Anyone who has been living in Calgary for a long period of time has no doubt witnessed our amazing growth. Nowhere is this truer than in our suburbs. Since the postwar era, suburbia has dominated city development all over North America, a trend that continues on strong today. But since then, we have also seen much more evidence of the problems of suburbia — longer commutes, less places within walking distance, increased car dependence, and enormous resource usage with coinciding servicing costs.

In an attempt to correct these problems, cities have adopted principles such as smart growth, which attempt to bring about sustainable, integrated communities that are easier to service and have a greater sense of place. One of the ways that Calgary responded was to lift our suburban density cap, which forced developers to build nothing but low-density single family homes. Since this cap was lifted, Calgary’s suburbs have seriously bulked up. Gone are the days of communities which never rose above 8 units per acre, nowadays we are putting up communities of around 12 units per acre!

While this may sound good to someone who is trying to halt the spread of sprawl, we have to be careful that we are actually building liveable, safe communities. We have a lot more apartments in our suburbs now, and the homes are smaller and more tightly packed, but is this necessarily the best way to build? Afterall, no homeowner wants their woodframe house to go up in flames, and everyone around them as well! Another problem is that communities are still planned to have excessive numbers of “pods” and cul-de-sacs, which limit the ability to service with transit as well as to simply navigate. Moreover, very few new communities contain more than a basic set of retail including a local convenience store and gas station (if you are lucky, you might have a grocery store nearby as well). Because of this lack of mixed uses, residents still must commute large distances to get to work, school, or elsewhere.

All in all, the changes that have been made since the density cap was lifted have been positive. People are living closer together, reducing the cost of services and resources. But in order to get the kind of communities that we, as a city, are aiming for, Calgarians must remain vigilant of the changes that are taking place.

With a recent string of incidents near transit facilities, it is understandable that there is such a strong demand for greater security measures. Already, the City of Calgary has initiated a safety review that will examine the weaknesses of the system, aiming for increased recruitment for protective services, better lighting, and new surveillance cameras. Calgary Transit has also opened its arms to a safety audit, proclaiming that it has the same concerns for its passengers.

These methods are costly and it is questionable as to how much they will actually increase transit security. They follow, for the most part, from the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design approach, a system used by the Calgary Police Services but whose effectiveness is really up in the air. Under this approach, obstacles are removed, lighting is improved, and signs are erected which warn pedestrians that they are under supervision. But stronger lighting creates darker shadows to hide in, and with the removal of all obstacles, to their logical extent, we end up with a rather barren, inhospitable area.

There is another method for improving transit safety, however, and one that is less resource intensive. This is through the simple addition of more people. What Calgary needs to do, is to build Transit Oriented Developments that turn stations into destinations, thus increasing the flow of persons back and forth along the system. People living, working, and entertaining themselves near transit stations would help suppress activities which step outside social boundaries, such as vandalism, assault, or theft. Such a concept is very similar to Jane Jacobs’ famous “eyes on the street” theory, whereby neighbours look out for one another.

What should make this approach even more attractive is that it would cost taxpayers little to implement. Sure, many of the open surface lots would have to be condensed into multi-storey parkades, but levies from new developments combined with greater returns from transit fares would help to recoup the cost as well as pay for further upgrades in transit security. This is, of course, not to say that the improvements proposed thus far have little benefit. Indeed, they should be part of a larger strategy. But if we really intend to have a safe and secure transit system, we must look beyond short term fixes and come up with a more effective  and more responsible strategy that works for the long term as well.

An article in the latest issue of Canadian Architect by our very own Josh White!

Canadian Architect, November 2007
Insites

The ongoing Calgary building boom is destroying much of that city’s heritage. Unfortunately, many new projects are attempting to replicate historic buildings through an invented historicism.

TEXT Josh White

As Canadian cities rapidly intensify their historic urban cores, questions about the fit of new buildings in historic districts become increasingly relevant. Historicist buildings that seek to mimic old styles in order to “fit” into their surroundings highlight whether redeveloped urban neighbourhoods are becoming authentic expressions of our time. Nowhere is this issue more apparent than in Calgary’s booming Beltline district, where several new developments have sparked heated debate about the merit of historicist design.

Beltline is an eclectic high-density mixed-use neighbourhood shaped by development from its 11-decade history. It stretches immediately south of the central business district, separated by the Canadian Pacific Railway line that originally helped Calgary emerge from the surrounding prairie. In the early 20th century, warehouses lined the tracks and served as the industrial heart of the city. Like many cities, in recent decades several of these red masonry warehouses have either disappeared or been converted into trendy residential lofts and office space. Nevertheless, the area right beside the tracks has been branded the “warehouse district” though the industrial nature of the area is a relic.

In the last several decades, outdated development policy and neglect led to decline, particularly around the warehouse district. However, over five years ago an energized group of community members came together, initiated a total overhaul of planning policy, and amalgamated three smaller neighbourhoods into one large district now known as the Beltline. This opened the floodgates to development and the results have been nothing short of astonishing. With a current population of about 17,000, well over 12,000 residential units are either currently under construction or are proposed. Beltline’s population is expected to double in the next decade.

Unlike Calgary’s previous boom in the late 1970s and early ’80s, where many architectural jewels were lost to demolition, the preservation of historic structures is not at issue this time. The community has crafted innovative policies, including transfers of development rights and other measures, to ensure that historic resources remain intact. It is not a situation of development or heritage, but one of development and heritage. The pressing question has become, “How can we fit the new with the old?”

The same policy documents that have attracted development and preserved heritage are somewhat contradictory on how new buildings should respond to historic contexts. While the community pushed for language encouraging buildings to be “of their time,” the City endorsed policies specific to the warehouse district calling for the use of “brick and masonry, in a colour palette that is representative of the warehouse era.”

The first test of this policy was the Arriva, a three-tower condominium project in the midst of the warehouse district and on the same block as an early-20th-century sandstone school building. The towers are striking aqua green, the first rising 35 storeys. Architect Peter Burgener of BKDI Architects, along with the community’s planning committee, pushed for a contemporary commercial podium to match the modern lines and materials of the tower above, but ran into a brick wall during negotiations with City administration. Burgener claims they were forced to conform to a brick and sandstone material palette to match the warehouse surroundings. The result is a base podium that has no relation to the modern tower above and is itself deception.

In a more extreme example, the Mount Royal Block on Calgary’s trendy 17th Avenue caused often impassioned debate about historicism and the potential theming of the city. At the very heart of 17th Avenue, the Mount Royal Block was a 1911 Edwardian-style commercial building. Years of neglect and a crumbling foundation, however, necessitated the replacement of the structure.

The first proposal, a 20-storey ultra-contemporary tower, was resolutely rejected by the upscale Mount Royal community just south of 17th Avenue. It was said to be out of character and scale. The developer came back with a two-storey contemporary box detailed with glass and brick. This created a great deal of outrage, especially by those who wanted to recreate the architectural character of the 1911 building being demolished.

The developer responded to this strong opposition–which included an online petition–by contracting local architect Loren Simpson, well known for the restoration of historic buildings, to redesign the project. The result was a faux-Edwardian commercial building complete with red brick, copula and sculpted mock-sandstone cornices. The details of the building were “inspired” by the neighbouring 1912 Anderson Apartments, the historic Devenish Building, and Western Canada High School. The replacement of an Edwardian building with a thematic replica satisfied opponents.

Following the redesign, a clear divide emerged on either side of 17th Avenue, the border between the high-density, mixed-use and mixed-income Beltline district, and the tony John Olmsted-designed garden suburb of Mount Royal. Many in the heavily populated Beltline area were appalled by the historicist design. One Beltline resident likened the mock-historic building to stuffing your pet when it dies. The stance of Beltline was to seek a “heritage building of the future” with exemplary architecture representative of its time. The developer made it clear that they were catering to the desire of the Mount Royal community for heritage-inspired design rather than the cutting edge.

At the same time, several more high-rise residential towers were proposed with red brick “skirts” thrown around the base, despite the community association’s planning committee opposing the crude superficiality of the podium design.

Growing frustration mounted in response to the outbreak of “red brick syndrome” and prompted the community association to take action. Beltline Communities of Victoria and Connaught launched its first Beltline Urban Forum in May of 2007. The forum brought in leading experts on the fit of buildings to historic districts, and included Bruce Kuwabara of Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects (KPMB) and Robert Lemon, architect and chair of the Vancouver Heritage Foundation. The forum addressed the question, “Should new buildings look like old ones?”

A clear consensus on faux-historic design emerged: don’t build a warehouse-district theme park. Instead, a better response is to introduce compatible yet distinguishable buildings into historic contexts. This concept resonated with the community.

Lemon developed a list of the various aspects of fit criteria. That is, the various elements including local vernacular and style, built form, height, scale, outline, rhythm, pattern, fenestration, material and colour that need consideration when introducing a new structure into a heritage context. It was noted that in the Beltline, the tacking of brick on the podium level was prioritizing material and colour. According to Lemon, in most cases, material and colour are the least important aspects of fit.

Kuwabara cited several examples of his firm’s buildings that met most if not all aspects of fit, but remained distinct as contemporary. Most striking is KPMB’s “sugar cube” building in a historic district in Denver, which displays a distinctly modern vernacular while responding to its context through scale, rhythm, colour, datum lines and fenestration.

Lemon argued that a balance must be struck on the continuum between the compatible and distinguishable. In the case of buildings such as Mount Royal Block, no balance is achieved. Will the average person be able to tell what is real and what is fake in 20 years? The copycats themselves are not only dishonest and kitschy, but diminish the value of the authentic heritage resources. By creating a respectful contrast that reflects contemporary thinking in design, heritage buildings stand out as special.

Further, the predominance of heritage buildings in a district should have an influence on where a new building should fit on the continuum. In an area overwhelmed by buildings of a similar vernacular and scale, it is more important, according to Lemon, to pay attention to aspects of compatibility.

In Beltline’s warehouse district, this is certainly not the situation. Despite the district’s moniker, in reality, the majority of land is vacant or redevelopable. At build out, the balance of buildings will be new. According to Lemon, this makes a weak case for conforming strictly to the vernacular of remaining warehouses in the area.

Despite these few examples of historicism, much of what is going on in the neighbourhood is very encouraging. There are many examples of well-executed large-scale projects that will help transform the community into one of the most livable high-density urban communities in Canada. In Beltline, where practically every undeveloped parcel of land has been bought up for development, quality of the built form is paramount in ensuring this quality of life. Individual projects are thought of in relation to others and how they contribute to the whole, so that they become much more than simply the sum of their parts.

Policy demanding active pedestrian interfaces on all four sides of the building, human-scale elements at grade, floorplate size restrictions, and other urban design measures ensure a certain level of quality without being overly prescriptive. Seeking density, variety and quality are the primary principles. This has left the door wide open to innovation. In a young city with very few preconceived notions of the way things should be, urban communities like Beltline are fertile ground for innovation and new ideas.

The first Beltline Urban Forum successfully changed participants’ thoughts about historicism and the direction of architecture in Calgary. No longer is the City forcing developers to conform to the prescriptive policies of the past. Other older districts, such as Inglewood, are looking to the Beltline Urban Forum consensus to craft policy about the fit of new developments within their neighbourhoods.

The second Beltline Urban Forum held in September 2007 examined the uses of alleyways in the community, but looked for effective ways to change laneways from garbage pick-up zones into places where people can live affordably, shop, and rediscover some of the city’s forgotten spaces. All this makes Beltline and Calgary a place to watch in coming decades.

Other cities, faced with the temptation to employ shallow responses to revitalizing heritage districts, can learn from the mistakes made and the discussions occurring in Calgary. In order for a city to successfully redevelop an area while paying respect to its past, it is critical to create authentic 21st-century neighbourhoods that help shape their own character. It is important to remain true to the era in which the structures are being created while respectfully intermingling with the past. False podiums and faux-historic themed buildings do nothing but remove character from a place, the very character well-intentioned planning policies claim to protect.

Josh White is a community planner for Beltline Communities.

Beltline Communities is set for the second Beltline Urban Forum on September 20th, 2007.