[Habanero]

Density, yes, in hopes of getting a grocery store on the truck stop land. But not with 20 stories equalling 63 meters at this site. Especially when the Inglewood ARP calls for a maximum height of 20 meters. A few meters over, okay, but triple is just boorish as was previously stated. The tower design just doesn’t fit the environment being next to single family homes. A couple 8 or so story buildings would fit better.
Another thing not mentioned yet is access. The City won’t allow vehicle access off 19th St and is forcing traffic to go down 9th, past the elementary school and down 20th St to access the building which isn’t ideal.
And what’s with the developer remaining anonymous? It just looks bad on his/her part.

I'm with you on that, and I think most others are too. 8-10 storeys is still good density without adversely affecting the neighborhood. I was more on board for the taller tower at the beginning, but have had a change of heart. Medium density spread out is a good way to go. So far, that's how all the other inner city neighborhoods (with exception of Beltline) have done it, and it works.

 

[gsunnyg]

I sort of disagree on this, in 50-100 years its not even gonna matter. The location of this building isn't even near any historical building, its sort of on the edge of the neighbourhood. I think i've mentioned this before but cities like London and Paris, well known for high density have little towers popping up all over the place. It gives a city a more bigger feel to it. I think more little random skyscraper nodes or high rise buildings outside the core would give Calgary the extra one up on actually looking like a metro city, not just another city with the feeling of suburbs glued together. I read an article once mentioning the growing problem in Calgary of "not in my backyard." Im sure many may disagree with my point but I think this development is a brave step and I really don't see it damaging the historical side of Inglewood. I mean historical areas and modern buildings have co-existed perfectly many times.

 

[Jake46]

I sort of disagree on this, in 50-100 years its not even gonna matter. The location of this building isn't even near any historical building, its sort of on the edge of the neighbourhood. I think i've mentioned this before but cities like London and Paris, well known for high density have little towers popping up all over the place. It gives a city a more bigger feel to it. I think more little random skyscraper nodes or high rise buildings outside the core would give Calgary the extra one up on actually looking like a metro city, not just another city with the feeling of suburbs glued together. I read an article once mentioning the growing problem in Calgary of "not in my backyard." Im sure many may disagree with my point but I think this development is a brave step and I really don't see it damaging the historical side of Inglewood. I mean historical areas and modern buildings have co-existed perfectly many times.

Yes and no gsunnyg. There is nothing really historic in that area except the Colonel Walker School. The truck stop lands will hopefully have a grocery store or other retail and mid to high rise residential. I can see that too in 50-100 years. But I don’t think development of that area should begin across the street from the truck stop, right next to a residential area with a 20 story tower.

 

[AJX]

I don't know that a 20 storey building would necessary be that bad for the neighborhood, but given the way Sunnyside and Mission have turned out going wit medium and low rise buildings, Inglewood would be off following suit.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

I sort of disagree on this, in 50-100 years its not even gonna matter. The location of this building isn't even near any historical building, its sort of on the edge of the neighbourhood. I think i've mentioned this before but cities like London and Paris, well known for high density have little towers popping up all over the place. It gives a city a more bigger feel to it. I think more little random skyscraper nodes or high rise buildings outside the core would give Calgary the extra one up on actually looking like a metro city, not just another city with the feeling of suburbs glued together. I read an article once mentioning the growing problem in Calgary of "not in my backyard." Im sure many may disagree with my point but I think this development is a brave step and I really don't see it damaging the historical side of Inglewood. I mean historical areas and modern buildings have co-existed perfectly many times.

This is exactly how I feel about this proposal as well, pretty much too the T. This proposal is also like pretty much directly adjacent to a new fairly new midrise development.

 

[CBBarnett]

This is exactly how I feel about this proposal as well, pretty much too the T. This proposal is also like pretty much directly adjacent to a new fairly new midrise development.

As long as the development is "urban" (e.g. non-auto oriented with appropriate density to generate street life) I think any height can work in this area. Its next to Blackfoot Trail after all, if we are actually concerned with preserving character or "contextually infilling" the most appropriate use is a Walmart box store, vacant lot or off ramp. With a reasonable design that nods towards what the neighbourhood should/could be like in 50 to 100 years, you can make any height work.

 

[Cowtown]

I'm okay with the height, but my own personal opinion is that it would be better at around 10 or 12 floors, or maybe even 8 floors. For me it's all about the bottom 3 floors. How well are they integrated with the surroundings? also the whole area around the BRT station needs a master plan of some sort. 20 floors may well be fine, if it fits the master plan. Someone mentioned that the city is looking at re-doing the ARP for the area, and much will depend on how that turns out. Of course the city has been known to deviate from the ARP, so who knows.

 

[MichaelS]

There was an open house on the project last night (March 1). Doesn't sound like it got the warmest of receptions:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/inglewood-the-grid-tower-1.4558933

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. The article says the City won't allow access to 19th Street, but it sounds like Councillor Carra disagrees with that statement and will be pushing to allow an access (see his column in this month's Inglewood Community Newsletter, page 13, under the traffic point): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EUYrPrfM7q8qQwAHrHXnFe2eN_8sCLJA/view)

Technically, 19th Street is classified as an Arterial roadway, per the CTP (see map 7 at the end of the document: http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/CTP2009/calgary_transportation_plan.pdf)

Per the DGSS (Design Guidelines for Subdivision Servicing), industrial and commercial properties are allowed access to an Arterial road, but multi-residential are not. However, if this was considered a Local Arterial, multi-residential properties are permitted to have access. The CTP doesn't specify the difference, so perhaps one clue would be to look at the volumes (full arterial is meant for 20,000 - 35,000 vehicles per day, local arterial is 15,000 - 20,000). All this comes from the DGSS, found here:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportatio...guidelines-for-subdivision-servicing-2014.pdf

Per the 2016 traffic flow map, this portion of 19th street had a daily volume of 12,000 vehicles per day, putting it in the range of a Local Arterial (below it actually).
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/data/traffic_flow_maps/2016-flowmap_City.pdf

Therefore, I think Carra is correct, and wonder why The City is saying no access will be permitted? Unless of course, the intersection with Blackfoot has constant long queues that would push back the approximately 75m to what would be 7th ave.

 

[Beltline_B]

I’m not too surprised that the project got an icy reception, there are a few things I need to fix before it will get a warm reception I think. First off the developer needs to make themselves known, being anonymous isn’t helping. Secondly they will need to reduce the height if they want to get people on board, bringing it down to say 12 stories or making it to Building’s around 10 stories instead of 120 story tower would help.

 

[gsunnyg]

A person in the CBC comments section summed it up nicely. The people complaining/criticizing are always heard while the majority that don't care don't bother saying anything or showing up to such events. This is why so many things never get built in the city because a small minority are given such a loud vocal voice. I still don't understand what there is to hate about this building, such heights in historical areas of cities like London and NYC are common. The fact this tower isn't located near the 9ave corridor and now there are people complaining about traffic makes me roll my eyes. With the state of the economy, beggars shouldn't be choosers. Sucks seeing Vancouver and Toronto jump ahead in the high rise market.

 

[MichaelS]

I’m not too surprised that the project got an icy reception, there are a few things I need to fix before it will get a warm reception I think. First off the developer needs to make themselves known, being anonymous isn’t helping. Secondly they will need to reduce the height if they want to get people on board, bringing it down to say 12 stories or making it to Building’s around 10 stories instead of 120 story tower would help.

Why do you feel the developer needs to be known? Will that change the physical characteristics of the property and project? Shouldn't we just be basing our opinion on the design, and not who is the money behind it? Council is bound by this, voting on the "use" and not the "user", so why should a developer HAVE to be outed if they choose not to?

 

[Beltline_B]

I don’t feel there’s an absolute need for the developer to be known, but that it would be better for relations with the community if they knew who the developer was. I’m sure the developer isn’t hiding anything, it’s the optics of it.

You’re correct in that council should be voting for this based on the use, but as we all know if the community is strongly against something they can have an effect on the the vote.

For the record, I’m not against this development, my own personal feelings are that would be better if it was a lower height, but other than that I don’t really have anything against it, I think extra density in that area is beneficial in many ways. I’d love to see something get develop there.

Why do you feel the developer needs to be known? Will that change the physical characteristics of the property and project? Shouldn't we just be basing our opinion on the design, and not who is the money behind it? Council is bound by this, voting on the "use" and not the "user", so why should a developer HAVE to be outed if they choose not to?

 

[MichaelS]

Oh yes, definitely the community opinion matters. I just hope they base the opinion on the proposed use, not who is proposing it.

 

[Social Justice]

I'm okay with the height, but my own personal opinion is that it would be better at around 10 or 12 floors, or maybe even 8 floors. For me it's all about the bottom 3 floors. How well are they integrated with the surroundings? also the whole area around the BRT station needs a master plan of some sort. 20 floors may well be fine, if it fits the master plan. Someone mentioned that the city is looking at re-doing the ARP for the area, and much will depend on how that turns out. Of course the city has been known to deviate from the ARP, so who knows.

Underrated post.

I really think the focus in Calgary should shift from "DENSITY! WE NEED MORE DENSITY!" to "We need good design that is nuanced and fits the area." I'm all for adding density and and urban living, but my problem with the proposed development is that it seems like the architect took an Autocad template from 2010 and dropped it onto the site. I'd rather see a 6-8 building that integrates well with the surrounding environment.

Yes, there is a future BRT station across the street.
Yes, Blackfoot trail provides a challenge.
Yes, there is a gas station
No, shadowing will not be a major issue.

But 20 stories does not fit the area. It reminds me of this tower on Macleod trail:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.9860...4!1sNl1JtKFD3ytfsxUFQTwQhg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[Habanero]

My concern is mostly the podium and how it will relate to the parcel across the street when it's developed at a later time. To be honest, the height doesn't concern me much, though I would prefer something say 12-15 floors.