JerrySeinfeld Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) There are 32 under construction in Calgary right now.at this minute. let's see what Vancouver has.. http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/cs/?id=100992 75. http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/cs/?id=100992 per capita Calgary IS building more.. Think before you type. Vancouver city only has a population of about 600K. To get a true picture you'd have to search metro calgary and metro vancouver... Besides, the link you sent me showed me that 21 buildings are under construction in calgary and that 56 are under construction in vancouver - that means Vancouver is higher per capital whther you use the proper population (600K) or the metro (2.2 Million). Calgary "high rises" aren't quite the same, either. 10-12 of those under construction are probably 8 stories somewhere out in the blurbs. This is a dumb argument anyway. We all know Calgary doesn't even come close to Vancouver in any capacity - other than bragging (about what we're not sure). Q: How do you know who the Calgarian is at a conference? A: He'll tell you aaaaallllllll about it. Frankly - out on the coast we don't want anyone else moving here. Our house prices are the highest in the country and it's getting too crowded - would prefer if it was just our little secret while everyone moves to the pastures of Calgary to sell valves. P.s. - what's with the red vests and white cowboy hats? isn't it time ya lost those? 1988 was a loooooooong time ago. Edited January 17, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Or at a high end restaurant the waiter will always recomend Yellow Label haha It's funny because it's true. But as for Vancouver's high rise construction, I'm sure it's great that all those offshore business types like to have an investment property handy for when they send their kids over for a couple of semesters of ESL, but I'd hardly call it a measure of success. Naw. Edmonton has to step it up - and get that new building before calgary does.It's not multi-billion. It's $300 million, of which Katz will pony up $100 million. Maybe $100 million from corporates and $100 million from 3 levels of gov? Who knows...but it WILL get done. Thee is the will and the money. Katz could do it himself if it came down to it. Glad to see a dyed-in-the-wool conservative calling for tax dollars to pay for a hockey arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 But as for Vancouver's high rise construction, I'm sure it's great that all those offshore business types like to have an investment property handy for when they send their kids over for a couple of semesters of ESL, but I'd hardly call it a measure of success. It's more than that, though. For those looking to buy a home centrally (not out in the sticks), for many young home buyers a single family rotten shack for $1,500,000 in Vancouver proper just won't do it - so the next most reasonble solution is a condo downtown - then all of a sudden $700,000 for a well finished two bedroom two bath doesn't seem so unreasonable. Glad to see a dyed-in-the-wool conservative calling for tax dollars to pay for a hockey arena. Yes - a la US cities lol. I believe every city with any sense of pride should have an awesome building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Yes - a la US cities lol. Doesn't make you less of a hypocrite. I believe every city with any sense of pride should have an awesome building. And is there a reason the private sector can't build it themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 There are 32 under construction in Calgary right now.at this minute. let's see what Vancouver has.. 75. per capita Calgary IS building more.. Hey, you westerners could move to Toronto. If that is a measure of success,( buildings under construction), there are 145 being built right now. Tallest is Trump Tower at 57 floors. But I doubt it. The hate........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) Naw. Edmonton has to step it up - and get that new building before calgary does.It's not multi-billion. It's $300 million, of which Katz will pony up $100 million. Maybe $100 million from corporates and $100 million from 3 levels of gov? Who knows...but it WILL get done. Thee is the will and the money. Katz could do it himself if it came down to it. You know, you might be right. It might not be as expensive as I thought. I'll have to check the EJ news article indexes. I think a multi-use facility rather than a stand alone hockey arena is the plan though, and I think the conservative estimate is over 1 billion for that. It might be cheaper just to build a tower like Calgary has, only taller. It's not like the Oilers will ever win the Stanley Cup again. The series against Carolina was their swan song. Edited January 18, 2008 by james rahn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) Think before you type.Vancouver city only has a population of about 600K. To get a true picture you'd have to search metro calgary and metro vancouver... Besides, the link you sent me showed me that 21 buildings are under construction in calgary and that 56 are under construction in vancouver - that means Vancouver is higher per capital whther you use the proper population (600K) or the metro (2.2 Million). Calgary "high rises" aren't quite the same, either. 10-12 of those under construction are probably 8 stories somewhere out in the blurbs. This is a dumb argument anyway. We all know Calgary doesn't even come close to Vancouver in any capacity - other than bragging (about what we're not sure). Q: How do you know who the Calgarian is at a conference? A: He'll tell you aaaaallllllll about it. Frankly - out on the coast we don't want anyone else moving here. Our house prices are the highest in the country and it's getting too crowded - would prefer if it was just our little secret while everyone moves to the pastures of Calgary to sell valves. P.s. - what's with the red vests and white cowboy hats? isn't it time ya lost those? 1988 was a loooooooong time ago. Obviosuly I was speaking about Metro population. Where a municipal boundry is, is of no importance when you are talking about 'Calgary' or 'Vancouver'. The link I sent you had the numbers I posted. Not 21. And if you DO take into account METRO population than Calgary does have more building construction going on per-capita. ie: Vancouver has 2.5 times the population but not 2.5 times the high rise construction. Say what you want about Calgary, but to argue it is not booming is a pretty dumb argument to make. Also, i don't live in Calgary any longer. As well, the Encana building in Calgary will be taller than anything Vancouver has. Facts Jerry - just the facts. Edited January 18, 2008 by White Doors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 You know, you might be right. It might not be as expensive as I thought. I'll have to check the EJ news article indexes. I think a multi-use facility rather than a stand alone hockey arena is the plan though, and I think the conservative estimate is over 1 billion for that. It might be cheaper just to build a tower like Calgary has, only taller. It's not like the Oilers will ever win the Stanley Cup again. The series against Carolina was their swan song. Dude, why the hangup about the tower? The tower is ugly. It constantly reminds everyone of 1970's decor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) Edmonton and Calgary? Boring debate: Pretty much the same boing cold dumpy prarie towns. Edmonton v. Vancouver? Now this is a debate I could sink my teeth into for hours....let the games begin! Thing is, Vancouver, along with T.O. and Montreal, is simply on a different level which makes any comparison with second-tier cities like Calgary and Edmonton inherently unfair. There's no point to such a comparison. Now, the fact that Calgarians think they have a top-tier city is a unending source of amusement. FWIW, I liked Edmonton best when it was a unabashedly blue collar town with a vibrant creative class. The boom changed all that. Rising prices have been driving all the (for want of a better term) cool people away, while the sudden influx of nouveau riche douchebags turned the ever-present angst about Edmonton's status on the national and international stage into a civic obsession: in short, it started to become more like Calgary. That's why I split. Edited January 18, 2008 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Dude, why the hangup about the tower? The tower is ugly. It constantly reminds everyone of 1970's decor. "Cause it's cheaper than a new stadium and I really miss the 70's. Can't help it, I'm getting old I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) "Cause it's cheaper than a new stadium and I really miss the 70's. Can't help it, I'm getting old I guess. The 70's had cool cars, bad architecture, pants & carpet. And at least the stadium serves a purpose. The tower? not so much. Edited January 18, 2008 by White Doors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 The 70's had cool cars, bad architecture, pants & carpet.And at least the stadium serves a purpose. The tower? not so much. What purpose is that? So the Oilers have a nicer stadium to not win the Stanley Cup in? At least with a tower we could go up to the top and think, Gee, maybe losing the Stanley Cup isn't so bad, we still have all this wonderful 70's architcture across the city to look at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 They got a tower and 24 hour side walks? Holy When does the Stage Coach leave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 It's not the size of the tower, it's how you use it. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 It's not the size of the tower, it's how you use it.What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 I don't know what your definition of "massive influx" is - but please tell me how many residential towers in excess of 20 floors have been built in downtown Edmonton in the last 5 years. What is it? 2? 4? 6? I would guess none, though there are half a dozen swankt ones happenign that are a bit shorter. The amazing shift in downtown - I guess you live in suburbia, or you could not have failed to notice what has happened - has taken a different route. The towers are shorter than 20 floors, but that isn't where the action has been. Several buildings have been retrofitted from Class C office space into residential, a couple into seniors residential. Many. mnay , many new lowrises have gone up on the lovely tree lined streets of Grandin and Oliver. An equally large number of rental lowrises built in the 60s and seventies have been converted from rentals to condos, a source of much controversy and a contributor to skyrocketing rents. Finally, perhaps twenty heritage buildings have been converted to loft style housing, and perhaps half that converted to comercial condos. The area around Grant MacEawan is booming, and now is spreading north from there. Alberta Avenue is undergoing a transformation from the toughest part of town to yuppieland. It has already happened in Queen mary Park and all the river valley communities. Sorry, but the downtowen area transformation is inarguable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Sorry, but the downtowen area transformation is inarguable. I agree, but there's still the issue of consistency. Compare downtown with unbridled urban sprawl of the area around South Edmonton Common and the west end. Besides, the problem with revitalizing downtown is the blasted parking rates! GO OIL KINGS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) Obviosuly I was speaking about Metro population. Where a municipal boundry is, is of no importance when you are talking about 'Calgary' or 'Vancouver'.The link I sent you had the numbers I posted. Not 21. And if you DO take into account METRO population than Calgary does have more building construction going on per-capita. ie: Vancouver has 2.5 times the population but not 2.5 times the high rise construction. Say what you want about Calgary, but to argue it is not booming is a pretty dumb argument to make. Also, i don't live in Calgary any longer. As well, the Encana building in Calgary will be taller than anything Vancouver has. Facts Jerry - just the facts. Not true - encana will be 59 stories. The current height of the (not finished) Shangri-La is about 61 stories and I believe it will be 66 when complete. Just the facts Edited January 22, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) Thing is, Vancouver, along with T.O. and Montreal, is simply on a different level which makes any comparison with second-tier cities like Calgary and Edmonton inherently unfair. There's no point to such a comparison. Now, the fact that Calgarians think they have a top-tier city is a unending source of amusement.FWIW, I liked Edmonton best when it was a unabashedly blue collar town with a vibrant creative class. The boom changed all that. Rising prices have been driving all the (for want of a better term) cool people away, while the sudden influx of nouveau riche douchebags turned the ever-present angst about Edmonton's status on the national and international stage into a civic obsession: in short, it started to become more like Calgary. That's why I split. True. I used to have a saying: how do you know you're in a first class, world class city? People who live there have stopped trying to convince you their city is world class / first class. You never hear New Yorkers at conferences or vacation spots bragging about how "happening" New York is these days. You never hear Londoners going on ad nauseum about sky high real estate prices in Notting Hill or King's Road. You don't hear people from Hong Kong talk about how "busy things are". Or San Fran people bragging about their new baseball stadium. By that measure Calgary and Toronto are still in the "trying" category Edited January 22, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) You never hear Londoners going on ad nauseum about sky high real estate prices in Notting Hill or King's Road. ... Say again? I hear all too often.... Edited January 22, 2008 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 True. I used to have a saying: how do you know you're in a first class, world class city? People who live there have stopped trying to convince you their city is world class / first class.You never hear New Yorkers at conferences or vacation spots bragging about how "happening" New York is these days. You never hear Londoners going on ad nauseum about sky high real estate prices in Notting Hill or King's Road. You don't hear people from Hong Kong talk about how "busy things are". Or San Fran people bragging about their new baseball stadium. By that measure Calgary and Toronto are still in the "trying" category I disagree. I think that "grass is greener" syndrome exists everywhere. Calgary wants to be Toronto, Toronto wants to be New York, New York wants to be London... Before I moved to Vancouver last sumer, my friends and I complained endlessly about how dull Edmonton is, how shitty the transit system is, how everybody cool moves away etc. Imagine my surprise, then, to come to Canada's Shangri-La on the Pacific and hear exactly the same complaints from the locals. Human nature, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I agree, but there's still the issue of consistency. Compare downtown with unbridled urban sprawl of the area around South Edmonton Common and the west end. Besides, the problem with revitalizing downtown is the blasted parking rates!GO OIL KINGS!!! South Edmonton Common? What does that have to do with the new energy of downtown. Parking rates have nothing to do with it. The challenge is to get folks living in and near the core, and that is well and truly underway. The catalyst for central Edmonton was Grant MacEwan college. The catalyst for the big boom west of 109th street was the demographics of baby boomers. The next boom, which will be in The Quarters(the trendy name for the long decrepit east of 97th area), will be driven by a new downtown arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) The next boom, which will be in The Quarters(the trendy name for the long decrepit east of 97th area), will be driven by a new downtown arena Except study after study shows arenas have no significant economic impact. They don't drive revitalization. Edited January 24, 2008 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Except study after study shows arenas have no significant economic impact. They don't drive revitalization. Well I don't know that but those beautiful new ballparks in American cities' downtowns are amazing. Safeco field in Seattle is superb. One of the reasons I left Edmonton was because the "development" takes forever. I used to tout the other side of the tracks on Whyte avenue as "the next big area" but it's moving at a bloody snails pace. Same goes for downtown. Sure - some new condos have been developed downtown, but I was in Edmonton a few weeks ago and downtown is still a dumpy wasteland from what I saw. Jasper avenue still looks like a sewer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 South Edmonton Common?What does that have to do with the new energy of downtown. Parking rates have nothing to do with it. The challenge is to get folks living in and near the core, and that is well and truly underway. The catalyst for central Edmonton was Grant MacEwan college. The catalyst for the big boom west of 109th street was the demographics of baby boomers. The next boom, which will be in The Quarters(the trendy name for the long decrepit east of 97th area), will be driven by a new downtown arena. At least at South Edmonton Common the parking is free, and it's close to IKEA where you can get really cheap swedish meatballs and drop the kids off in the play area for an hour. I'd take that over downtown anyday, but it's still a developmental eyesore. Add to the energy of downtown all the greenhouse gases produced by vehicles backed up on 109th street trying to get across the High Level Bridge. And don't go on about public transit; it's not much cheaper than the parking rates and the buses stink worse than the air in the downtown core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.