UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
5,827
Reaction score
38,295
Another transformative project for Inglewood. At 34 metres, it will mesh quite well with the RNDSQR proposal (12 storeys I believe) a block east. Being a neighbourhood gateway project, I'm very excited to learn more about it.

138 units - 34 meters - 10 (ish) floors


fullsizeoutput_3cba.jpeg
fullsizeoutput_3cb8.jpeg
 
The top floor, west facing unit with views of the skyline with Telus Sky lit up in the middle. ? I'll take two.
 
I'm sympathetic to community concerns about the height. There is a height precedent set on the block already. It's reasonable to expect new buildings to fit in with the existing built form. If they come back with extraordinary architecture, then maybe it's worth making a trade off. At the moment, I see no public benefit to this building that justifies the height.
 
placeholder pretty clunky, assume you would want to step it up from west to east to take advantage of the views. its def one location in inglewood that height wont really cause much collateral damage.
 
The public hearing for this land use is scheduled for December 16th. Likely to have a lot of speakers at it.

The land use went to CPC on November 7th, Item 7.2.14 (agenda with embedded video):

From the minutes, it looks like there was a motion to allow a height up to 50m, provided numerous other setbacks were met:
7.2.14
Policy Amendment and Land Use Amendment in Inglewood (Ward 9) at 915 – 9 Avenue SE, LOC2018-0038, CPC2019-1174

This item has attachments.



This item has Video

Elika Tehrani, Hungerford Properties, addressed Commission with respect to Report CPC2019-1174.
Commission, by general consent, tabled Report CPC2019-1174, to the call of the Chair.
Report CPC2019-1174 was lifted from the table.


  • Moved byCouncillor Woolley
    That with respect to Report CPC2019-1174, Attachment 3 be amended, as follows:
    1. Amend Section 10, insert new subsection (3) to read:
    (3) The maximum building height referenced in subsections (1) and (2) may be increased to 50 metres where the building height is not more than 14 metres measured from grade within 38 metres from the shared property line with 917 – 9 Avenue SE.”;
    and renumber the Section accordingly.
    2. Amend Section 10, renumbered subsection (4) after “illustrates the rules of” and before “(2):” delete “subsections” and insert “subsection”.
    3. Amend Section 10, renumbered subsection (4) after “Illustration 1:” delete “building height for 38 metres.”.
    4. Amend Section 10, insert new subsection (5) to read:
    (5) The following diagram illustrates the rules of subsection (3).
    Illustration 2: (Graphic showing Stepback)”
    MOTION CARRIED


  • Moved byCommissioner Gedye
    That with respect to Report CPC2019-1174, Attachment 3 be amended, as follows:
    1. Amend Section 10, new subsection (3) before “maximum building height” delete “The” and insert “Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the”
    2. Amend Section 10, insert new subsection (4) to read:
    (4) Where the height of a building is greater than 14.0 metres measured from grade, the façade of the building facing 9 Avenue SE and 8 Street SE must have a horizontal separation from the portion of the façade closest to grade such that:
    (a) the horizontal separation has a minimum depth of 2.0 metres; and
    (b) the horizontal separation occurs between a minimum of 7.5 metres and a maximum of 14.0 metres measured from grade.”;
    and renumber the Section accordingly.
    3. Insert new Section 11 entitled “Street Wall Stepback” to read
    Street Wall Stepback
    11
    Section 1338 of Bylaw 1P2007 does not apply to this Direct Control District Bylaw.”;
    and renumber accordingly.
    MOTION CARRIED


  • Moved byCommissioner Gedye
    That with respect to Report CPC2019-1174, Attachment 3 be amended, as follows:
    1. Amend Section 10(1) after “in subsections (2)” and before “the maximum building” insert “and (3)”
    Building Height
    10 (1)
    Unless otherwise referenced in subsections (2) and (3), the maximum building height is 38.0 metres.
    MOTION CARRIED


  • Moved byDirector Vanderputten
    That with respect to Report CPC2019-1174, Attachment 3 be amended in Section 8, as follows:
    1. Amend Section 8(2) after “increased to 4.4” insert “where”.
    2. Amend Section 8(2)(a) after “on the parcel,” and before “located at 921 – 9 Avenue SE” insert “as of the effective date of this Direct Control District Bylaw,”.
    3. Amend Section 8(2)(c) after “8 Street SE and 9 Avenue SE” and before “area must be maintained” insert “is located within the development, and where this open space”.
    MOTION CARRIED


  • Moved byCouncillor Woolley
    That with respect to Report CPC2019-1174, the following be approved, as amended:
    That Calgary Planning Commission recommend that Council hold a Public Hearing; and
    1. ADOPT, by bylaw, the proposed amendments to the Inglewood Area Redevelopment Plan (Attachment 2); and
    2. Give three readings to the proposed bylaw.
    3. ADOPT, by bylaw, the proposed redesignation of 0.25 hectares ± (0.61 acres ±) located at 915 – 9 Avenue SE (Plan 9411558, Block 10, Lot 14) from Industrial – Commercial (I-C) District and Commercial – Corridor 2 f2.8h12 (C-COR2 f2.8h12) District to DC Direct Control District to accommodate a mixed-use development, with guidelines (Attachment 3) as amended; and
    4. Give three readings to the proposed Bylaw.
    MOTION CARRIED
 
From the Inglewood CA newsletter:

"High-Density Residential / Hungerford (9 Avenue SE):

THE LOC/DC FOR the first Hungerford project went to CPC (Calgary Planning Commission) in November 2019. At that time, an amendment to the DC was put forward by Councillor Wooley in order to add a second building envelope.

The first building envelope (the original), had three separate heights, the highest point being 38m at the west end (at 8 St), and stepping down to the lowest height on the east side of the lot. The second (new) envelope, proposed by Councillor Wooley, has a lower podium (14m), but ends in a narrow 50m tower on the 8 St side. The land-use change and the DC with both building envelope options went to Council on December 16.

The Hungerford representative in attendance at the Committee meeting as well as at Council, indicated that they prefer the second building envelope (option) – the one terminating in the 50m tower.

The ICA spent a great deal of time researching and preparing a presentation in opposition to the project at Council on December 16, which, unfortunately was met with a contemptuous, disparaging, and disrespectful response from multiple City Councillors – a response considered to be in complete violation of their Code of Conduct.

As part of our efforts to measure the impact of a 50m tower on the Elbow/Bow River Confluence, particularly as it pertains to the importance of the site to First Nations and Métis people, the ICA is emphasizing heritage arguments that have not, to our knowledge, been raised before. There has been a historical aboriginal traverse through the Elbow/Bow River Confluence and Ramsay Escarpment for thousands of years; it is also the location of a Métis homestead of the well-known Roselle family.

The ICA feels that the Confluence area of Calgary ought to be recognized as a cultural landscape of unique heritage value, something which would help prevent the heritage buildings in the immediate area – including the Deane House, Alexandra School, McGill Block and Fort Calgary – from being dwarfed by a 50m tower on the corner. We have made a request for the Provincial
government to undertake a Historic Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) to forestall any unintended consequences of insufficient City stewardship."
 
From the Inglewood CA newsletter:

"High-Density Residential / Hungerford (9 Avenue SE):

THE LOC/DC FOR the first Hungerford project went to CPC (Calgary Planning Commission) in November 2019. At that time, an amendment to the DC was put forward by Councillor Wooley in order to add a second building envelope.

The first building envelope (the original), had three separate heights, the highest point being 38m at the west end (at 8 St), and stepping down to the lowest height on the east side of the lot. The second (new) envelope, proposed by Councillor Wooley, has a lower podium (14m), but ends in a narrow 50m tower on the 8 St side. The land-use change and the DC with both building envelope options went to Council on December 16.

The Hungerford representative in attendance at the Committee meeting as well as at Council, indicated that they prefer the second building envelope (option) – the one terminating in the 50m tower.

The ICA spent a great deal of time researching and preparing a presentation in opposition to the project at Council on December 16, which, unfortunately was met with a contemptuous, disparaging, and disrespectful response from multiple City Councillors – a response considered to be in complete violation of their Code of Conduct.

As part of our efforts to measure the impact of a 50m tower on the Elbow/Bow River Confluence, particularly as it pertains to the importance of the site to First Nations and Métis people, the ICA is emphasizing heritage arguments that have not, to our knowledge, been raised before. There has been a historical aboriginal traverse through the Elbow/Bow River Confluence and Ramsay Escarpment for thousands of years; it is also the location of a Métis homestead of the well-known Roselle family.

The ICA feels that the Confluence area of Calgary ought to be recognized as a cultural landscape of unique heritage value, something which would help prevent the heritage buildings in the immediate area – including the Deane House, Alexandra School, McGill Block and Fort Calgary – from being dwarfed by a 50m tower on the corner. We have made a request for the Provincial
government to undertake a Historic Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) to forestall any unintended consequences of insufficient City stewardship."
Kinda sounds like the ICA is grasping at straws here. Seems to me like a pretty weak argument for restricting height.
 
Kinda sounds like the ICA is grasping at straws here. Seems to me like a pretty weak argument for restricting height.
:rolleyes:
I'll say! Look at all the heritage buildings in downtown Calgary that are 'dwarfed' by office towers. If height or 'dwarfing' heritage buildings was a criteria for not approving, then downtown would still look much like it did 70-80 years ago.
The cultural confluence of the Bow/Elbow and Deane House can still be as recognized whether there is a tall building a couple of blocks away or not. What nonsense!
 
:rolleyes:
I'll say! Look at all the heritage buildings in downtown Calgary that are 'dwarfed' by office towers. If height or 'dwarfing' heritage buildings was a criteria for not approving, then downtown would still look much like it did 70-80 years ago.
The cultural confluence of the Bow/Elbow and Deane House can still be as recognized whether there is a tall building a couple of blocks away or not. What nonsense!
Maybe it's not a bad thing to prevent heritage buildings being 'dwarfed' by highrises?
 

Back
Top