Honestly this is so dumb. So many cities have high rises that are located within 3000m of their airport in the respective flight path, even though it's not recommended. This project location is way beyond 3000m from the airport.
 
I'm sure it would be fine, but the tower would be directly on the flight path. The truck stop location is 3,400ft elevation, and the Calgary Herald location (which is also on the flight path is 3520ft, plus another 50 or so feet for the building. In theory you should be able to add something 270ft just to get to the same height as the Calgary Herald building.

If there's anyone here with pilot experience they can chime in, but I.guessing the issue might be more to do with the ground level. If you're flying in fog and relying on instruments you might think you have lots of clearance at 300 feet above the ground until a highrise pops up.
 
Atticus said:
I'm sure it would be fine, but the tower would be directly on the flight path. The truck stop location is 3,400ft elevation, and the Calgary Herald location (which is also on the flight path is 3520ft, plus another 50 or so feet for the building. In theory you should be able to add something 270ft just to get to the same height as the Calgary Herald building.

If there's anyone here with pilot experience they can chime in, but I.guessing the issue might be more to do with the ground level. If you're flying in fog and relying on instruments you might think you have lots of clearance at 300 feet above the ground until a highrise pops up.
Click to expand...

This debate has nothing to do with planes coming close to hitting buildings. The issue is noise. The theory behind the AVPA is that if you allow too much residential development under the flight path, people will complain about the noise, and eventually political pressure will build to reduce the noise. At other airports this has eventually led to restricted hours of operation, requirements for higher angle takeoffs, and more complex approaches. The city and developers say that everyone will be aware of the noise, that modern buildings can be soundproofed, and they won't complain. The airport, for better or worse, doesn't believe them, and has (so far successfully) lobbied the province to minimize residential development in the area.
 
It’s been on the market for a while. Wonder why the developer went through so much to get the land use, only to put it up for sale?
 
Had hopes that the AVPA issue would be dealt with (or not brought up, given the project directly north)? After years of work going into the review, it looks like development here may continue to be frozen to low density requirements. Probably just couldn't afford to wait/fight it out anymore.
 
A 6 storey wood frame development here wouldn’t be bad. Being close to the brt I suspect you could get away with a 0.7 parking per unit. Not sure if rents in this area of inglewood would justify a concrete rental tower given the cost. Seems too disconnected from the Main Street and with no imminent plan for development of the Blackfoot truck stop it might be a while until this area of Inglewood becomes desirable.
 
Well, looks like @G888 may get his wish. A new DP has been applied for on this site. FAAS Architecture, Eaglecrest Construction by the looks of it:

1708642742357.png

1708642776807.png
 
I'm perfectly fine with a larger building from an outsiders perspective, but if looking at it from a developer's perspective I'd worry about being able to sell / rent a tower's worth of units.
 
MichaelS said:
Well, looks like @G888 may get his wish. A new DP has been applied for on this site. FAAS Architecture, Eaglecrest Construction by the looks of it:


View attachment 542631
Click to expand...
Well it looks like shadows falling on Blackfoot and the turning radius of a garbage trucks to pick up a bin are more important to zoning and building proposals than the actual built environment. So weird where priorities lie when it comes to some developments.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top