News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

Palliser 1 finally looked good. I can't make out whether the white line pattern will continue in the area with balconies. Does the pattern stop halfway just like the balconies? Aspen spent a decent chunk of money redoing that exterior and now they're ripping it up again. Also agreed about the Hat (Does every Cidex project have that name?!?!?) destroying the integrity of the original building. I fully expect cheap and ugly spandrel to adorn most of the exterior. At least they're preserving the arches.
 
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.
 
Cyric said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
darwink said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Surrealplaces said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
darwink said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
Atticus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
adamyyc said:
View attachment 396258
View attachment 396259
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cowtown said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top