[Stephen Ave]

Photos and info originally posted by Josh White. These are the most recent conceptual renderings of Eau Claire. Do you like the direction it's going in? What's the consensus?

This is the Eau Claire concept. Concept tied to plans in of the Land Use Redesignation.

Not necessarily what it will look like, but generally the direction it is going.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/027.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/029.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/031.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/032.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/033.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/024.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/025.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/026.jpg

[Surrealplaces]

Seems a no brainer. Great looking project all the way.

[m0nkyman]

I am against this. You should keep the old mall concept.

~signed, Edmonton

:thankyouthankyou:



hehehe

[trueviking]

nice project, somewhere else.....destroys the potential of eau claire to be a public gathering space and urban node.....now its just another tower complex....its a nice complex, but eau claire should be so much more.

how many downtown interior shopping malls with towers on top does one city need?...this should have been a focal point for the downtown.

lost opportunity.

i know this wont be a popular opinion.

[Boris2k7]

There is no interior mall. All the stores have exterior entrances. In fact all the interior lobbies are for residential or office usage.

[trueviking]

youre right...my bad, sorry....still seems to be out of scale for the site......sometimes things that are not so huge can be nice set against all the other hugeness.

it doesnt engage or respond to that beautiful site in any way...it could be on any block in the downtown...its just another massive shadow casting hard edged tower complex.....doesnt seem to be in character for the site.

doesnt look like a place to bring the kids to wander around enjoying the buskers and sidewalk patios on a saturday afternoon.....look at those south facing towers casting a huge shadow across the site...on a nice day you would want to be as far from them as possible.

the density is out of place for that location in my opinion....quaint would have been more appropriate for the activity that is supposed to happen there.

i was hoping for a soft edged, human scale market place full of life, spilling out into the park, (grandville island calgary)...not a windswept dark canyon.

[Blue_Cypress]

I agree with you to an extent. What that area needs is residential development. Right now eau claire market is not sustainable, though I think that in 5 or 10 years, it would be quite busy. I think the problem is not so much the facility, but the management and the supporting culture. There really wasn't much reason to move the IMAX to chinook, and I think the eau claire theatre was better anyway. The city could have done a better job of connecting the communities on the north side of the river to the south side as well. As is, it really is a long walk from one bridge to the next.

I can't see the reasoning for demolishing the current building. There is still so much vacant land around. It seems such a waste.

[Boris2k7]

The current market isn't doing well at all. The management has been wanting to get rid of it and build this.

TV: I see your point, but I think that the density will be beneficial to downtown as a whole. With that and 222 Riverfront near there, that is a hell of a lot of residential unit.

Originally, though, they were only going to have two 35 storey condo/hotel towers to the south end of the site.

[polishavenger]

The towers are too wide, and have extremely bland side profiles. I would have prefered to see more slender towers, or at least a greater mix of low rise wide buildings and slender elegant tall towers. The south section seems so bulky, almost like a giant parkade structure. The pedestrian level however in some of those shots is amazing, very futuristic.

Overall, Im starting to lose my taste for these large scale projects. They create too much homogeneity, they dont seem organic.

[Rusty van Reddick]

It's moving a bit away from the "festival marketplace" theme and making a community- that's an improvement. A huge one.

Love it- with Anthem it is going to be our slice of Yaletown.

[Boris2k7]

Yeah, it would be nice if they could at least vary the massing of the towers a bit, even if the materials are the same on each.

Another thing to note: am I looking at a big, fat green roof on that northwest building?

[trueviking]

TV: I see your point, but I think that the density will be beneficial to downtown as a whole.
.

i agree totally...it is a nice project that i would kill for in winnipeg.....its the loss of that site as a public amenity that is my opposition.

[shappy]

I don't mind the towers, they're ok.

The pedestrian level however in some of those shots is amazing, very futuristic.

futuristic via the 1980's perhaps. I think I see a Delorean in one of those renderings. I don't mean to pick on you, polishavenger, but your comment interests me and, in my opinion, illustrates Calgary's general design mentality.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/031.jpg

what's up with that curved thing sticking out? There is nothing sleek and modern (i.e. "futuristic") about that. It's clumsy and odd. The street-wall is solid, but... it's just dated. Do you guys not see that? Maybe it's the quality of the renderings...

[Boris2k7]

what's up with that curved thing sticking out? There is nothing sleek and modern (i.e. "futuristic") about that. It's clumsy and odd. The street-wall is solid, but... it's just dated. Do you guys not see that?

Ummmm, no, I don't see that. What would you prefer, just a glass wall that is parallel with the street? I think the curved parts are what make it interesting...

[JBinCalgary]

i wish there was some variety in the towers. but its calgary so ill just quit dreamin

[shappy]

Ummmm, no, I don't see that. What would you prefer, just a glass wall that is parallel with the street? I think the curved parts are what make it interesting...

I think curved sleek and modern parts would be even more interesting...

[Boris2k7]

boo. Sleek is boring. :sleep:

[JBinCalgary]

i too like the curves

[shappy]

boo. Sleek is boring. :sleep:

huh?

[walli]

I think it is a very nice looking project. I don't agree with the comments about it being out of scale. It mates up very well with the Anthem buildings, and from how I'm looking at the renderings, the tallest building is a tad shorter than the Millenium Tower, which sits the same distance from the river.

What I would like added to the renderings is some detail with respect to the open square on the one side. That space looks a little smaller than how it was depicted in a prior conceptual drawing, however, it is larger than the current space. The way the focus is on the renderings, people are almost forgetting about this important aspect. It is *bigger* than the current space, and that is important.

The other aspect that is important to understand is that the density of this area is not only going to increase with this project, but also with Anthem right beside. This WILL work.

[JBinCalgary]

im not to keen on the towers. something like the hummingbird in toronto would suit this area well.

[Boris2k7]

huh?

I think your response actually says more about the design attitude in Toronto than the one here. When I look at the Toronto threads, I see a bunch of tall, glassy buildings that essentially are clones of one another. The result is as bad as Vancouver's design by committee (though that is getting a little bit better now). I like the wide variation that we get in Calgary architecture, and random elements like those curvy things are what make streetscapes interesting.

[shappy]

this isn't about Toronto. If i were from Montreal, Warsaw, Madrid, etc... I'd say the exact same thing. There are contemporary trends in design that I think Calgary is completely missing out on (save for the Bow and a couple others). Perhaps I'm elevating Calgary a bit too much in my comparisons (actually, that's exactly what I'm doing... but hey, that's a compliment!)

[m0nkyman]

It's execution and materials that make buildings beautiful, not so much the design.

A plain design built perfectly is beautiful.

Renderings don't mean shit.

Look at who's involved, and what their history is, then adjust your mental model to see what you think it will actually look like once it's done based on the history of the designers and builders...

[Coldrsx]

very weak...for that site, please see how to do false creek

[Coldrsx]

^let me add...hello point towers? Those are so massive and slabby.

[Boris2k7]

It may not be about Toronto, but I think your own city has tainted your design opinion. I would rather us NOT follow such trends. Cities that do are lame. Like we need twisty towers or 500m spikes...

[Coldrsx]

slimmer towers, less repetition please...honestly this is a very very poor proporsal for such a very very strong section of land.

[shappy]

if you mean my design opinion has been "tainted" (ha!) by interesting, sleek, modern design then yeah, I guess so...

by the way, I'm not into twisty towers or 500m spires either.

[Boris2k7]

While I agree, I would keep in mind that this is still at a very conceptual stage. For example, there aren't enough setbacks for this to pass UDP. Those blank spots on the towers would also be up for serious review. And the Proposed Centre City Plan encourages slimmer towers (due to shadowing issues, which are apparent in the renderings) so I think that UDP would keep that in mind.

shappy, I just can't relate to your design opinion. I have no idea what would please you. The last thing I want to see is unimaginative, imported architecture.

[shappy]

good design pleases me.

if you're insinuating that Toronto is unimaginative with imported architecture, then you'd be incorrect. Since you seem so interested in discussing Toronto... the city's current major design theme is fairly unique to the city. It's basically local Modernism inspired (which was a very fruitful architectural era in Toronto)... and it's done with a contemporary attitude. By the way, I'm not referring to City Place (that's pretty crap), I'm talking aA, Peter Clewes stuff.

[Boris2k7]

I only reference Toronto because that is where you are from. I think it would be more relevant to both of us because of that. I can see that Toronto's buildings are fairly unique to it, but there seems to be a lot of internal copying (hence a developing 'style'). I would also say that anytime one city picks up another's style, it is fairly unimaginative (and Calgary has done this by adopting a sort of Vancouver style fused with Calgary materials (such as the obsession with brick and sandstone, especially in podiums). I think it is too early to say that Calgary has developed a coherent style, so I enjoy the fairly diverse designs (though certain architectural firms... like Gibbs Gage... love to copy and paste, hence the Palliser developments and the similarity between 999 and Stampede Station).

But again, I think it would be hard for me to relate to your particular design aesthetic. I am planning to make a major trip out east in August though, including Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. Maybe when I am in town I could get together with you guys and you could teach me what TO is all about. :)

I will also have a new camera by then so I would gladly document the whole journey.

[shappy]

my point is that it doesn't matter where I'm from.

and what's wrong with a developing style? You must loathe Paris.

deep down I think you know what I'm talking about. Calgary is not there yet and that's totally fine. I think it most definitely will one day. Mark my words... when you see the Bow go up and revel in its awesomeness then you'll appreciate more what I'm talking about. And (hopefully) you'll want to see more of the same quality stuff go up in Calgary and not be content with stuff like what's featured in this thread.

[Boris2k7]

my point is that it doesn't matter where I'm from.

and what's wrong with a developing style? You must loathe Paris.

deep down I think you know what I'm talking about. Calgary is not there yet and that's totally fine. I think it most definitely will one day. Mark my words... when you see the Bow go up and revel in its awesomeness then you'll appreciate more what I'm talking about. And (hopefully) you'll want to see more quality stuff go up in Calgary.

Paris also has La Defense... :) ;)

I agree that on average, our design needs improvement. The Bow is already the bar by which we are judging new projects, and I hope that will be true for the city as well. :cheers:

[Just Build It]

Looks great to me. I partly agree with TV about the loss of public space. Still not sure about that, but on the other hand great addition of density.

[Coldrsx]

come'on guys...id expect more from the centre of the universe. This is Edmonton's Eaton centre 1981.

[bob1954]

It seems like when developers/architects design buildings in Calgary, they start off with a design that might be good for a 50-60 story building that someone else built "somewere" else. Then decided that well, we're Calgary and we're a little more conservative than what "this design is about", and then they'll remove 10-20 floors from the original design, slap the roof back on it (on paper anyway) and then say, "they're you have it" we'll build this! And what you get is something totally different and not as good as it could have been! Ie., Neura, Astroia, and a few others, Jamieson PLace, as good as it is, would be one of the best buildings in N. America if it had another 8-10 floors! IMO, I don't like scaled back projects... just go for it, (providing cost is'nt the issue), but beware of the "Shadow nazis'", as one forumer put it! Sorry, probably the wrong post to "vent".

[ProudlyCanadian]

The urban node for Eau Claire will always be around the riverbank and Princess Island Park. Any attempt at creating a separate urban node outside of this natural asset only seeks to detract from it, as such it would be wise for any development to flow into and complement the already established gathering place.

Although this conceptual design may not offer a great public square or gathering place in it's physical design (the urban node if you will), I feel it complements the already present space of the riverbank and Princess Island Park. The greater density of people and amenities that this project will add into area will in my mind create a more self sufficient and vibrant community in the future, and thus I feel the project is a move in the right direction.

p.s.

Whether the towers are fat or thin really doesn't matter (within context). As long as the community has the amenities and the people to support those amenities it should be successful.

Aesthetics are purely personal, and I really think people are starting to nit pick, especially when you take into consideration that we're going off renderings... which are probably still conceptual.

[walli]

It is interesting to see opinions based on where a person is located. If I'm not mistaken, several Edmontonians posting here were the same that had also slammed the Bow design. In addition we have Winnipig, Toronto and Mexico City all on the 'it isn't so good' side.

[Doug]

These renderings are merely concepts. They are intended more to show massing than actual architecture.

[ummagumma66]

I did like the idea of a public space much better, I wish they had stuck to that...

[Doug]

youre right...my bad, sorry....still seems to be out of scale for the site......sometimes things that are not so huge can be nice set against all the other hugeness.

it doesnt engage or respond to that beautiful site in any way...it could be on any block in the downtown...its just another massive shadow casting hard edged tower complex.....doesnt seem to be in character for the site.

doesnt look like a place to bring the kids to wander around enjoying the buskers and sidewalk patios on a saturday afternoon.....look at those south facing towers casting a huge shadow across the site...on a nice day you would want to be as far from them as possible.

the density is out of place for that location in my opinion....quaint would have been more appropriate for the activity that is supposed to happen there.

i was hoping for a soft edged, human scale market place full of life, spilling out into the park, (grandville island calgary)...not a windswept dark canyon.

Huge towers to the south (Canterra, soon to be Jameson and City Center) already cast shadows over the site. The public space is to the west (soon to be unveiled Marc Boutin Eau Claire Plaza) and north (Prince's Island Park). The massing provides at least an attempt to transition from the megadensity of the east and south. That said, somewhat less density probably have been better for this site. One of the reasons that the existing market failed was that it didn't have enough density to cover the fixed costs of the site. Given the large land area, the property taxes are very high.

The words "quaint" and "Calgary" should never appear in the same sentence. Calgary, and especially not downtown, is not a place where people spend leisurely Saturday afternoons wandering through shops and enjoying street performers. Calgary is all bigger, better, faster. Eau Claire's target audience is 1) Downtown office workers looking for a place to grab a quick lunch, do some quick shopping or have a drink after work with the emphasis on quick, 2) Fitness fanatics using the YMCA, park or the pathway system to stop or meet up, 3) The fantastically rich residents of the adjacent condo towers looking for neighborhood services, 4) Pedestrian commuters looking for a coffee. ATM etc. (Eau Claire is the hub for pedestrian traffic in the city). This could change if the public square is successful enough to attract events.

[freeweed]

It is interesting to see opinions based on where a person is located. If I'm not mistaken, several Edmontonians posting here were the same that had also slammed the Bow design. In addition we have Winnipig, Toronto and Mexico City all on the 'it isn't so good' side.

This is normal for most new projects released in Calgary. Eventually you also usually see a final "don't get me wrong, I'd KILL for this in my city" from people. ;)

Calgary is just an easy city to critique as there is so much development activity going on - and a LOT of renderings. We're like a petri dish of architecture right now. Much like Vancouver 20 years ago when they were just starting to grow upwards.

[Wooster]

Looks great to me. I partly agree with TV about the loss of public space. Still not sure about that, but on the other hand great addition of density.
Today 02:38 AM

I did like the idea of a public space much better, I wish they had stuck to that...

There is a public plaza. In this space, being developed by the city. keep up!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/publicplaza.jpg

Guys, the architecture is not final. This is the concept plan for the land use redesignation. Not a DP! wow.

I tend to agree about the repetitiveness of the buildings. And narrowing the towers. However, this all appears to be done to eliminate a shadow impact on the public square, while packing in a lot of sq ft. I am sure there are some ways to resolve this. The plan definitely needs some work although I believe the buildings are already at their maximum envelope. One solution might be to push the podiums one or two more floors, adding a lot of floor area and then narrowing the towers above.

I disagree doug. I think this could be a big gathering point for casual strollers and coffee drinkers.

The idea definitely is to get a high end shopping type district like Bloor-Yorkville out of this.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Calgary, and especially not downtown, is not a place where people spend leisurely Saturday afternoons wandering through shops and enjoying street performers.

I do.

[Distill3d]

this project reeks of the 1970's/1980's.

personally, i'd rather see more of a Lonsdale Quay (North Vancouver) style of hotel/retail concept in Eau Claire.

this project seems more fit for where Hotel Arts is going in IMO.

[YYCguys]

I'm glad to see the redevelopment of the area! It's going to add much more vibrancy to the area. The market building was so much like a ghost town whenever I ventured inside, so I'm happy to see it replaced by street level individual shops. I'm also glad to see the shorter structures closer to the river, in keeping with a human scale along the riverfront.

One thing that concerns me is that the 1886 Cafe will seem lost in this development with nothing to relate to it nearby. Will the exteriors of the nearby buildings blend in with the historical parts of the area?

I wonder which hotel chain will choose to locate themselves in this very cool area. (And a bit off topic, but did Anthem nix the hotel part of their project or is it still a go, albeit on a smaller scale due to the concerns of the local community?)

[Coldrsx]

These renderings are merely concepts. They are intended more to show massing than actual architecture.


www.centurypark.ca


that is how you show massing well, not like this. These are huge blocks of towers shown, regardless for massing or whathaveyou.

Calgary has had great strides even with initial planning studies of late, this is NOT one of them.

[Blood PuP]

Calgary, and especially not downtown, is not a place where people spend leisurely Saturday afternoons wandering through shops and enjoying street performers.

During the summer the area around the existing Eau Claire market is packed with people doing this. On the weekends on nice days Eau Claire is a zoo. There are some street performers out there, though I would prefer more. The street performers also seems to be quite child orientated

Now the mall was empty. Once you got by the icecream shop at the entrance way the only people you saw were making their way to the washroom. The design of that mall is just so inhospitable, you feel wrong just being in there.

For the new design, I like all the retail being on the outside. This should be much nicer than having to go into a mall on a nice day. Hopefully with that new plaza and more density the Eau Claire area can be bustling more than just nice weekends in the summer.

As for the towers they suck. They are so short and wide. They look like half height versions of the 70's apartments on the west end. I know this is just supposed to show massing, but the massing it what I am complaining about. It would look much nicer if each tower was half as wide and twice as tall.

[IntotheWest]

When we lived on 14th ave, we'd cycle down there ALL the time.

I guess what I missed when first judging this in the "poll" is the fact it is concept, and the area badly needs more residents (I guess the little townhouses in the existing Eau Claire isn't enough)...and for that, I guess it looks alright.

I too had originally imagined a Granville island/Forks...but I guess that's where this went wrong in the early 90's anyway :-)

[SteveP]

www.centurypark.ca


that is how you show massing well, not like this. These are huge blocks of towers shown, regardless for massing or whathaveyou.



What makes you think the massing on Century park looks any better? Because it doesn't, same thing nondescript blocks.

This project looks great IMO, but in a different location. I think something of less density would actually be better for Eau Claire. Anthem already has lots of density for the area. I'd rather see it more lowrise-ish, and more open spaces as well.

Great looking project -in another location-

[Wooster]

As for the towers they suck. They are so short and wide. They look like half height versions of the 70's apartments on the west end. I know this is just supposed to show massing, but the massing it what I am complaining about. It would look much nicer if each tower was half as wide and twice as tall.

I am not sure how they can resolve this without decreasing the density, which I am not sure the developer will want very much.

I think they are trying to fit the max density possible into an envelope that does not shadow the plaza or the river bank. This is resulting in short, rather fat towers. Taller and slender is preferable, but then it runs into shadow issues, so you can't go that route.

I am not sure what the solution is without compromising density - although that is what might need to happen to get a better design result.

[Wooster]

What makes you think the massing on Century park looks any better? Because it doesn't, same thing nondescript blocks.

This project looks great IMO, but in a different location. I think something of less density would actually be better for Eau Claire. Anthem already has lots of density for the area. I'd rather see it more lowrise-ish, and more open spaces as well.

Great looking project -in another location-

Century Park is definitely a far less complex site than Eau Claire. Hard to compare the two. I wonder if anyone could come up with something different on this site, getting 6.25 FAR and not violating the shadowing rules. These two factors are clearly driving this design.

I think reducing the density slightly, perhaps adding a floor to the podium, and making the towers more slender and further apart is the only solution.

[Coldrsx]

What makes you think the massing on Century park looks any better? Because it doesn't, same thing nondescript blocks.

This project looks great IMO, but in a different location. I think something of less density would actually be better for Eau Claire. Anthem already has lots of density for the area. I'd rather see it more lowrise-ish, and more open spaces as well.

Great looking project -in another location-

not saying CP should be there, but 1/4 it or 1/3 it and voila...Yes massing is nondescript, but helluva lot better than that.

[Tobyoby]

not saying CP should be there, but 1/4 it or 1/3 it and voila...Yes massing is nondescript, but helluva lot better than that.

The kind of massing used at Century park wouldn't work in this location. Century park is out in the middle of nowhere where there aren't shadow concerns. To make these building thinner (and still retai the same density) would mean making them higher no? ...then there is the shadowing issue.

[Wooster]

^ Exactly, that is why, if they want to change the design density will have to go down to make the towers more slender, the podiums will have to be increased to push the density down, or both.

I emailed some people to try and get some answers.

[Tobyoby]

Too bad this project wasn't being built at the west end of downtown (lining up with the new Bow trail alignment), or out at an area like Chinook or Westbrook. I like this project, it just seems like it would take away from the public space, as True Viking had alluded to. That aside, I like the concept.

[Coldrsx]

The kind of massing used at Century park wouldn't work in this location. Century park is out in the middle of nowhere where there aren't shadow concerns. To make these building thinner (and still retai the same density) would mean making them higher no? ...then there is the shadowing issue.

you kidding me? Century park had huge issues with shadowing because it abuts single family housing and another condo complex....3 sides....which is more concerned about shadowing than the core.

im not saying CP is what should be there in reality, but the current massing is poor.

[polishavenger]

When I look at this project, I cant see how taller more slender buildings would cast more of a shadow. If you look at the tall buildings immediately south of the area (city centre proposed, Canterra, Livingston etc.) a 20 - 30 storey slender residential tower should be virtually covered by the buildings immediately to the south. the fatter versions seem like they would create more shadowing, they dont permit any light into the project at all.

[Coldrsx]

^thank you...tall towers may cast longer but wider shadows are the real culprit...let alone sunlight into the projects areas.

[YYCguys]

I see only a handful of live/work units in the building closest to the river. I would like to see more townhouses incorporated into the designs of the buildings ala Stella/Nova. Not all of the buildings but some of them.

[dubiousmike]

Like it.

The new corner of Riverfront Ave and Barclay Lane should form an interesting little node of activity. Hopefully there are restaurants with patios in there.

[Kevin_foster]

Reminds me of 80's Eaton Center in Edmonton a little... the massing at least. Short, Fat, Stumpy,

I'll agree here. Tall & Slim would be better... if your concerned about shadows... 4-20 storey towers doesn't provide a good solution. Fat shadows!!

Aesthetically, it's ok to look at - but it's still short and stumpy and doesn't make good use of the land it sits on. (It is my understanding that this is prime prime land..right?)

That being said, the glass is nice, curves are nice.. but it would have been kind of neat to see 1 or 2 slim towers (32 - 35 story's) surrounded by 2/3 storey street level shops instead - with Underground parking as well....

But given the lot, this thing is a giant! What with Calgary and your Giant Buildings!!

But then again, we to the North will gladly chain this up and drop it on top of SEC.
:)

[Grendel]

Not bad, but then again, anything would be better than what we have now. Before I come out too strongly against this project, I'd really like to see a better rendering; from the scans on the thread, all I reall see are a bunch of pretty standard rectangular blocks of flats on a podium.

I'm all for more residential units downtown, so I've gotta be for replacing the public market with apartments. On the other hand, if we're giving up a (largely) public space for a (largely) private one, it would be nice if we at least got a landmark building in its place.

On the subject of Eau Claire (in its original inception), it's pretty clear in hindsight that the "Granville Island" method of urban regeneration wasn't really going to fly in Calgary - at least not the Calgary of the recent past. Granville Island works in Vancouver because

a) there's a large, dense, relatively wealthy urban population nearby,
b) the climate is favourable for outdoor shopping throughout most of the year and,
c) Vancouver city centre is a tourism destination in a way that downtown Calgary is not.

Maybe if we can cram some more housing into the areas within walking distance of Eau Claire, we can try again at the public market thing. For my part, I find the idea of buying farm fresh produce in the city centre immensely appealing. In the meantime, I think that mall needs to make way for more apartments.

[Coldrsx]

"a) there's a large, dense, relatively wealthy urban population nearby,
b) the climate is favourable for outdoor shopping throughout most of the year and,
c) Vancouver city centre is a tourism destination in a way that downtown Calgary is not."


calgary is moving in all of those directions...even weather haha...why not plan for it and make it slightly more viable for that climate?

[Western Spaghetti]

You guys are missing the whole point of the shadowing. The shadow bylaws are for the riverside, not the project itself. My guess is that the shorter fatter buildings don't project shadows onto the river or river pathway. Taller thinner buildings isn't helping.

Yes, I would prefer that we see thinner buildings, not taller, just thinner. The problem is that the developers are trying to make a buck, so they'll cram as many units as they can. This is where the city has to make them thin the buildings a bit.

I didn't vote by the way, mainly because, the questions don't really fit the situation. I like this project, in another location. I'm not sure about the location it's at right now. I think an open sunny area is important. Eau Claire market itself may not have worked out, the public space around the market has. It's a vibrant most of the year, especially in the summer. All the festivals that go on there, etc..

[Coldrsx]

You guys are missing the whole point of the shadowing. The shadow bylaws are for the riverside, not the project itself. My guess is that the shorter fatter buildings don't project shadows onto the river or river pathway. Taller thinner buildings isn't helping.

Yes, I would prefer that we see thinner buildings, not taller, just thinner. The problem is that the developers are trying to make a buck, so they'll cram as many units as they can. This is where the city has to make them thin the buildings a bit.

oh im well aware of what they are trying to do, but to do this....?

[Western Spaghetti]

doesnt look like a place to bring the kids to wander around enjoying the buskers and sidewalk patios on a saturday afternoon.....look at those south facing towers casting a huge shadow across the site...on a nice day you would want to be as far from them as possible.

the density is out of place for that location in my opinion....quaint would have been more appropriate for the activity that is supposed to happen there.

i was hoping for a soft edged, human scale market place full of life, spilling out into the park, (grandville island calgary)...not a windswept dark canyon.

I pretty much agree here. 'Windswept canyon' is a good way to describe the potential.
This project would be a kick ass project in another location somewhere.

The way you describe how the public space should be, is actually the way it is today. The real problem is just the market building itself. I think the idea of letting Riverfronte Ave go through the market is a great idea though.


TV, One thing to keep in mind is that the public open space will still be there. It doesn't show it well in the renderings, but in one of the images, you can see the big open area on the western side.

Some height on the eastern side of the project would be fine IMO. Maybe a couple of 12-14 storey residential.

[mersar]

Before I come out too strongly against this project, I'd really like to see a better rendering; from the scans on the thread, all I reall see are a bunch of pretty standard rectangular blocks of flats on a podium.

Remember, as Josh pointed out, these are purely conceptual massings for the rezoning application, these are just to show what a possible development *may* look similar to in terms of size. Until they get the rezoning, and file for their DP, or release actual renderings, don't expect to see anything else, especially anything that will look like what the final project may be.

And as Western Spaghetti pointed out, the shadowing concerns are in relation to the river since the site is literally within a few hundred feet of the river at most.

[Policy Wonk]

damn... now where will I go to buy overpriced counterfeit cell phone cases?

Eau Claire has been a disaster from the word go, this is inevitable, although it will be unfortunate for the local vagrants to lose a place they could hang around indoors without being rushed along.

[Plus15]

come'on guys...id expect more from the centre of the universe. This is Edmonton's Eaton centre 1981.


http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/962/edcntr5bd4.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7900/032ia7.jpg

Twins.:rolleyes:

[sansserif]

being intimately involved on this project for the last 2 years, i can tell you a few things... the shadow restrictions in the eau claire ARP dictate that the towers can not be taller than they are now. its something we have been struggling with in developing the massing. the idea is not to create another indoor downtown mall ( which has been a failure in the current mall) the idea is to create a more pedestrian friendly, dynamic street presence like new york or chicago. also the demolition of the current mall was something dictated by the plaza re-design when they decided to bring riverfront avenue through the site. please also remember that this document was created for land-use re-designation in order to get as much FAR in as possible. the design still needs to enter more design development once we know what kind of FAR we have to work with...

hope that clears up some of the many concerns

[JBinCalgary]

can you tell me why the proposal calls for 5 identical towers. where is the variation

[Wooster]

I see only a handful of live/work units in the building closest to the river. I would like to see more townhouses incorporated into the designs of the buildings ala Stella/Nova. Not all of the buildings but some of them.

The main floors are largely commercial. They have townhouse style units an almost all the second floors of the various buildings.

[SHOFEAR]

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/962/edcntr5bd4.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7900/032ia7.jpg

Twins.:rolleyes:

Perhaps next time before a such a sarcastic remark you should do some investigation. I'm pretty sure this is what was referenced to. It does have some similarities. Calgary can do much better.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1764/eatonslk2.png

[Wooster]

being intimately involved on this project for the last 2 years, i can tell you a few things... the shadow restrictions in the eau claire ARP dictate that the towers can not be taller than they are now. its something we have been struggling with in developing the massing. the idea is not to create another indoor downtown mall ( which has been a failure in the current mall) the idea is to create a more pedestrian friendly, dynamic street presence like new york or chicago. also the demolition of the current mall was something dictated by the plaza re-design when they decided to bring riverfront avenue through the site. please also remember that this document was created for land-use re-designation in order to get as much FAR in as possible. the design still needs to enter more design development once we know what kind of FAR we have to work with...

hope that clears up some of the many concerns

So this is basically just showing maximum build out scenario? That makes sense for a Land Use Redesignation. There certainly isn't any need to fully max it out. There is plenty of development potential on this site, with slightly lower FAR and better designed massing.

Thanks for the clarification. No need to freak out people.

I agree with the concept to turn it into an outside street shopping experience. It has broken up the block nicely and should compliment the public space well. That is sort of how I envisioned how the direction should go. I just hope you guys resolve some of the valid concerns about the massing that were raised in this thread. It is a super challenging site!

[Coldrsx]

^wow...you read my friggen mind and yes that was the image.

[Kevin_foster]

Perhaps next time before a such a sarcastic remark you should do some investigation. I'm pretty sure this is what was referenced to. It does have some similarities. Calgary can do much better.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1764/eatonslk2.png

hehe thats what I thought when I first saw...

[Boris2k7]

Big thanks to sansserif for that information. Just wondering, since these renderings are obviously public already, is it possible that you could provide us with some clearer images? :)

And wait a sec, has that land use redesignation gone through yet? I can't recall seeing it. Has it even been submitted?

[Tobyoby]

Perhaps next time before a such a sarcastic remark you should do some investigation. I'm pretty sure this is what was referenced to. It does have some similarities. Calgary can do much better.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1764/eatonslk2.png

Wow, bee in the bonnet? It also looks alot like Century Park. I mean when you really look at it, not much difference. It certainly is mo more similar to the Eau Claire proposal than it is to Century Park.

[Wooster]

what! Mine aren't good enough for you!?!;)

All I had was my camera and the LOC document. :(

[Boris2k7]

Oh, so those are from the LOC document. Thanks for the info Josh! ;)

But as a result of your posting them, I learned that someone here is working on Eau Claire (if I didn't find that out beforehand at some point...?). Might as well take the opportunity. :D

[Plus15]

Perhaps next time before a such a sarcastic remark you should do some investigation. I'm pretty sure this is what was referenced to. It does have some similarities. Calgary can do much better.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1764/eatonslk2.png

Actually, I have seen those renderings of Eaton Centre before. I was more contrasting the podium design, site layout, and ultimately, what exists.

Thanks for the snarky advice though. Much appreciated.

[jeffwhit]

Why's everyone so pissy lately?

[m0nkyman]

Why's everyone so pissy lately?

The weather.

[tokama]

Looks great to me. Hopefully some high end stores locate down there. Would be fantastic.

[Distill3d]

being intimately involved on this project for the last 2 years, i can tell you a few things... the shadow restrictions in the eau claire ARP dictate that the towers can not be taller than they are now. its something we have been struggling with in developing the massing. the idea is not to create another indoor downtown mall ( which has been a failure in the current mall) the idea is to create a more pedestrian friendly, dynamic street presence like new york or chicago. also the demolition of the current mall was something dictated by the plaza re-design when they decided to bring riverfront avenue through the site. please also remember that this document was created for land-use re-designation in order to get as much FAR in as possible. the design still needs to enter more design development once we know what kind of FAR we have to work with...

hope that clears up some of the many concerns

a new mall in Eau Claire could work if the owners don't jack up lease and rental prices like these owners did. however, seeing as how not jacking rent prices through the roof is no longer the norm in this city, it would be impossible for a mall there to be successful. its kinda sad really.

[Me&You]

Looks great to me. Hopefully some high end stores locate down there. Would be fantastic.

Good point...

What's going to happen with retail in Eau Claire? Isn't Tiffany's going to Chinook and Gucci to (shudder) Deerfoot Meadows? Those would be two of the first I'd imagine moving here. With them choosing other (retarded) locations, what will stop the next guys from wanting to join them away from the core?

[Sammy]

Good point...

What's going to happen with retail in Eau Claire? Isn't Tiffany's going to Chinook and Gucci to (shudder) Deerfoot Meadows? Those would be two of the first I'd imagine moving here. With them choosing other (retarded) locations, what will stop the next guys from wanting to join them away from the core?


Eau Claire isn't a great location for retail as Chinook or Deerfoot Meadows for many reasons. One reason being that it is at the ass end of a business district.

[Me&You]

Eau Claire isn't a great location for retail as Chinook or Deerfoot Meadows for many reasons. One reason being that it is at the ass end of a business district.

But wasn't that one of the goals of the new Eau Claire plan; to create a high-end shopping district, home to designer boutiques and the "one-of-a-kind/first-of-it's-kind" brands... In addition to that, specialty grocers, wine stores etc... I thought that was one of the goals?

[Wooster]

^Yeah. I believe they are going to go after high end flagship stores. I think they'll be successful given the demographics of the area.

[Bad Grizzly]

I didn't know what top vote on this one. One one hand the style of it appeals to me, but on the other hand, the buildings and podiums may be a bit too high for my liking. Seeing as it's just a land use, and they are going for max far, it probably won't turn out like the pictures. Some tall buildings around the easter, and southern edges would be fine, but the buildings next to the public space would be better if they were shorter.

[greenboy]

Good point...

Isn't Tiffany's going to Chinook and Gucci to (shudder) Deerfoot Meadows?

Is that for real? Where did that info come from? I can't quite picture Gucci opposite Fatburger myself. I thought they'd be a better fit somewhere downtown...although I couldn't imagine where. I guess if it's good enough for Bentley then who knows who'll look at Calgary as a serious and credible prospect.

[tokama]

Those silhouette massings for the City Centre project are interesting as well. I know they probably don't represent any real design - but i do like the roofline of the taller tower. Hopefully we will get to see that soon (if ever).

[canucklehead2]

So any word when the final wrecking ball will come down at Eau Claire? I know it won't be until June or so right? I checked the Cineplex Odeon website and they have films booked until then for the 6-plex upstairs...

I must say I will miss the mall, even if it was admittedly a flop. I've had nothing but good memories of going to see films there, eating dinner with friends, so it will be sad. Then again I think the whole Eau Claire project has been a dud to date. Instead of being a vibrant mixed-use neighbourhood, it has become a stagnant and elitist enclave for anti-social millionaires. In other words if it's not a total dead-zone now, it will be...

Now I remember why I left Calgary, lol...