Calgary SSP Development Listing

[SebC]

I like Trump Toronto.

I don't love it, but I don't think it's ugly.

Arts Central tower is rumoured to be 42-44 stories (if I'm not getting my rumours mixed up)... so it's not going to make a huge impact on the skyline if that turns out to be correct.

[Bunk]

Pretty much the antithesis of Trump Toronto stylistically - i.e. not an awkward PoMo steaming pile of Bantha Poodoo.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Pretty much the antithesis of Trump Toronto stylistically - i.e. not an awkward PoMo steaming pile of Bantha Poodoo.

So, that's a yes to the Hoth Ion Cannon?

[You Need a Thneed]

Renderings of the 7th Ave Autopark project: (from Calgary Planning Commission documents)

This is still recommended for refusal.












and with office floor added on later:



EDIT: Apparently photobucket didn't save the rotations of each picture.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

This is still recommended for refusal.

Is that because they want the office built at the same time, they don't want the parking, or something else?

[mykalberta]

Knowing this city, they dont want the parking there. The problem is its probably the only way to recoup investment if they really want to save those building fronts.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by SebC

Is that because they want the office built at the same time, they don't want the parking, or something else?

Mostly, they don't like the parking. Also, they are concerned for the use of the lane for construction and permanent use, that the lane can't handle it.

Really, it's an incredibly difficult site to develop on, which is probably why the historic facades are still there in the first place. There is no street access to the site, for construction, or for permanent use.

Something has to be done to upgrade that block, and if this isn't allowed to go ahead, that block will sit in disrepair for decades, most likely.

[Bigtime]

I really like the look of phase 1, and I love that is totally clashes with the historical facades below it on 7th avenue, some dirty urbanism.

Phase 2 is absolutely horrible and should never be allowed to happen.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I really like the look of phase 1, and I love that is totally clashes with the historical facades below it on 7th avenue, some dirty urbanism.

Phase 2 is absolutely horrible and should never be allowed to happen.

Phase 1
-oh neat
-oh neat
-oh neat
-that's cool

Phase 2
-wtf.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I really like the look of phase 1, and I love that is totally clashes with the historical facades below it on 7th avenue, some dirty urbanism.

Phase 2 is absolutely horrible and should never be allowed to happen.

Funny thing, the city probably has the exact opposite view.

Also: Phase 1 looks like an office building, Phase 2 looks like a parkade!

[mykalberta]

I went through the very dry planning commission report doc.

Here are the major points of rejection

1 - Parking - Calgary has a parking bylaw in effect that no parking only use structures be built unless they are owned by the CPA. This structure wouldnt be owned by the CPA so its rejected on that front.

2 - density - the city wants a minimum 9.0 FAR (which I assume is a density metric) so the proposed top level commercial is meant to satisfy that boosting it to 20.0

3 - the central biz district wants transit oriented development and a parking structure next to a LRT line isnt that.

4 - transportation is worried about the back lane access that it would cause backups on centre and 1 st se and currently the lane is east bound only and for some reason they are worried the lane isnt wide enough for cars, pedestrians, and cyclists. (not sure why they are worried about pedestrians in the back lane wouldnt they exit through the +15 or the front?) Also worried that currently there are dumpsters there which could be moved but it doesnt sound like the greatest access point for a parkade.

Basically from the sounds of it is it wouldnt be approved by city brass unless it was a condo or commercial tower with limited parking ability that also keeps the building fronts - so basically they dont want anything there.

[Hack&Lube]

I'm not sure what's up with the Jetson's esque 1950's style architecture to Phase I though. What's this style of architecture called? It's what many buildings seemed to look like in 50s and 60s futurism.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I'm not sure what's up with the Jetson's esque 1950's style architecture to Phase I though. What's this style of architecture called? It's what many buildings seemed to look like in 50s and 60s futurism.

You are right. Jetson-esque is the correct term.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

so basically they dont want anything there.

[Table 5]

I think the city needs to learn to be a little flexible in special circumstances. Yes, it goes against their anti-parking agenda (which I'm not a huge fan of in the first place), but chances are this project could be a catalyst for improving that entire block.

Instead it will probably remain another craptastic block filled with pawn shops for another decade or two, and then someone will come along who just wants to bulldoze the whole block and we lose some more heritage buildings. Yay.

[Hack&Lube]

Let's just bury the C-Train as a subway along the downtown stretch. Then we won't have problems like this :P

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Let's just bury the C-Train as a subway along the downtown stretch. Then we won't have problems like this :P

Can you lend the city the billion to do it?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think the city needs to learn to be a little flexible in special circumstances. Yes, it goes against their anti-parking agenda (which I'm not a huge fan of in the first place), but chances are this project could be a catalyst for improving that entire block.

Instead it will probably remain another craptastic block filled with pawn shops for another decade or two, and then someone will come along who just wants to bulldoze the whole block and we lose some more heritage buildings. Yay.

Exactly my thoughts. This will probably end up going all the way to council to approve, and then council will have to decide which option they want: breaking a few policies for a special case, or have run down pawn shops in prime development area for decades more, or worse yet, have the buildings demolished, and have the land sit as parking at grade.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think the city needs to learn to be a little flexible in special circumstances. Yes, it goes against their anti-parking agenda (which I'm not a huge fan of in the first place), but chances are this project could be a catalyst for improving that entire block.

Instead it will probably remain another craptastic block filled with pawn shops for another decade or two, and then someone will come along who just wants to bulldoze the whole block and we lose some more heritage buildings. Yay.

Not just a catalyst - it IS the improvement of the entire block - the site includes most of the old buildings on the block, which will be completely restored.

I would say although City staff will recommend a refusal based on the parking policy, I think there's more than enough political will on Council, given the massive public benefit, to approve the project regardless. At least that's the sense I get.

As for the parking policy generally - I think it's worth defending. I don't think it's an "anti-parking agenda". This policy dates back to the 1960s when the city was trying to get its rapid-bus service going (blue arrow) - the precursor to the LRT. Recognizing that an abundance of free parking downtown would not only lead to congestion on finite road capacity, few would take transit unless parking supply was somewhat constrained. Downtown development is only allowed to build 50% of the by-lawed requirement on site - 50% is paid cash-in-lieu to the parking authority to build parking facilities in more strategic locations (like along major vehicular routes close to the periphery of the business core).

When downtown commercial space exploded in subsequent decades supply was limited and prices became high. Calgary's concentrated core, and this parking policy are primarily responsible for having such massive ridership on transit.

Consider the alternative. Without this extraordinarily progressive policy (dating back to the 60s when car was king) transit ridership would be poor and we would have had to rip through innercity neighbourhoods with massive freeways to handle the commensurate amount of traffic volumes.

Now, that's not to say there isn't room to bump up supply downtown (even though roads at peak are already over capacity) to ease prices a bit - I think we should do that (including and especially this project). But, we should consider Calgary's downtown parking policy one of the most effective municipal public policies anywhere, ever.

[Bunk]

This project looks to be directly inspired by this parkade in Miami Beach (in a very prominent location off the Lincoln Avenue Pedestrian Mall). It's actually quite striking in person if you're into this kind of architecture.