haltcatchfire
Senior Member
My doc recommends moving further away from this development to help with my depression.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
The Familia
Active Member
I miss the old car dealership that used to be here...
O-tac
Active Member
Sweet merciful Jeebus my eyes were assaulted by this monstrosity on an otherwise beautiful walk through Prince’s Island. This is the official nail in the coffin for the views of the DT west end.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Glass has arrived and starting to go up on the east tower. Unfortunately, it looks pretty similar to the west tower.....
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I think we can close this thread down now, it's all downhill from here.
heightjunkie
Active Member
What sorry son of a bitch architect designed this? No offense to people with disabilities at all, but a blind person could have designed a more pleasing set of buildings. this is comical.
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
I think most of us were pleased with the architect's original design which included glass elements in the crown of the building. Other changes will likely be noticed from the original once it is all finished. It is obvious that Cidex changed materials during the construction process probably to save money. One change that everyone will recall was the supplier of the glazing. Mid-construction of the first building, they decided to source that from China, I believe, which delayed construction considerably. Taking cost out seems to be a pattern with them. As was raised earlier, should the City of Calgary take exception given that application permits were approved on a particular design that builder/developer clearly has deviated from? Is there any precedent for this?
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
The only blessing in disguise is Cidex’s office is just down the block behind Staples so every time they go into the office they have to be reminded just how awful they are.
MichaelS
Senior Member
I think the initial supplier of the glazing was to be from Korea, but was changed after issues with delivery, and then further issues that would have arrived when warranty was needed. They eventually went with a local supplier I believe (not sure who).
An example, however the finished product still turned out decent, would be the Bow. Anyone remember exactly how much of a density bonus they got by promising to rebuild the historical hotel along 7th?......
Calgcouver
Active Member
Pretty sure the Bow maxed out the CR-20 district, so if that is the case they almost for sure got 5.0FAR for the 'Heritage Density Transfer'. Napkin math is that the Bow Tower is 2,150,425sf @ ~20FAR, 5FAR being heritage density transfer, so they basically 537,606sf for that.
For comparison the entire floor area of Aspen's "The Edison" building is 446,300sf, so the Bow got 91,000sf more than that for tearing down a protected heritage building and not meeting a clear condition of the Development Permit that expanded their GFA by a quarter. This is a reason that I think the City needs to be more savvy when it comes to developers, hold them accountable on conditions of DP and DON'T allow people to tear down protected heritage buildings, no matter how flashy the bullshit renders are.
This is why i'm not at all in love with the Bow Tower, it has sterile at grade relationship, tore down an important heritage building that provided low income housing for additional parking for the Bow, destroyed the public realm for basically two city blocks to become a ~30-40% occupied AAA office, not that great of a trade off IMO. It also used the St Regis Hotel as site office, and is now letting it degrade and become derelict which will ultimately lead to the demolition of a second heritage building on the same block. And the City sits back and does absolutely nothing about it, as they probably cannot do anything at this stage. Naive on the City's part, IMO. Only plus is that TIF dollars from the Bow went to public realm improvements in EV.
Last edited:
Beazley66
Active Member
There are revised plan application guidelines that the City "offers" for permit changes. Changes eligible for discretionary review are in the doc attached.
1875
Senior Member
This is why i'm not at all in love with the Bow Tower, it has sterile at grade relationship, tore down an important heritage building that provided low income housing for additional parking for the Bow, destroyed the public realm for basically two city blocks to become a ~30-40% occupied AAA office, not that great of a trade off IMO. It also used the St Regis Hotel as site office, and is now letting it degrade and become derelict which will ultimately lead to the demolition of a second heritage building on the same block. And the City sits back and does absolutely nothing about it, as they probably cannot do anything at this stage. Naive on the City's part, IMO. Only plus is that TIF dollars from the Bow went to public realm improvements in EV.
100% - that building adds zero vibrancy, doubt how the city got played even caused a ripple, let alone any consequences for the planning dept or city council.
100% - that building adds zero vibrancy, doubt how the city got played even caused a ripple, let alone any consequences for the planning dept or city council.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I wouldn't call the York an important heritage building, apart from the terracotta friezes there was little significance to it.
1875
Senior Member
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Interesting little history regarding the York Hotel, it actually was the deciding factor to tear down an even older, arguably more interesting heritage building for - take one guess - parking! How ironic for it's fate.
https://calgary.skyrisecities.com/news/2017/01/ill-fated-second-bow-building-history-site
As for these West Village Towers, the site has always been very peripheral to the core - forgotten and underutilized. If we can't lean on heritage to produce good outcomes (e.g York Hotel and the Bow), nor can we lead on forgotten underdeveloped corners to produce good outcomes (West Village Towers), we better come up with something else!
The most obvious single-ish thing I can think of that might have helped in both examples is killing parking supply requirements along nearby street vehicle capacity, transferring all that bonusing, effort and cost from accommodating vehicle trips into an automatic upgrade and investment of a far more significant, pro-pedestrian public realm interventions. Perhaps you could rope in better street level material requirements to that mechanism somehow. It won't stop all ugly buildings, but at least they will be better contributors to their neighbourhood whatever they look like.
Last edited: