St. Patrick's Bridge design entries - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Bigtime · 09-23-2009, 11:44 AM

Why? Are there issues in allowing "airspace" to be owned in this case?

Bill Bumface · 09-23-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

Yes. +15's are a different story.

The City won't do another TD Square. Trust me.

You mean the giant 3 story +15 part with retail in it? Why not? What ended up being bad about it?

Muta · 09-23-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Why? Are there issues in allowing "airspace" to be owned in this case?

Yes, there are very complex legal implications when a private entity exists like that over a public space. I don't know the full details behind it, I'm not a lawyer; but the City would like to avoid, at all costs, putting private / retail space above a public street again. Not that anything has happened yet to TD Square in this implied regard, but the potential most definitely exists for it to happen.

Table 5 · 09-23-2009, 01:48 PM

It would be a shame if legal liability is what decides this type of competition, no matter who the winner is.

Muta · 09-23-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

It would be a shame if legal liability is what decides this type of competition, no matter who the winner is.

Again, trust me when I say that won't have a huge influence, if any at all, on the decisions of the competition. However, if that submission wins, it will become an issue.

You Need a Thneed · 09-23-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

Yes, there are very complex legal implications when a private entity exists like that over a public space. I don't know the full details behind it, I'm not a lawyer; but the City would like to avoid, at all costs, putting private / retail space above a public street again. Not that anything has happened yet to TD Square in this implied regard, but the potential most definitely exists for it to happen.

If this is a problem, I imagine S&P would have problems, as what they have proposed over 4th Street appears to be more than just a +15 as well. It definitely extends over the sidewalk (road?) over 9th ave as well.

Bigtime · 09-23-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

Yes, there are very complex legal implications when a private entity exists like that over a public space. I don't know the full details behind it, I'm not a lawyer; but the City would like to avoid, at all costs, putting private / retail space above a public street again. Not that anything has happened yet to TD Square in this implied regard, but the potential most definitely exists for it to happen.

So if I am understanding you correctly I should have an "accident" at that area of TD Square?

Muta · 09-23-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If this is a problem, I imagine S&P would have problems, as what they have proposed over 4th Street appears to be more than just a +15 as well. It definitely extends over the sidewalk (road?) over 9th ave as well.

Yes, we shall see.

Bunk · 09-23-2009, 02:10 PM

I would assume CMLC and Cantos have had pre-application meetings with municipal planning staff to work out that issue. If it is infact an issue, there's no way that wouldn't influence the competition.

Muta · 09-23-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So if I am understanding you correctly I should have an "accident" at that area of TD Square?

Sure, bring that part of TD down and then I'll be doing this...

Muta · 09-23-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk

I would assume CMLC and Cantos have had pre-application meetings with municipal planning staff to work out that issue. If it is infact an issue, there's no way that wouldn't influence the competition.

Who knows? SPF is based out of Los Angeles; if they knew of this condition, they might not have designed their buliding the way they did. It is entirely likely that they didn't know the City doesn't prefer this type of situation.

nick.flood · 09-23-2009, 02:39 PM

Hopefully SPF:a doesn't lose the competition over that to S+P.

If Cantos was going to select another entry all along then fair enough, but if not, SPF:a should still be chosen and given an opportunity to relocate the floor area from over 4th St.

Muta · 09-23-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick.flood

Hopefully SPF:a doesn't lose the competition over that to S+P.

If Cantos was going to select another entry all along then fair enough, but if not, SPF:a should still be chosen and given an opportunity to relocate the floor area from over 4th St.

SPF isn't at any disadvantage. All five entries have as much chance as any of the others.

However, the essence of a design competition is ruined, and isn't fair to other competitors, if you are allowed to re-design your submission after the fact. It could look poorly on the competition itself.

nick.flood · 09-23-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

SPF isn't at any disadvantage. All five entries have as much chance as any of the others.

However, the essence of a design competition is ruined, and isn't fair to other competitors, if you are allowed to re-design your submission after the fact. It could look poorly on the competition itself.

True, good point, but there are so many other merits of each design that are being evaluated. Most of the design submissions are very preliminary anyway and if chosen will go through so much design development that major changes may take place with any selection. I think everyone agrees that "IF" SPF:a is the front runner, 4th Street aside, it should still be chosen and then the matter dealt with.

Bunk · 09-23-2009, 02:52 PM

In the case of an important cultural institution, in my opinion, all design guidelines and many rules should simply be thrown away. Buildings like this are meant to break rules. It's not a normal part of the urban fabric, where as a regular commercial use is.

Ozy_Flame · 09-23-2009, 02:55 PM

I do believe trying to build underneath is not an option either; there's something about private property criss-crossing with public property that presents a quagmire of epic proportions.

nick.flood · 09-23-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I do believe trying to build underneath is not an option either; there's something about private property criss-crossing with public property that presents a quagmire of epic proportions.

The Bow crosses underneath 6th Ave

Ozy_Flame · 09-23-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick.flood

The Bow crosses underneath 6th Ave

Yeah, but look at the Bow - it's not some blip on the map. It's a signature skyscraper / property.

I'm sure Encana had to pull strings to get that one approved.

You Need a Thneed · 09-23-2009, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yeah, but look at the Bow - it's not some blip on the map. It's a signature skyscraper / property.

I'm sure Encana had to pull strings to get that one approved.

Yeah, they did have to pull some strings, but it shows that strings are pullable.

octothorp · 09-23-2009, 05:39 PM

Bah, sounds like Allied got the Cantos project. My least favorite of the 5.