Scale of the development is good, the rendering and design just looks like it is from 30 years ago. It is really hard to tell what this will look like from the render I only mentioned elements from other projects in the city that seem similar and checked other projects from the architect. Do we not have more detailed elevations/renderings from the DP?

Anything is an improvement over existing condition. A tent city with a lemonade stand would be better than what it is currently.
 
The only really obvious offense from a blurry single-angle rendering is the set back and parking lot over the utility right of way adjacent to 14th. But the rest seems fine scale and frontage wise from the little we can see.

Why we impaired this land with the utility is probably a good question, albeit from decades ago or whenever it was put it. Seems short-sighted.
 
If I had to guess, given it is a storm line running through the utility ROW, it couldn't have followed the road through the underpass, given the gravity nature of our storm drainage. So, it had to stay high to go under the tracks, with the only option being on the adjacent private land.
 
Setback issues or not, it’ll be nice to have a first world style sidewalk on that block.
010CDA29-F27E-4041-BD64-F143170F7EDF.jpeg

354FEF7E-800F-4F31-9823-07AE3FEAAA24.jpeg
 
Colinfill said:
Parks aren't frivolous...
Click to expand...
Mountain Man said:
They are if there are too many of them. There is a park 2 blocks north of this, we don't need another one.
Click to expand...
You are both right.

Calgary main urban challenge is that it lacks people at sufficient density to each other, not quantity of park space in general. This is true almost everywhere, but also includes the city centre. Too many parks means terribly low utilization almost everywhere, with higher costs to maintain all of this. The result is best visible in 1950s-1990s suburban greenspaces that are often just an overgrown lawn or ball diamond as there is no demand to use the park beyond a place for dogs to bathroom, and no budget to maintain or convert it into anything more usuable.

As this relates to this site, it's a far better use for it to become any form of mid-high pedestrian/retail-supportive development than a park. The several hundred new resident that will live in this development will boost the utilization of existing parks and park system, all in close proximity.

The real gap is in feedback mechanism, this is what should happen but doesn't usually:
  • When a park or pathway gets busier (i.e. from this development and it's new residents) it should trigger an increase in capacity. This does not mean bigger or more parks usually, just an upgrade in standards. Wider paths, better lighting, more benches etc. All this development in the west end of the Beltline should trigger nearby Bow River pathway twinning upgrades from the congested stretch between 14th Street to 10th Street, for example.
  • Further, the public realm and sidewalks to get to river pathway should all prioritized for capacity and quality upgrades given a few thousand more residents will be using them in the near future from all this development.
  • If additional space is required for any park, sidewalk or pathway infrastructure it should be reclaimed from the vehicle space that is largely overbuilt and antithetical to sustainable high density, pedestrian heavy environments.
The broken part of the mechanism is that new development is assumed to only have material impact on vehicle volumes, not pedestrian volumes and park utilization rates. In most current processes, parks and sidewalks are (wrongly) considered to be frivolous expenses to new development. Of course, the language in all the planning reports doesn't sound like this, but the processes beyond each development ensure we consider all vehicular needs imaginable on and off-site while only giving a nice shiny sidewalk and a few trees that stop immediately at the property line.

None of this make an argument to not build a building because we need parks instead. This makes an argument that says when you build higher densities, you should upgrade your existing parks and consider what high density neighbourhoods actually need, because these things are very much critical to the health of the community.
 
Last edited:
Mountain Man said:
They are if there are too many of them. There is a park 2 blocks north of this, we don't need another one.
Click to expand...
Depends on what kind of park doe. We don't have another proper forest-like tree canopy park in the downtown/beltline area other than Princes's Island. A recreational park would also do wonders. An outdoor hockey rink or a small outdoor-themed indoor soccer field, maybe some basketball courts, etc. However, if we're talking about another park where it's just a bunch of grass, trees planted in patterns, and some benches, then yes it would be a repetitive waste of land.
 
Good post CCBarnett, you make some very good points.

Anyway the only reason I said frivolous is because the city has built parks in the area recently, and I rarely see more than a few people using them. Parks are a nice to have, but as CC alluded to above, there needs to be a population density to make it worthwhile. Building a park on a lot just because it hasn't been developed yet isn't the city's job or the best use of my tax dollars. Lots like this one need to be developed to add to the city in a real and meaningful way.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top