger of becoming a subcomittee for CPC, and has significantly pushed the scope of its reviews. The process was meant to be much less formal and interative. Instead the process is another hearing which generates a report and churn, and requires significant consultant time to prepare for and respond to.
Click to expand...
It is tough. On the one hand, we don't want to see red tape added. On the other, there are constant calls for better urban design and higher quality outcomes, but the groups responsible for pushing that are not to have resources dedicated to it? I know the panel does work hard to turn comments around within the typical CPAG time frames, and the presentation requirements are not that onerous. Some developers and consultants do go above and beyond, but the materials needed should not be much more (if anything) than a typical DP submission anyway, requiring little additional work. Of all the steps involved in the approval process, should it be this one that gets reduced, based on how significant and long lasting the impacts of a poor outcome are?
 
MichaelS said:
Of all the steps involved in the approval process, should it be this one that gets reduced, based on how significant and long lasting the impacts of a poor outcome are?
Click to expand...
There needs to be significant peer jury on it (or lacking that because it is hard to get that right, some people with a bit of understanding of cost tradeoffs) - a lot of the time the advice comes in with no consideration for cost, and if required would torpedo the project. Then CPC asks 'hey, why didn't you do this, it was URDP recommendation, come back in a few months and we will look again once you take that into consideration'. On 17th Ave a robust URDP sure, can be helpful, but I still think it can be reformed greatly to make it less of a checkbox exercise and more of a predesign free outside sounding board and idea team. On submission those people could write a letter that said 'they were good to work with and thought seriously about raised concerns, and addressed many which were economical to address'.

URDP reviewing 'gateway' projects up on Country Hills Blvd? Cut that red tape!
 
darwink said:
There needs to be significant peer jury on it (or lacking that because it is hard to get that right, some people with a bit of understanding of cost tradeoffs) - a lot of the time the advice comes in with no consideration for cost, and if required would torpedo the project. Then CPC asks 'hey, why didn't you do this, it was URDP recommendation, come back in a few months and we will look again once you take that into consideration'. On 17th Ave a robust URDP sure, can be helpful, but I still think it can be reformed greatly to make it less of a checkbox exercise and more of a predesign free outside sounding board and idea team. On submission those people could write a letter that said 'they were good to work with and thought seriously about raised concerns, and addressed many which were economical to address'.

URDP reviewing 'gateway' projects up on Country Hills Blvd? Cut that red tape!
Click to expand...

Who says the spirit of building a great city is dead? :)
Calgary coat.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top