News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

There have been some tall proposals for Kensington. Normally I wouldn't want to see tall buildings in Sunnyside or Hillhurst, but this Hotel+Condo would have been cool.

From: http://www.cbstudioarch.com/portfolio/kensington-luxury-condominium-hotel/

Image10.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Image10.jpg
    Image10.jpg
    66.8 KB · Views: 391
Social Justice said:
I think there is good news regarding the Brentwood Co-op project. The original design looked like shit IMO, it was very car oriented and looked like it lacked effort. Looks like there is a re-design in the works:

https://www.calgary.ca/engage/Documents/Co-op/BrentwoodCoOp_OpenHouseBoards_Aug2017.pdf

Same with the Oakridge project:

https://www.calgary.ca/engage/Documents/Co-op/OakridgeCoOp_OpenHouseBoards_Aug2017.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting. There is definitely some improvement, unfortunately not quite getting to the level that is required to materially break the car-oriented dominance of the site (and by extension the area). Both sites are vastly overbuilding their parking - over both the generous bylaw requirements and what is truly possible if the goal is anything other than auto-orientated design. These projects are hampered by their primary stakeholders (Co-op) insisting on maintaining operations through redevelopment. Clearly "maintaining operations" in this case means we accept no impact whatsoever to our store, access or existing parking. A fair concern, but when "interfering with ongoing store operations" is the primary reason Brentwood's partially re-created street grid through University City is ignored because the shabby surface lot needs to be maintained, that is a problem. A vision focused more on the future and less on the present is sorely needed.

Brentwood's particularly disappointing because the site does a classic master planning mistake - abruptly ignoring the other development around. If I was living in University City (over 600 condos currently, with more in future developments to the south), this development cuts off access to Co-op and even the train station. They are literally putting the loading doors to Co-op in the natural path between the existing density and the train station. That can't be the right answer if we want a well-designed and functional TOD.
 
Neither looks to be a dramatic change, and I feel the Oakridge one still contains many of the design flaws of the original design (all the density furthest away from the BRT stop, very poor pedestrian connection to BRT).
 
It's good that they are looking into a re-design, but unless I'm looking at the document incorrectly, the re-vised design doesn't look much different. It still turns its back on the LRT station and also the neighbouring University City. I think the road that goes between the University City towers needs to continue on though and a large welcoming entrance from the LRT station that connects to that road. This is the one opportunity to make a walkable pedestrian retail corridor down the middle of the Brentwood TOD.

This isn't thoroughly thought out but, roughly what I would like to see. The blue lines being an auto way, but also wide sidewalks for pedestrians.
Image3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Image3.jpg
    Image3.jpg
    352.8 KB · Views: 490
Surrealplaces said:
It's good that they are looking into a re-design, but unless I'm looking at the document incorrectly, the re-vised design doesn't look much different. It still turns its back on the LRT station and also the neighbouring University City. I think the road that goes between the University City towers needs to continue on though and a large welcoming entrance from the LRT station that connects to that road. This is the one opportunity to make a walkable pedestrian retail corridor down the middle of the Brentwood TOD.

This isn't thoroughly thought out but, roughly what I would like to see. The blue lines being an auto way, but also wide sidewalks for pedestrians.
View attachment 117861
Click to expand...
I'm quite disappointed with the height reduction on the tallest building. Mind you I'm one of those guys that enjoy height over anything else.
 
Hi Folks,

I have a keen interest in architecture and particularly historic buildings. I come from Europe and I grew up with them all around me. Calgary is a young city and therefore has a decent but limited supply of old architecture. Of late, I have come to discover how much of Calgary has been demolished in the last 30 years to make room for redevelopment.

Here is a list of designated heritage buildings in Calgary which have been council approved to receive such designation.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Heritage-planning/Inventory-of-evaluated-historic-resources.aspx

Researching this list I have come to discover that very few of these buildings are actually protected from demolition. For example, the Palliser Hotel is one of the most beautiful buildings in the City. It is listed as a heritage building but has no protection. If a developer purchased the building tomorrow, they could turn it into a parking lot if they desired. The Calgary tower is the exact same. This is just two examples of many.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/...oric-Calgary-resources.aspx?dhcResourceId=403

A recent issue is the redevelopment of Eau Claire. The developers got approval to un-designate the Smokestack. They did this because the Smokestack is protected and they wanted to make room for their mundane blocks of glass. The Eau Claire & Bow River Lumber Co. building is a designated heritage building however is not protected. It will therefore likely end up in a landfill in the next couple of years. This building is one of the main reasons why Calgary is a city today.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/...oric-Calgary-resources.aspx?dhcResourceId=527

The list of designated heritage buildings is marked with heritage buildings that have been demolished. A soon to be causality of redevelopment is the Jalland Block Building (currently Wavves Coffee House) 17th Ave & 5th Street. This heritage building is scheduled to be demolished in the next couple of weeks.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/PD/Pages/...oric-Calgary-resources.aspx?dhcResourceId=160

People want to live in areas like 1st street SW, Inglewood, Mission and Kensington because of their older architecture. If developers start buying up these buildings (which they already are), they will soon be replaced with Strategic style cheap looking mid-rises. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of development. However, the lack of protection on historic buildings in this city really bothers me due to the short supply. Certain areas are in big danger of losing their character and charm. Am I the only one who feels this way? Is there anything that can be done about it?

It appears that cash is king in this City and in the words of the chief city planner Rollin Stanley himself: "density at any cost" I guess..
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's disappointing when older buildings get demolished. I was disappointed to see the Curtis Block torn down even though it was in bad shape, and to add insult to injury it has sat as an empty lot ever since.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but it is depressing. The one that irks me is the Arlington proposal along 17th :( I pray that never gets built.
 
That would be much better but probably is a problem when it comes to the grocery store as it will need a large space. to bad those roadway/pathways aren't already there as typical city streets, then CO-OP would have no choice but to fit the grocery store in. Does the city have it in them to enforce a setup like this?

Surrealplaces said:
It's good that they are looking into a re-design, but unless I'm looking at the document incorrectly, the re-vised design doesn't look much different. It still turns its back on the LRT station and also the neighbouring University City. I think the road that goes between the University City towers needs to continue on though and a large welcoming entrance from the LRT station that connects to that road. This is the one opportunity to make a walkable pedestrian retail corridor down the middle of the Brentwood TOD.

This isn't thoroughly thought out but, roughly what I would like to see. The blue lines being an auto way, but also wide sidewalks for pedestrians.
View attachment 117861
Click to expand...
 
Surrealplaces said:
Yeah, it's disappointing when older buildings get demolished. I was disappointed to see the Curtis Block torn down even though it was in bad shape, and to add insult to injury it has sat as an empty lot ever since.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but it is depressing. The one that irks me is the Arlington proposal along 17th :( I pray that never gets built.
Click to expand...

I know, crazy really. I know that the Curtis Block is along a bad stretch of road but when a City makes the decision to demolish a block of heritage buildings to build a gravel parking lot something is seriously wrong.

The Arlington proposal would be the beginning of the end for the original character of 17th Ave. They own a surprising quantity of heritage buildings in the city including the Commonwealth building and the old Chicago Chophouse (originally old Bank of Montreal I believe). They have grand plans to to redevelop once the economy picks up.

I question why we have a list of buildings that council has deemed as heritage building's yet they are not protected from the developer's wrecking ball.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top