H2o | 169 M | 45 F | Abandoned - Page 3

mersar · #41 Posted **Apr 11, 2009, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

^agreed.

I am not down with that arch on the podium...I mean, what is the rationale for that?

The arch covers the point where the new building and the existing building meet, behind the arch was supposed to be an open lobby type area

CMD UW · #42 Posted **Apr 12, 2009, 3:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

The arch covers the point where the new building and the existing building meet, behind the arch was supposed to be an open lobby type area

Not liking it. This could have been achieved in another manner.

Vascilli · #43 Posted **Apr 12, 2009, 6:59 AM**

Trash the arch and I'm all for it.

blacktrojan3921 · #44 Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 4:11 AM**

Jeeze; this tower sure looks dead

Chadillaccc · #45 Posted **May 2, 2012, 1:19 PM**

Dead in the H2O?

... I mean... dead in the water?

nick.flood · #46 Posted **May 2, 2012, 3:57 PM**

There is a rumoured redesign in the works.

JBinCalgary · #47 Posted **May 2, 2012, 4:32 PM**

Lets hope so!

Calgarian · #48 Posted **May 2, 2012, 4:40 PM**

The design has been posted before, might even be on the front page of the main thread.

MichaelS · #49 Posted **May 3, 2012, 3:19 AM**

Now called the Duff building:
http://www.procura.ca/projects/calga...l/duff/#future

Chadillaccc · #50 Posted **May 3, 2012, 8:18 PM**

Cool so what's going on? Is it moving ahead?

Tropics · #51 Posted **May 3, 2012, 9:16 PM**

I would love this project to go ahead and pull some more height south of the tracks and get rid of the walled edge that 9th ave is atm. We need some buildings pushing 200m to start to be built south of the tracks.

TallBob · #52 Posted **May 4, 2012, 4:18 AM**

Ya! 2-3 175 - 200 meter buildings south of the "tracks" would be a great start.

Calgarian · #53 Posted **May 4, 2012, 7:42 PM**

I don't think I want to see buildings that tall in the beltline, lets keep some sun and leave the really tall buildings for the CBD.

TallBob · #54 Posted **May 4, 2012, 10:19 PM**

Calgarian: If there's a good mix of some low - rise stuff also in the Beltline, it would'nt prevent sunlight from the area. In the future, 10-20 years from now and the economy stays good, that's where the Higher density, high-rise developement will have to go. And ideally that's probably the most logical place for such developement. It's pretty much a concensus that most folks don't want the taller buildings close to the river or in Eau Claire.

DizzyEdge · #55 Posted **May 4, 2012, 10:39 PM**

I'm ok with the Beltline having downtown-like density (or partially) down to the north side of 12th ave.

Calgarian · #56 Posted **May 4, 2012, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm ok with the Beltline having downtown-like density (or partially) down to the north side of 12th ave.

If the building heights step down from the CBD to the Beltline to 12th that's fine, I just don't think a 200m tower is appropriate on say, 15th Ave.

rapid_business · #57 Posted **May 5, 2012, 12:57 AM**

What does the Beltline plan currently say for height? Is there a height limit, or just limited by FAR?

TallBob · #58 Posted **May 6, 2012, 5:45 AM**

rapid business: I think in most blocks north of 14th Ave. are pretty generous on FAR. I could be wrong. As far as I'm concerned, and this is strictly my opinion, there should'nt be height limits anywere DT, Beltline, ect. But that's me.

Halcyon · #59 Posted **May 29, 2012, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rapid_business

What does the Beltline plan currently say for height? Is there a height limit, or just limited by FAR?

No height regulations, but there are floor plate restrictions above certain heights.

So while you can build a tower as high as you want, you should be prevented from making it a monolith.

TallBob · #60 Posted **May 30, 2012, 4:51 AM**

Halcyon: That's OK! Wish something like that would have happened with some of the other buildings in the Core. Is this "Duff" proposal moving along in the proccess or what...