Courtyard 33 | 21.64m | 6s | RNDSQR | 5468796 Architecture

What's the consensus?

  • Great

    Votes: 9 16.7%

  • Good

    Votes: 21 38.9%

  • Okay

    Votes: 14 25.9%

  • Not Great

    Votes: 3 5.6%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 7 13.0%
  • Total voters
    54
As was posted earlier in this thread, for anyone opposed or in support, please review the Vision Brief.

A few of my thoughts:

1) 6 stories makes all the sense in the world along main streets. I personally think this "sun" argument is ridiculous as light diffuses. The sun is not a flashlight in a dark room. When the sun is shining brightly, the blinds are always closed anyway on almost all streets. But no more on that, I don't want to derail this discussion.
2) Parking / parking issues have been well addressed. Should be adequately parked.
3) Globe article said $20 million project for 70 units. This is $285k / unit before pulling out the retail. If these numbers are right, what a great example of excellent design & value.
4) Changes to ARP... I don't find that cities are very good at communicating what these documents are for and it may actually create more problems than it fixes. Great developers look to what is missing in the area, what they see around the globe, and bring that intersection to the site. The ARP is really a political ra-ra document that is generally guided by important local neighbourhood stakeholders who are against change or if change is okay than only in the tiniest of increments. Not a lot of developers get involved with the ARP because it is mostly a waste of time... sorry to the planners out there, I'm not saying you are wasting your time at all. I know lots of great planners.
5) I share the expressed concerns with the elevated courtyard - a part of me loves it but I'm not sure how to drive activity and walk-through activity / interest there, if it is meant to be a neighbourhood amenity. Is the retail also inward-facing or have doors / restaurant seating in the courtyard?

Overall, excellent. Build it!
 
Sun is one of Calgary’s biggest assets, as my understanding is that Calgary receives more sunshine than any other major city in Canada. With the possible exception of hot summer days, of which Calgary tends to have relatively few, sunlight is welcomed into our homes to wake us in the morning (ever seen anyone on TV happily waking up in anything other than a sun-filled bedroom?) and fill our homes with natural light. Even when blinds are drawn for privacy or to reduce glare, sun hitting the blinds can cause them to glow, bringing diffused light into our homes. This is particularly important for infills, which tend to be tall, skinny, deep, close together and in many cases attached on at least one side, which together make it difficult for natural light to penetrate into the home’s central areas. The main floor windows of a north/south oriented infill located on the north side of a 6-storey building would potentially receive no sunlight for approximately 4 months each year, from late October to late February. That sounds pretty depressing to me!
 
Sunlight is an asset, that's why a courtyard in a development like this is a great amenity, it allows more light to get to the suites. In all honesty though, the days you list as lacking sunlight are the darkest days of the year, so it will be full night time during the hours most people are home, so it's kind of a moot point.
 
Mountain Man said:
Sunlight is an asset, that's why a courtyard in a development like this is a great amenity, it allows more light to get to the suites. In all honesty though, the days you list as lacking sunlight are the darkest days of the year, so it will be full night time during the hours most people are home, so it's kind of a moot point.
Click to expand...
The courtyard would have much better potential of being a great amenity if it was open to the south, instead of closed-in on all 4 sides (but for the front and rear staircases), as then both the courtyard and the suites that face onto it would benefit from year-round access to sunlight. For the homes to the north, it is one thing to go Monday to Friday without the benefit of sunlight during those months that it is dark both on the way to work and on the way home, but to also be expected to get through all of those months without the benefit of sunlight on the weekends, or to be forced to leave your home to experience sunlight, is a bit much to ask.
 
Opening it to the south would reduce street frontage for the retail units there, I think adding to the vibrancy of the street is more important (depends on who leases the space of course) than allowing for more sunlight when nobody is home to enjoy it. Any north facing window (this includes a single family house) in any inner city neighbourhood will be dark, that's just a reality of living in the city. If the windows are big enough, then you will get light, just not direct sunlight. Direct sunlight cannot be expected in every residential unit all year long, that's just not realistic in a city.
 
Mountain Man said:
Opening it to the south would reduce street frontage for the retail units there, I think adding to the vibrancy of the street is more important (depends on who leases the space of course) than allowing for more sunlight when nobody is home to enjoy it. Any north facing window (this includes a single family house) in any inner city neighbourhood will be dark, that's just a reality of living in the city. If the windows are big enough, then you will get light, just not direct sunlight. Direct sunlight cannot be expected in every residential unit all year long, that's just not realistic in a city.
Click to expand...
The courtyard is up on the 2nd level, so opening it up to the south would only require relocation of the elevators and removal of the residential units on the 2nd and higher levels of the development's south facade -- it would have no impact on the street frontage for the ground level retail units, which are below the courtyard, or on the courtyard frontage of the 2nd level retail units, which are on the east and west sides of the courtyard. We understand that it is unrealistic for homes backing onto the Marda Loop business district to expect to continue to receive sunlight in their south-facing windows throughout the winter months -- based on SketchUp shadow studies the 14m height limit that applies to the subject parcels under their current M-C1 zoning would prevent sun from reaching their MF south-facing windows for approximately 9 weeks -- the higher 16m height limit provided for in the recently enacted Marda Loop ARP would extend that sunless period to approximately 11 weeks -- the even higher 22m proposed height limit under the zoning requested by Courtyard33 would extend that sunless period to approximately 22 weeks.
 
Removing units would affect the priftibality of the developer and could make this project unfeasible (nobody will build something if they can't make money on it). As I said though, less sunlight in an inner city development is just part of the lifestyle of inner city living. I had an apartment on the north side of a building with no direct sunlight and I didn't whither and die, I just spent more time outside. My current unit is higher up in a building and faces west, and while I love having direct sunlight in the summer, its a bit much to not be able to clearly see my TV until after 11 pm. While sunlight is an asset for sure, I don't think it's a hill to die on if it isn't plentiful every day of the year.
 
DougR said:
The courtyard is up on the 2nd level, so opening it up to the south would only require relocation of the elevators and removal of the residential units on the 2nd and higher levels of the development's south facade -- it would have no impact on the street frontage for the ground level retail units, which are below the courtyard, or on the courtyard frontage of the 2nd level retail units, which are on the east and west sides of the courtyard. We understand that it is unrealistic for homes backing onto the Marda Loop business district to expect to continue to receive sunlight in their south-facing windows throughout the winter months -- based on SketchUp shadow studies the 14m height limit that applies to the subject parcels under their current M-C1 zoning would prevent sun from reaching their MF south-facing windows for approximately 9 weeks -- the higher 16m height limit provided for in the recently enacted Marda Loop ARP would extend that sunless period to approximately 11 weeks -- the even higher 22m proposed height limit under the zoning requested by Courtyard33 would extend that sunless period to approximately 22 weeks.
Click to expand...
When they say they will be in the shade for 22 weeks with the given 22m height, do they mean in shade all day, or shade or at some portion of the day?
 
Mountain Man said:
Removing units would affect the priftibality of the developer and could make this project unfeasible (nobody will build something if they can't make money on it). As I said though, less sunlight in an inner city development is just part of the lifestyle of inner city living. I had an apartment on the north side of a building with no direct sunlight and I didn't whither and die, I just spent more time outside. My current unit is higher up in a building and faces west, and while I love having direct sunlight in the summer, its a bit much to not be able to clearly see my TV until after 11 pm. While sunlight is an asset for sure, I don't think it's a hill to die on if it isn't plentiful every day of the year.
Click to expand...
I am pretty confident that the Courtyard33 project would still be economically feasible with less units, whether they are sacrificed to open up the courtyard to the south and/or to reduce the development's height to a more ARP-compliant height. After all, the 3-storey Garrison Corner development on 34 AV SW and the 4-storey 2.5FAR Odeon development on 33 AV SW were recently constructed, and construction is currently underway on the 4-storey 2.0FAR Infinity project on 34 AV SW and the 4ish-storey 2.6FAR ML33 project on 33 AV SW, which would suggest that developments in this area don't need to be 6-storeys with 4.0FARs in order to be profitable.
 
Cowtown said:
When they say they will be in the shade for 22 weeks with the given 22m height, do they mean in shade all day, or shade or at some portion of the day?
Click to expand...
It means that during that 22 week period the shadow line of a 22m tall building would remain at or above the top of the homes' MF south-facing windows even at mid-day, when the sun is at its highest point. The only possibility of receiving sun during that period would be if a home is close enough to the side of the building such that it would have the opportunity to receive sunlight either before the sun disappears behind the east side of the building, or after the sun emerges from behind the west side of the building, which assumes that another similar height building is not built on that side. See image, which shows at October 12 the shadow of a 22m tall building at mid-day would remain at the top of the homes' MF south-facing windows.
 

Attachments

  • 22mShadow.pdf
    587.4 KB · Views: 247
You coulde be right, they might not have to do it for the building to work, but with a different design like this, you would be surprised how quickly the costs rise.

So basically the building height is your main concern? The lack of sunlight is an issue for the purchasers, and I have no doubt they will be fine with what they get.
 
Last edited:
DougR said:
I am pretty confident that the Courtyard33 project would still be economically feasible with less units, whether they are sacrificed to open up the courtyard to the south and/or to reduce the development's height to a more ARP-compliant height. After all, the 3-storey Garrison Corner development on 34 AV SW and the 4-storey 2.5FAR Odeon development on 33 AV SW were recently constructed, and construction is currently underway on the 4-storey 2.0FAR Infinity project on 34 AV SW and the 4ish-storey 2.6FAR ML33 project on 33 AV SW, which would suggest that developments in this area don't need to be 6-storeys with 4.0FARs in order to be profitable.
Click to expand...

But none of those developments offer any of the public amenities or design quality that we see with Courtyard 33. I agree that sun is important, but it is one of many considerations. I don't agree with maintaining a blanket cap on the heights of buildings for the sake of ensuring that a couple single family homes have full sunlight on every single floor for a minimum of 40 weeks a year or whatever. We should be willing to make trade-offs. As Mountain Man says, as the neighborhood transitions for suburban to urban, the public realm will play an increasingly important role in people's daily lives, so ensuring a vibrant public realm will be more important than ensuring absolute protection over everyone's private property.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top