[zagox]

So Council just approved 1st reading, 2nd and 3rd pending the resolution of the AVPA guidelines.

During the public hearing, an image of the proposed building was shown. Still not final, as no DP has been submitted, but it gives an idea of what is being sought (forgive the screen capture quality):
View attachment 166790

Kind of a weird debate. Carra seemed to go out of his way to beat up on the community association for opposing this, while occasionally mentioning how much soul-searching he had to do in order to say yes. I find Farrell’s approach a lot more satisfying - she is much more convincingly emphathetic to the community’s concerns while laying out a logical case why those concerns can be set aside. Nenshi just seemed bored with Carra carrying on for so long.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

So Council just approved 1st reading, 2nd and 3rd pending the resolution of the AVPA guidelines.

During the public hearing, an image of the proposed building was shown. Still not final, as no DP has been submitted, but it gives an idea of what is being sought (forgive the screen capture quality):
View attachment 166790

Not bad at all

 

[gsunnyg]

So Council just approved 1st reading, 2nd and 3rd pending the resolution of the AVPA guidelines.

During the public hearing, an image of the proposed building was shown. Still not final, as no DP has been submitted, but it gives an idea of what is being sought (forgive the screen capture quality):
View attachment 166790

And this is exactly why I support these sort of random highrises outside the core. There are better options for pedistrian friendly density projects like midrises but at an intersection like this where everything around it is rundown or visually unappealing, the odd highrise like this adds an interesting aspect to the scenery. You actually feel like you live in a city and not a flat town. If this was made, I can already see that intersection looking 10 times more appealing just because of the variation this tower will bring. Now if this was right on 9th ave I'd too be against a high rise like this. The fact is its a TOD site situated well away from the historical area as well its not some place where pedestrians are going to be hanging around so I still have a hard time seeing why people are still opposing this? I mean at this rate we'll never have aggressive inner city development like other metro cities have. We need to start pushing projects like this one out and eventually NIMBYist will give up and become accustomed to them.

 

[Alex_YYC]

Reminds me of Castello.

So Council just approved 1st reading, 2nd and 3rd pending the resolution of the AVPA guidelines.

During the public hearing, an image of the proposed building was shown. Still not final, as no DP has been submitted, but it gives an idea of what is being sought (forgive the screen capture quality):
View attachment 166790

 

[CBBarnett]

Nice design. Vancouver circa 2009 here we go! (I mean that in a good way BTW)

I agree with the comments on density on this site. The location is great on a regional level, there are no obvious negative benefits on the community (shadowing will be on Blackfoot Trail, density will not be noticeable on traffic given the huge volumes present currently). More population, density and TOD to boot is all a win.

Another key thing about this one is that it gobbles up some forever-vacant land. If we ever want to have a hope to achieve sustainable, vibrancy-inducing urban densities in a neighbourhood like Inglewood we need this kind of development - some smaller, some bigger - in far more places than most Calgarians would be used to. The scale of the numbers are the challenge: booming Inglewood has only 4,000 residents after decades of redevelopment. If 10,000 - 15,000 is a target service catchment to make an average grocery store work, there is a long way to go yet.

Assuming significant density increases in historic low-density areas remain challenging - for both legitimate and bad reasons - the vacant and empty spots scattered around the city need to punch above their weight if we want to have any hope of making a 4,000 person neighbourhood a 10,000 person one.

 

[Social Justice]

Nice design. Vancouver circa 2009 here we go! (I mean that in a good way BTW)

I agree with the comments on density on this site. The location is great on a regional level, there are no obvious negative benefits on the community (shadowing will be on Blackfoot Trail, density will not be noticeable on traffic given the huge volumes present currently). More population, density and TOD to boot is all a win.

Another key thing about this one is that it gobbles up some forever-vacant land. If we ever want to have a hope to achieve sustainable, vibrancy-inducing urban densities in a neighbourhood like Inglewood we need this kind of development - some smaller, some bigger - in far more places than most Calgarians would be used to. The scale of the numbers are the challenge: booming Inglewood has only 4,000 residents after decades of redevelopment. If 10,000 - 15,000 is a target service catchment to make an average grocery store work, there is a long way to go yet.

Assuming significant density increases in historic low-density areas remain challenging - for both legitimate and bad reasons - the vacant and empty spots scattered around the city need to punch above their weight if we want to have any hope of making a 4,000 person neighbourhood a 10,000 person one.

I don't know why everyone has such a hard-on for this project. It seems like such a shitty design. When I saw a more detailed rendering it reminded me of the condos by Fish Creek Station.

I'm with the community on this one. I don't really see much benefit of developing towers in our historic inner city neighborhoods. I'd like to see Hillhurst, Sunnyside, Crescent Heights, Bridgeland, Inglewood, Ramsay and Marda Loop keep filling out with mid-rise developments(4-8 stories) instead of high rises. We should strive for 'Leafy Urbanism' in these neighborhoods. It gives you the feeling that you live in a real neighborhood/community. We can still increase the population density in the inner city, but population density isn't everything and developments need to fit the context of the neighborhood.

Keep the towers in the Beltline or build more around Macleod trail. There's no need for them here...even if it's close to a 'rapid transit'(I use that term very loosely) station,

 

[Surrealplaces]

I agree with for the most part, and in general that is the way I feel too. If the tower was in any other part of Inglewood, I would have a different opinion about it, but to me that part of Inglewood has always felt separate anyway. Everything East of Blackfoot feels like another less appealing neighborhood that could use some development....of any kind.

I don't know why everyone has such a hard-on for this project. It seems like such a shitty design. When I saw a more detailed rendering it reminded me of the condos by Fish Creek Station.

I'm with the community on this one. I don't really see much benefit of developing towers in our historic inner city neighborhoods. I'd like to see Hillhurst, Sunnyside, Crescent Heights, Bridgeland, Inglewood, Ramsay and Marda Loop keep filling out with mid-rise developments(4-8 stories) instead of high rises. We should strive for 'Leafy Urbanism' in these neighborhoods. It gives you the feeling that you live in a real neighborhood/community. We can still increase the population density in the inner city, but population density isn't everything and developments need to fit the context of the neighborhood.

Keep the towers in the Beltline or build more around Macleod trail. There's no need for them here...even if it's close to a 'rapid transit'(I use that term very loosely) station,

 

[Always_Biking]

I agree with @Social Justice, there seems to be a hard on for taller towers, but IMO low-rise and mid-rise buildings are a better way to go. You usually end up with the same density anyhow, except that it's spread out more.I would rather see this as a two tower (8 and 6 storey) project. Tall towers are great for places along the CP tracks or right in the core.

 

[CBBarnett]

I agree with @Social Justice, there seems to be a hard on for taller towers, but IMO low-rise and mid-rise buildings are a better way to go. You usually end up with the same density anyhow, except that it's spread out more.I would rather see this as a two tower (8 and 6 storey) project. Tall towers are great for places along the CP tracks or right in the core.

Agreed if you can get out the same levels of density from a mid-rise v. towers, I prefer mid-rise. I especially like mid-rises for corridors and side-street infills. In this case, I just don't care at all about this site or buy any of the community's arguments so am happy to support a modest tower here.

It's adjacent to one of Calgary ugliest corridors & interchanges. It's closer to Deerfoot than Spolumbo's by 400m. Apart from the definition of the Inglewood community boundary, it's hardly in Inglewood at all. It's on the north side, so shadows will have no impact on residents. If anything it will help "wall in" that end of the neighbourhood to give it more of an urban feel and might even cut down some of the noise from Blackfoot. The historic main street portion that is in many people's minds is over a kilometre away separated by a freeway and a railway so it likely won't even be visible from most of Inglewood for visitors or residents alike.

 

[maestro]

There's this misconception that a tower will always be denser than medium rises when zoning controls how many times the land area you can build. The proliferation of one and two storey podiums in Beltline is a result of building taller than needed with the bonus of excavating shallower parking requirements.

 

[1875]

its a bit of a jewel for that location. much worse can be found downtown.

 

[Surrealplaces]

The more I see it the more I think it's a good fit for the location. It's kind of in a weird spot that isn't a desirable place to develop something....thus probably why they are pushing for the extra scale. All around Inglewood there is a fair bit of land that can be developed with low rise projects.
I know everyone's goal is to have the best urban design possible, but sometime's I think sometimes people can be too picky to point that nothing gets developed. My own opinion is for a city in Calgary's position - choose the battles worth fighting.

 

[Urban Outdoorsman]

What's the status on this project?

 

[zagox]

What's the status on this project?

The provincial government has not been willing to modify the AVPA to allow the project to proceed. The airport opposes high-rise development along its flight path. The compromise announced earlier this year was to allow low-density development in east Inglewood, and to study higher-density development. Unclear if the province will side with the city or the airport - given the current frosty relationship, seems likely they will side with the airport just to spite the city...

 

[Stephen Ave]

It’s a bunch of political red tape and battling between policy makers. Realistically 22 floors down in the Inglewood area is nowhere near a threat to the airports flight path. An aircraft flying that low in the area is highly unusual and a bigger issue to worry about.