News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 37K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.7K     0 

It's Cidex and yes they can screw up just about anything but cheap ugly spandrel already adorns most of the exterior on this building. The major architectural elements seem to be staying at least from this early rendering with the arches, the columns (ribs? I don't know what to call them) and the roof staying the same., The biggest changes look to be the colour of the spandrel and glass and the change to the mullions.
I agree with you. I think (based on the rendering) that they have maintained the important architectural elements of this building, and IMO, the colour changes better highlight these features. The white against the dark blue draws the eyes from the arches, up the vertical white lines, to the roof. Let's be honest, this building in its current state is drab and grey, and uninviting at the pedestrian level. This will be a massive improvement.

Obviously we all have reservations about Cidex, and the outcome of this will hinge on their choice of materials, but at least they don't have an opportunity to construct an oppressive podium here!

1651103027847.png
 
In all three of these cases the sidewalk in front needs to be widened and trees planted. I don't care how they get there, but the public realm needs to be improved as these conversions happen. The current condition of the sidewalk, lack of street trees and the grossly oversized car sewers in front of these buildings need to change ASAP.
 
TBH, with 100% flexible money that could have been spent on literally anything, this $30 million could have been used much more imaginatively. $3 million a year to support live music, pop up galleries, park activations would go much further.
Would it be any better though? Events can be subsidized to bring people to the core, but downtown's long time issue of not keeping people downtown doesn't really get solved. People come in for the events and leave when they're done. The minute the events and activation etc..aren't subsidized they'll stop happening, and we're back to where we are but with nothing permanent to show for it. My biggest issue with funding the conversions is that it competes against other residential developments.

I'm not saying residential conversion are the answer either, but it is a permanent one time cost. I don't want to see the city fund 20 conversion projects, but a half dozen can't hurt. Either that or subsidize one big project like Bow Valley Square.

I feel like a number of things need to happen for downtown to be vibrant. We need residential, we need retail, we need infrastructure improvements, we needs events and activities. We also need to deal with crime. I know some don't think it's an issue, but it is for the average person.

We're basically trying to liven up a giant office park that has crime issues. Sometimes I wonder if it is something that can actually be done, short of dumping a ton of money at it.
 
Would it be any better though? Events can be subsidized to bring people to the core, but downtown's long time issue of not keeping people downtown doesn't really get solved. People come in for the events and leave when they're done. The minute the events and activation etc..aren't subsidized they'll stop happening, and we're back to where we are but with nothing permanent to show for it. My biggest issue with funding the conversions is that it competes against other residential developments.

I'm not saying residential conversion are the answer either, but it is a permanent one time cost. I don't want to see the city fund 20 conversion projects, but a half dozen can't hurt. Either that or subsidize one big project like Bow Valley Square.

I feel like a number of things need to happen for downtown to be vibrant. We need residential, we need retail, we need infrastructure improvements, we needs events and activities. We also need to deal with crime. I know some don't think it's an issue, but it is for the average person.

We're basically trying to liven up a giant office park that has crime issues. Sometimes I wonder if it is something that can actually be done, short of dumping a ton of money at it.
I don't like it either, but subsidizing retail, or festivals is no different. It's still subsidizing something that competes with non-subsidized entities. If it was up to me I would target retail as the biggest issue that needs fixing. IMO the lack of retail on the street and retail after hours is the main reason the CBD is dead after hours. You can add residents, hotels, and festivals but those fixes don't have the impact retail does. Retail can keep people moving about in the core day and night. If you can get a constant level of people in the CBD conversions and festivals will happen without subsidization.
 
These projects will add less street life than the 2 hotel projects recently completed/near competition.

The city's vision is to literally do this but times 20. $500+ million bucaroos into private developments.

For Aspen, I'd rather the city had used the same money to attack the palliser podium, instead of the tower. Much more future public good to go on in that block. I'd rather have the city buy entire low class towers based on lowest $/acre and bringing them down and putting lawns on the sites instead of subsidizing market rents.

It is a poorly conceived program where the only measurable output is the input. I'm worried people will be so self congradulatory about it that it is inevitable that it will crowd out better projects.
Two hotels would do that, but more than two and it loses its effect, as you can only add as many hotel rooms as the market needs. 20 residential buildings would have a lasting impact on downtown. I'm also not understanding how 20 projects adding up to $500 million when three projects are $30 million. It should be ~$200 Million no? $200 million is a lot of money, but in relative terms it's not much, compared to other projects ($5 Billion for the Green line)
 
I don't like it either, but subsidizing retail, or festivals is no different. It's still subsidizing something that competes with non-subsidized entities. If it was up to me I would target retail as the biggest issue that needs fixing. IMO the lack of retail on the street and retail after hours is the main reason the CBD is dead after hours. You can add residents, hotels, and festivals but those fixes don't have the impact retail does. Retail can keep people moving about in the core day and night. If you can get a constant level of people in the CBD conversions and festivals will happen without subsidization.
I agree with this. Retail is generally what makes places vibrant. Downtown Calgary was actually quite vibrant 60 years ago when it was mostly small buildings with retail, restaurants, and theatres and such.
 
1. They got the blue/red lines mixed up in the west...Boy I Really Hope Somebody Got Fired For That Blunder.

2. TIL that Palliser One has an outdoor hockey rink?!? Is it just a public option for sticks and pucks? Is it anything in the summer?

3. What is the cost of adding all those balconies? I get why you'd include them in a new build, but small balconies are the most overrated amenity (dusty, cramped, only usable half the year, facilitates smoking neighbours ruining your own experience, etc)...they forgot to add a bunch of tires/bikes/rubbermaid bins in those renders.

I'm confused at the intention with these...my presumption was affordable rentals, but those mid-rises look like they are trying to compete with new condo builds. Too much investment on the exteriors that would be far better spent at ground level. Those buildings aren't currently pretty, but they aren't offensively ugly, either. Address the impacts of empty parking-lots and heavy-rail lines before slapping some lipstick on bland buildings.
 
I agree with this. Retail is generally what makes places vibrant. Downtown Calgary was actually quite vibrant 60 years ago when it was mostly small buildings with retail, restaurants, and theatres and such.
Retail definitely drives vibrancy. The most vibrant parts of Calgary are vibrant due to retail, but having decent density in proximity to support the retail is a factor. I'm all for boosting retail in the core, but I'm not sure how it would be done, short of forcing new developments to have retail on the street. Incentives could be provided for existing office towers to renovate in order retail at the street level, but unfortunately most office towers aren't designed in a way that would make it easy to do.

A number of these small office buildings that are candidates for conversion also have retail at the base. Hopefully the city has been smart enough to ensure that existing retail is maintained if they get converted.
 
I know I"m on an island here but I liked the original Palliser with the stone facade, the building needed some updates but I don't think what's there now look any better its just newer. But then again I always like the look of the TELUS tower in Edmonton.
 
Adding people will add retail though. If there is nobody in the area after 6PM it will be hard to convince retailers to set up shop. I wonder if Calgary needs to try and create some kind of retail district to bring more people into downtown in the evenings. Stephen Ave kind of fits this, but there's nothing really promoting it. I think we almost need a bunch of giant neon signs on the Core / Scotia Place / Bankers Hall to really highlight this. Anything bright and flash wouldn't do well for Stephen Ave though...
 
Residential development is the right move, and as awkward as subsidies can be, this is far from the worst example of how distortions create sub-optimal outcomes in urban development. We still subsidize sprawl, for example, and that outcome creates car-dependent, inefficient, expensive neighbourhoods and lifestyles for everyone involved.

I like @Surrealplaces comment on the permanency of this kind of investment in residential conversion. That's 400 units of long-term stock that will stick around for decades. Festivals, operating subsidizes for retail and other less permanent investments don't have that long-term impact.

On permanency, I would like to see (at least) one single, end-to-end, high-quality, pedestrian-centric corridor be created from river to river through the core. Not just some repaved sidewalks, but real people-attracting quality - think a updated Steven Ave or the river pathway connecting direction from the core through the Beltline. Fully/mostly convert to pedestrian travel. End-to-end with no stupid gaps or "needs to balance with car users" that undermines the whole pedestrian experience and point of the project. Drivers will be fine - there's the whole rest of our overbuilt downtown road network they can have.

I think we underestimate/don't model how much pedestrian traffic is generating by the quality of the route. You see this in already with city centre locals/regulars - locals always cut towards the parks rather than the ugly streets, they know where they won't have to wait as long for signals, many take the river pathway even if it's longer just because it's the only nice place in blocks etc.

We also see this in Chinatown and it's long-term struggles. It's lack of integration into the pathway system a block away with tens of thousands of users on a busy day is a wild missed opportunity. A big reason is that for decades you can't really tell Chinatown is there or how to get to it because the experience of even crossing a single road absolutely sucks relative to the high-quality of the pathway. Make a better, more inviting, more integrated and more intuitive pedestrian connections and foot traffic would rapidly increase.

Quality of experience matters.

The 13 Avenue SW upgrades from a decade ago between 4th Street and MacLeod are a perfect small example with huge boost in walking traffic, likely higher than nearby 12 Avenue SW, despite 12th having all the shops, density and offices.

All corridors deserve far better pedestrian experiences everywhere in the core, but 8 Street SW, 5 Street SW and 1 St SE are the obvious candidates to me for an end-to-end refurbishment on the scale of a Stephen Ave 2.0 or urban-format River Pathway 2.0.

The mechanics of how to do it are all just pushing through the fear of change and arguing with transportation engineers clinging to wildly incorrect pre-pandemic traffic flow models. Toss all that stuff and build a core public realm network actually for people.
 

Top