View Single Post
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 4:55 AM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
The 75m or 20 floor limits were for the Spring Garden area. Public opinion generally seemed to be in favour of adopting this strategy - one of the two focus groups unanimously endorsed allowing high-rises in this area, and the other one (which I was a part of) was a mixed bag of opinions. There was a lot of concern about overwhelming Carleton Street (who would want to buy a house next to a high-rise?) and suggestions that high-rises might be more appropriate for the other side of the street (where, unfortunately, there isn't really any space for new buildings). Most of the debate actually was about massing (where setbacks should occur and at what ratio) and affordability (it was pointed out that since this is a high-end area, units will probably be expensive no matter what is built, and several people were emphatic that allowing taller buildings would not allow for lower unit prices). Most of the people in my focus group seemed to agree that there are fundamental differences between the Park Vic model of high-rise vs the Spring Garden Place model, with SGP style being the preferred option. I also pointed out that most of the high-rises that everyone loves to hate were built in an era where aesthetics and street-level experience were basically ignored in favour of internal functionality, and that a lot has changed since then in terms of both technology and design - and that seemed to resonate with most. One person complained about the Trillium generating so much wind that it practically lifts you off your feet when you walk by it - I've walked by it dozens of times and never experienced this. But all in all people didn't seem dead set against higher buildings, and when they were, it was generally for specific reasons that could probably be resolved through further design guidelines.

As for Quinpool, height would be capped at about 8 storeys (which some felt was too high). There was a push for a simpler two-tiered (podium + "tower") rather than the "pyramid" (podium + step back + step back + step back + step back) style that seems to be the default for most of these study areas. Andy Fillmore also mentioned that the east end of Quinpool might also accommodate high rises (since there are several already) but as far as I know this is being left until the next session.

I have mixed feelings about the Quinpool approach. It would be nice if more of the buildings could be preserved and simply have additions built on top, but this likely wouldn't be possible with the step back requirements. It's hard to tell what percentage of the study area is expected to be redeveloped, but I feel that redesigning Quinpool as a mid rise corridor would change the character of the neighbourhood a lot more than keeping it a low rise corridor with the occasional high-rise, since many more buildings would potentially need to be replaced.

Last edited by Hali87; Apr 11, 2012 at 5:06 AM.
Reply With Quote