As per my previous post, I don't find their reasons regarding views valid either and no one deciding on whether to allow the development will consider somebody's altered views. It's not worth giving it attention. Going all in on supporting a towering tower without even knowing what it looks like is an extreme pro development

I come from urbantoronto. Someone saying i don't care about a cheap spandrel tower is as painful as not being able to do much over a developer building a cheap spandrel tower
 
Hopefully, common sense gets elected next time and this national housing crisis turns a corner. Calgary has faired extremely well compared to most of Canada which is driving the record migration. We are not going build ourselves out of it as much as we prefer construction over addressing the high demand for new housing.

A tower will stand at least a hundred years. It will outlast this housing crisis and the next one. It should look good. It should have great interior layouts. It should integrate well in a neighbourhood. That is the topic of conversation for a great project. That becomes about density/ new population or at least it's better than what it replaced for a less than stellar one. Is it optimistism, glass is half full or, is it settling for just about anything with high rise construction being slow the last half decade? Calgary is on the verge of a high rise building boom. Bad design whether, architectural, interior layout, neighbourhood planning wise or, all three becomes much more recognizable than it does now.

This has nothing to do with CNIB as I haven't seen a design. It could be good or bad or both. It matters more as It's very tall.
 
maestro said:
Calgary has faired extremely well compared to most of Canada which is driving the record migration.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree here, Calgary was in a better place before but I'd say it is comparatively worse. Toronto was expensive and now Toronto is expensive, Calgary was affordable and now Calgary is expensive.

Quantity does also tend to outweigh quality but I do agree with the prominence on the east side of the city centre area, this needs to look at least a little nice. The development will be what you see first from Deerfoot, Memorial, etc. But talk about extending the skyline... From 12 St SE to 15 St SW; 27-ish blocks of potential high-rises.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Not sure I agree here, Calgary was in a better place before but I'd say it is comparatively worse. Toronto was expensive and now Toronto is expensive, Calgary was affordable and now Calgary is expensive.

Quantity does also tend to outweigh quality but I do agree with the prominence on the east side of the city centre area, this needs to look at least a little nice.
Click to expand...
I agree everything should be nice and have good fundamentals around design, most notably the ground floor. But this building is only a building - it won't (or at least shouldn't) be so prominent for long.

While Toronto is expensive for decades, we should be asking how did Toronto accommodate all it's growth and remain attractive and affordable for as long as it did. When the Toronto region was around Calgary's size today (about the mid 1950s) they were seeing population growth of 70,000+ a year for decades.

How did they keep up?
  • An absolute ton of sprawl (check - we are doing this).
  • An absolute ton of forgettable, but affordable, modernist apartment blocks, citywide, but clustered around transit and arterials. Hundreds of thousands of units (this is not like us at all).
It's not saying Toronto's approach was the best, but it did work for a while - their building boom 1950s - 1970s is the bedrock of their only (relatively) affordable housing stock.

Set some basic parameters to make sure any building hits the main, most important check-boxes from a design perspective - then everyone should get out of the way and allow for dozens of more buildings here and in many other places. A view of other tall buildings from a dog park isn't a good criteria to plan a city growing as fast as ours is.
 
The DP has been submitted (not yet up on DMap):
DP2024-09004, S2 Architects. 2 buildings, 447 units. The taller tower is 27 floors (86m), the shorter is 17 (53m).
1735008799332.png

1735008829384.png

1735008970733.png
 
Big, boring boxes in a perfect location perfect for almost 500 new homes. Could it be better? Probably. But hard to hate.

Only gripe is the abysmal organization of land at the ground level, most of which is actually off the development property itself, and is the city’s fault for having both a ton of land they have no need for and giant setback requirements they also don’t need.
 
It looks like a twin of the Lacaille project in Eau Claire, yawn, at least it’s not twins though.
 
I appear to be in the minority but I'm a fan. It's a huge improvement on the depressing, institutional feeling of most buildings in that part of Bridgeland. And will hopefully be a catalyst for more development on the east side of the neighbourhood.

I was able to peruse the DP drawings, and it will be built in 2 phases, the taller building will be Phase 1.
 
It's nice to get a development on this lot, but I'm disappointed in the banal design considering the prominent location. This would've been a great spot for a little curved glass, or just something a little more interesting, like the Dominion Towers. This section is of Memorial acts as a gateway to downtown, and this is filler-level design better suited for some random block in the Beltline.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know which developer CNIB is partnering with on this project?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top