News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

potatopizzafan said:
Its almost as if grass isnt the answer in this city. What about clover?
Click to expand...
IMO grass is almost never a good solution in Calgary. Not just in Calgary, but in most cities. At the same time concrete, asphalt or rock isn't good for the climate change side of things. It seems like a mix of drought tolerant shrubs and grasses along with mulches and some rick/stone etc.. mixed is a good balance. It's not cheap, but covering a large part of the grass area with deck space is good.
 
https://everydaytourist.ca/city-planning-101/calgary-crown-park-a-suburban-meets-urban-experiment

Not all LRT stations are suited to large density development
Click to expand...
it was determined retail would not succeed at this site
Click to expand...

what

This site’s development is limited as access points - 26th Street SW offers the only two-way access, with 24th Street SW offering entrance only for west bound Bow Trail traffic. Yes, the site has easy access to the LRT, however ...
Click to expand...

Car dependence strikes again!
 
Surrealplaces said:
IMO grass is almost never a good solution in Calgary. Not just in Calgary, but in most cities. At the same time concrete, asphalt or rock isn't good for the climate change side of things. It seems like a mix of drought tolerant shrubs and grasses along with mulches and some rick/stone etc.. mixed is a good balance. It's not cheap, but covering a large part of the grass area with deck space is good.
Click to expand...
There's the myopic stormwater issue here - yes it's best to be impermeable as possible, everywhere possible and allow as much stormwater to infiltrate where it falls. This minimizes all the work to manage the flow and movement of that water on the storm system, reducing the need for major infrastructure at a macro-level. Most stormwater issues are localized in rainstorms, so makes sense to try to do this. So we mandate this to encourage permeability.

The problem is a blunt application of this principle devoid of context - ultimately what we are talking about here is reducing the site coverage and forcing permeable surfaces in places where they are near-impossible to maintain using the standard, suburban approach (i.e. grass). The places where this is an issue like the Beltline also have demonstrable, measurable alternative demands for that same space - both in terms of additional density and population from the structure, but also far higher foot and dog traffic requiring quality, high capacity pedestrian spaces far beyond the suburban average for just any random large-lot development located anywhere where there is unoccupied land sitting unused in perpetuity.

It also begs the question, if stormwater and impervious materials were so important as to mandate them and run into this issue repeatedly in the Beltline, why aren't we taking out every on-street parking lane in the Beltline to achieve the stormwater need? Replace 50% of all Beltline streets with trees, swales and other native vegetation green spaces so no concentration of people or dogs could ever overwhelm the local greenspace due to sheer supply. Problem solved

Unfortunately, street parking in a neighbourhood where most people walk is more important than stormwater could ever be, so tiny, ugly, hard-to-maintain grass strips are the next best thing. It's a bizarre outcome of competing prioritizes but not really achieving anything useful (except to maintain street parking everywhere).
 
CBBarnett said:
Both these projects in the Beltline are okay buildings, but largely forgettable. If the Kensington project develops like the Beltline examples, one thing the community should fight back against ugly rental signage. Walking by the Beltline ones regularly the signs are not only tacky, but also frustratingly blocking parts of the sidewalk.

The OCD side of me can't forgive them for not putting these sign at 45 degrees to the intersection either - the development controls likely required them to angle the sidewalk 45 degrees to the corner and everything. What's the point of requiring 45-degree cut-back from the intersection and then wall it in with a sign later? The first sign is also lit brightly at night on a residential only side-street:

View attachment 449433

View attachment 449434

It's a small complaint but really makes the development more trashy-looking than it needs to be.

It reveals a lack of attention to detail or understanding of the community context to have large, back-lit signs permanently blocking the sidewalk on side-streets of urban pedestrian communities. I am sure there's examples out there but I can't recall any other major Canadian city I have spent time in having this issue with signage.
Click to expand...
Typically, the City of Calgary is the one that approves signage. They might even be the ones that are setting the criteria to follow.
 
CBBarnett said:
There's the myopic stormwater issue here - yes it's best to be impermeable as possible, everywhere possible and allow as much stormwater to infiltrate where it falls. This minimizes all the work to manage the flow and movement of that water on the storm system, reducing the need for major infrastructure at a macro-level. Most stormwater issues are localized in rainstorms, so makes sense to try to do this. So we mandate this to encourage permeability.

The problem is a blunt application of this principle devoid of context - ultimately what we are talking about here is reducing the site coverage and forcing permeable surfaces in places where they are near-impossible to maintain using the standard, suburban approach (i.e. grass). The places where this is an issue like the Beltline also have demonstrable, measurable alternative demands for that same space - both in terms of additional density and population from the structure, but also far higher foot and dog traffic requiring quality, high capacity pedestrian spaces far beyond the suburban average for just any random large-lot development located anywhere where there is unoccupied land sitting unused in perpetuity.

It also begs the question, if stormwater and impervious materials were so important as to mandate them and run into this issue repeatedly in the Beltline, why aren't we taking out every on-street parking lane in the Beltline to achieve the stormwater need? Replace 50% of all Beltline streets with trees, swales and other native vegetation green spaces so no concentration of people or dogs could ever overwhelm the local greenspace due to sheer supply. Problem solved

Unfortunately, street parking in a neighbourhood where most people walk is more important than stormwater could ever be, so tiny, ugly, hard-to-maintain grass strips are the next best thing. It's a bizarre outcome of competing prioritizes but not really achieving anything useful (except to maintain street parking everywhere).
Click to expand...

Rain barrels at every house 😎
 
Surrealplaces said:
Looks like the old Kensington Manor site was purchased by Maple Properties. Good in the sense that Maple has already built and finished projects in Calgary , but negative in the sense that their projects have been pretty banal. Let's hope they up their game a bit.

globalnews.ca

City of Calgary recoups costs after sale of former Kensington Manor site - Calgary | Globalnews.ca

The City of Calgary said it received full payment of all the taxes owed on the property, which included demolition costs, after the property went through foreclosure in late 2022.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca

View attachment 449067
Click to expand...
The land use for this has now been submitted:

DMAP

developmentmap.calgary.ca
 
MichaelS said:
The land use for this has now been submitted:

DMAP

developmentmap.calgary.ca
Click to expand...
The proposed designation is much the same as the old one, but the proposed one, does mention 'street-oriented' use. Ids this basically the same designation, but allows them to build right up to the street level?

Overall this is a good win for 10th. The previous building had retail, but had that weird patch of concrete and grass in front of the building, making the retail awkward and un-noticeable. Whatever the new design is, it'll be far better at the street level.
 
"I find it devastating, really. It's just too extreme for this street," said Lorena Bulcao, who lives directly across the street from the site. "This street is busy. So with the parking and traffic coming in with who knows, possibly 80-plus residents, assuming there's two people per residence, there will be a lot of congestion here."
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine.)

The best count data for this location from 2013/14 has the busiest single hour at 70 vehicles, both directions combined. The nearest 50 foot high building is one block away. NIMBYs have absolutely no sense of reality.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top