What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    45
Having worked for Langham in the past, did deficiency walk-throughs for a living for an architect along with friends and having worked in the construction world for a decade or more, I can say without hesitation that ALL buildings have issues, many with major issues, but that things generally get corrected.

That first year of a new project is always fun.
 
Every new building has issues, there is no doubt about that. Deficiencies are normal and as long as they are corrected quickly that is not an issue. My hesitation with Langham in particular would be more around the poor layouts and lack of quality finishes. But that may not be an issue for everyone, particularly if the price is right.
 
nv96 said:
Some thoughts on the lacking street interaction:
  • This site sits on adjacent to a four lane arterial that is almost always packed with cars whizzing by.
  • This site currently does not even have a sidewalk.
  • This site is quite narrow and any substantial setbacks would lose precious FAR.
  • More ground level parking means building less underground parking, which may help justify the economics of the project.
I can understand their decisions. But I'm no architect/planner/developer.
Click to expand...
1612372441206.png


This exists just half a block up gateway from the site. Again, bad street interaction and unwalkable streets only exist because we let them. Just because a street is currently unwalkable doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever. I've been involved in multiple projects in BC that have taken strip malls and parking lots with no sidewalks along major arterials (6-8 lanes!) and turned them into urban streets, it's fully possible to do, even on a small site. I'm aware the site is quite constrained and there are legitimate reasons to have the parking where it is, which means finding a creative solution to make that street edge more attractive, even if it ends up only being visited by residents.


To be clear, this is me being nitpicky because I can be, this is still a fantastic proposal and would be great regardless. But Beljan putting out good proposals like this allows us to take a closer look at what could be done even better.
 
Macroman520 said:
Agreed. The arterial portions of Calgary Trail and Gateway Boulevard should extend only until 63 Street, and the arterial portion of Whyte Avenue between 99 and 109 Streets should be deleted (in my unqualified opinion).
Click to expand...
These segments you mentioned are what some call "Stroads", not street, not road, doesn't do any of the things well.
I agree entirely
 
D6BFFC63-B49B-4D2C-85BE-B2AC7E6D3875.png

Its only three lanes as it passes this site. Briefly becomes 5 (including one of parking) and then is 4 by the time it gets to whyte. When whyte is business as usual (no Covid) or during rush hour, the left and right turns are VERY busy and would completely choke off through traffic if they didn’t have their own lanes. The street already has Situation brewing, Vons, and Cook County. This road is considerably less wide than whyte itself, so there is no reason improvements couldn’t be made to make this street more walkable. Only issues are MKT turning its back to the street and Cooks parking. The only reason it FEELS like a busy inhospitable road and will continue to feel that way is because we’ve decided it is.
 
Hugh Jazz said:
How did they ever allow that horrible station apartment building to be approved? It's such a significant blockade for any future transformation of that block
Click to expand...

Luckily the stretch along Gateway Boulevard can hide it when driving in towards downtown. The Beljan development and hopefully quite a few trees could help obscure it nicely. And if nothing else, at least it's a bookend for "East" Whyte Ave and creates a private sound barrier against Gateway traffic when exploring that pocket of Old Strathcona 😅
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top