JoeUrban
Active Member
For me personally, I'm way more concerned about attempts to upzone 250m strips of Ramsay at a time.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
zagox
Active Member
I listened to the CPC hearing where it was narrowly voted down with the Chair breaking the tie in favor of refusal. The main sin of the group of neighbors who proposed this seems to be political deafness. The main applicant, Phil Dack, straight up said that they have no specific plans to develop the block but want the option to flip to developers for a higher price. If they had spent the money on a very basic rendering of some MC-1 buildings and kept their mouths shut it would have been approved.
Personally I agree with the comments above that these are old buildings but they are far from historic, and redevelopment is what the street needs. MC-1 seems reasonable to me. I think the city should grant up zoning to parcels if it makes sense from a land use planning perspective, rather than trying to extract some commitments to DP-level detail at the land use stage. Especially at a neighborhood scale. Others have disagreed with me on this point and I accept I'm more in the minority here.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Woops, considering how many times the fear of such a move comes up at council that was a really bad move.
Also for the second point, they may not be, but their history has never been researched so there's really no way to know at this point.
retrofiturbanism
Active Member
Here is a thought- keep the northern cluster (1105, 1107, 1113, 1115) and the southern cluster (1135, 1137, 1141, 1145, 1147) (sorry 1129 you are just in the wrong place) and designate them all as a condition of the rezoning. Give the rest of the parcels 6 storey density and height. That gives you 90m of frontage between the clusters (and 45m depth) for a substantial apartment, and allows for rowhouse/stacked towns in the remaining areas (behind and between all the historic homes), with design criteria to reflect the character elements of the historic homes.
Roughly gives you 170K ft2 of new apartment (about 200 units) and roughly 20 townhomes.
Done and done.
Roughly gives you 170K ft2 of new apartment (about 200 units) and roughly 20 townhomes.
Done and done.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
Im with you, the only history these homes have is time. They aren't architectural pleasing to many particularly outside of Calgary and not very expensive to replicate. Some would just call them rundown old homes. Our sandstone and pre war midrises are a piece of history that is aesthetically pleasing to keep which unfortunately we have lost much of. Athough I know some folks do support keeping these homes and it would be ignorant to downplay their perspective towards the historical significance of these homes. But for me I just don't see the value in these homes, a strip of mid rises along that road would serve the community much better.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before or not. It's a proposal just south of Chinook at this location.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
That Sturgess project is going to destroy the heritage character of Kingsland without any mechanism to offset the loss! 
If we lose more of these generic 50s bungalows we are just going to end up maturing as a city, increasing density, reducing sprawl, and improving transit and amenity success rates. Won't somebody think of the charm and historic value!
If we lose more of these generic 50s bungalows we are just going to end up maturing as a city, increasing density, reducing sprawl, and improving transit and amenity success rates. Won't somebody think of the charm and historic value!
BKha
Active Member
I'm undecided on the colors for that Sturgess proposal, but the general design is great.
JoeUrban
Active Member
That Sturgess project is going to destroy the heritage character of Kingsland without any mechanism to offset the loss!
Being that neither the Heritage Inventory nor the Character Home survey lists any buildings in Kingsland this comment doesn't make any sense.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Please keep in mind, these are photos of two significant historic sites:
The top one is the oldest extant dwelling in Calgary on its original site. It is of provincial importance being the oldest-standing Hudson's Bay Company building in southern Alberta and being the only building lift in Calgary that is located based in the location of the original Fort.
Luckily it wasn't just looked at as an 'old shack' and the siding was eventually removed to reveal it's log cabin origins, this is how it looks today
The second one was a gospel hall that was home to the Full Gospel Assembly which served the African-Canadian population present in Drumheller in the 1920s. They had fled persecution in the U.S. and had escaped to Canada to try to find a better life and this was the center of their small community and this is the only existing remnant of the African-Canadian history in Drumheller, and it would be the most important one.
Unfortunately it was not identified for a long time and was looked at as just "an old building" and is apparently now significantly water damaged.
Historic significance is not simply a value of a building's architecture or curb appeal, it is also and often mostly its significance in the history of a place and what important stories are centered on it.
This is why considering a building as not having any historic significance based simply on a drive-by glance or its current state of maintenance is an improper way to classify a site.
The top one is the oldest extant dwelling in Calgary on its original site. It is of provincial importance being the oldest-standing Hudson's Bay Company building in southern Alberta and being the only building lift in Calgary that is located based in the location of the original Fort.
Luckily it wasn't just looked at as an 'old shack' and the siding was eventually removed to reveal it's log cabin origins, this is how it looks today
The second one was a gospel hall that was home to the Full Gospel Assembly which served the African-Canadian population present in Drumheller in the 1920s. They had fled persecution in the U.S. and had escaped to Canada to try to find a better life and this was the center of their small community and this is the only existing remnant of the African-Canadian history in Drumheller, and it would be the most important one.
Unfortunately it was not identified for a long time and was looked at as just "an old building" and is apparently now significantly water damaged.
Historic significance is not simply a value of a building's architecture or curb appeal, it is also and often mostly its significance in the history of a place and what important stories are centered on it.
This is why considering a building as not having any historic significance based simply on a drive-by glance or its current state of maintenance is an improper way to classify a site.
Last edited:
UrbanRED
Active Member
Wooooooosh
JoeUrban
Active Member
I knew it was dumb joke, but I thought I would add the non dumb answer in case someone actually thought that was a good burn.
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
O-tac
Active Member
Please keep in mind, these are photos of two significant historic sites:
View attachment 225196
The top one is the oldest extant dwelling in Calgary on its original site. It is of provincial importance being the oldest-standing Hudson's Bay Company building in southern Alberta and being the only building lift in Calgary that is located based in the location of the original Fort.
Luckily it wasn't just looked at as an 'old shack' and the siding was eventually removed to reveal it's log cabin origins, this is how it looks today
The second one was a gospel hall that was home to the Full Gospel Assembly which served the African-Canadian population present in Drumheller in the 1920s. They had fled persecution in the U.S. and had escaped to Canada to try to find a better life and this was the center of their small community and this is the only existing remnant of the African-Canadian history in Drumheller, and it would be the most important one.
Unfortunately it was not identified for a long time and was looked at as just "an old building" and is apparently now significantly water damaged.
Historic significance is not simply a value of a building's architecture or curb appeal, it is also and often mostly its significance in the history of a place and what important stories are centered on it.
This is why considering a building as not having any historic significance based simply on a drive-by glance or its current state of maintenance is an improper way to classify a site.
Interesting examples. Where is the Calgary cabin located out of curiosity? Also I had no idea of the African Canadian history in Drumheller and I was born there!
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
The Hunt House (as the cabin is known) is on the Inglewood side of the Elbow River Traverse, directly adjacent to the north side of Deane House.