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

[Mountain Man]

I've quoted Greg Morrow on this message board several times (he's really worth a follow on twitter). But I came across this recent tweet and thought it was relevant to the discussion:
View attachment 137866

It's really insane that after all the hoopla in this city about increasing density, reigning in sprawl, and all of the cranes that seem to fill the skyline in the inner city, we are still sprawling out of control. As Morrow points out, this is totally unsustainable and it will come back to bite us in the end. One of the factors at play is that any inner city development that increases density undergoes much deeper scrutiny than anything built on the fringes of the city.

So, as we discuss the height of the building, we need to keep in mind that density (in addition to sunlight, vibrancy, and design quality) is one of the most important factors at stake. From what I understand, despite all of the infilling and development, Marda Loop has not even regained the population it had in the 1960s (despite the fact that the city's population is 3-4 times as large).

Most people still feel that the best bang for their buck is in the suburbs, you can get a bigger, newer house for the same price as a smaller inner city home. Most people fail to take ammenities and commuting time / cost into account when making these decisions. Personally I would take a character neighbourhood like Sunnyside or Marda Loop over a banal new area like Cranston any day, but I live downtown and am perfectly happy in my 800sqft unit lol.

It is an interesting design that proposes a gamble -- a much more externally massive structure than contemplated in the new ARP in exchange for an internal courtyard and grand staircase that may or may not "work" as public gathering spaces. My sense is that the community would like the "stakes" to be a bit lower (lop off at least 1 storey?) and the "odds" to be a bit better (better visual sightlines and sunlight penetration into the courtyard area?), before being subjected to the "bet". We haven't seen any sign to this point that the applicant is willing to consider making substantive changes, or that City Council or City Administration will insist on substantive changes, but who knows, maybe one or more of those parties will pleasantly surprise us.

The developer does post on here, and I know that some Councillors and city managers do review SSP, so I assume they are browsing here now that SSP is a dumpster fire. So there is a very good chance your concerns are being noted...

 

[DougR]

I've quoted Greg Morrow on this message board several times (he's really worth a follow on twitter). But I came across this recent tweet and thought it was relevant to the discussion:
View attachment 137866

It's really insane that after all the hoopla in this city about increasing density, reigning in sprawl, and all of the cranes that seem to fill the skyline in the inner city, we are still sprawling out of control. As Morrow points out, this is totally unsustainable and it will come back to bite us in the end. One of the factors at play is that any inner city development that increases density undergoes much deeper scrutiny than anything built on the fringes of the city.

So, as we discuss the height of the building, we need to keep in mind that density (in addition to sunlight, vibrancy, and design quality) is one of the most important factors at stake. From what I understand, despite all of the infilling and development, Marda Loop has not even regained the population it had in the 1960s (despite the fact that the city's population is 3-4 times as large).

RKH's population peaked in 1968 at just over 5,000 and then slowly declined over the subsequent 20 years (as is typical for fully built-out residential communities, as children grow up and move out of their parents' homes), bottoming out in the late 1980s at around 3,700. Since then, the population of RKH has rebounded by about 30% to just under 5,000, primarily due to R-C2 infill redevelopment and densification. The bulk of that population increase, 23%, has taken place since the MDP was created back in 2008. Over that same 9-year period the City of Calgary's population increased by 20%, so even if you use the MDP's more aggressive 2060 target of established communities absorbing 50% of the city's overall population growth, over the last 9 years RKH's population has been absorbing population growth at more than twice the rate called for under the MDP, despite the fact that most of RKH is governed by an ARP that dates back to 1986 and has not been updated since then. A thoughtful update of the Richmond ARP would create even more opportunities for densification and increased diversification of housing options. The Marda Loop ARP, which governs the Marda Loop business district, was put in place 4 years ago and sets out an intensity target for the business district of 100 jobs & population per hectare, which target has already been surpassed by the new developments that have already taken place or are currently under construction. Given these results, why shouldn't the Marda Loop business district be encouraged to continue redeveloping and intensifying in accordance with its relatively new ARP?

 

[Silence&Motion]

Given these results, why shouldn't the Marda Loop business district be encouraged to continue redeveloping and intensifying in accordance with its relatively new ARP?

Because Marda Loop and the rest of the inner city have to dig themselves out of a density deficit that has been created over the last 50 years. If Calgary has any hopes of meeting the 50/50 goal (which is too modest IMHO), the inner city has to do better than just growing proportionally with the city as a whole. Altadore's density is lower than Scarborough's for goodness sake!

 

[Surrealplaces]

I suspect that most inner city communities had higher populations back in the day when everyone had 5 kids. I think the city also needs to take a hard look at the middle burbs, 50's and 60's communities that ring the inner city. Most of those neighborhoods have large lots with bungalows, but they also have artery roads that traverse multiple neighborhoods and there is an opportunity to create some good corridors.

It's really insane that after all the hoopla in this city about increasing density, reigning in sprawl, and all of the cranes that seem to fill the skyline in the inner city, we are still sprawling out of control. As Morrow points out, this is totally unsustainable and it will come back to bite us in the end. One of the factors at play is that any inner city development that increases density undergoes much deeper scrutiny than anything built on the fringes of the city.

So, as we discuss the height of the building, we need to keep in mind that density (in addition to sunlight, vibrancy, and design quality) is one of the most important factors at stake. From what I understand, despite all of the infilling and development, Marda Loop has not even regained the population it had in the 1960s (despite the fact that the city's population is 3-4 times as large).

 

[Mountain Man]

Wow, some people really don't like change! did Marda Loop become a much worse place to live when Treo was built?

 

[Mountain Man]

The NIMBY is strong with this one!

 

[maestro]

It make sense to build up 33rd with higher built forms and densities. It's unfortunate your house backs onto these properties. However, nothing would get built if we responded to everyone claiming the sun as their own. We aren't a museum piece. We're a fast growing city. Intensification of existing communities is extremely important. It also needs to be worthwhile to developers for this to work. I'm guessing but, the proforma on 4 storeys doesn't work otherwise they would build it as 4 storeys.

Who knows if your opinion actually reflects the greater community or that the developer hasn't engaged its concerns. As you say, you only have a facebook site and your backyard rants to go by.

 

[CBBarnett]

This mate is giving me a headache, everything he's spitting out is a perfect example of NIMBY. I wish my street had traffic and chaos, its just completely dead after 9pm, makes me feel unsafe when walking for a stroll after dark and even paranoid that my cars gonna get mugged again in the middle of the night. Sure could use that traffic over here. Anything that has the word density in it, I'm all for, this city needs more vibrancy! In my opinion if some people can't adjust to city living, particularly a constantly growing city like Calgary, they should just move to a neighbour city/town or a rural home outside of city limits. Their absence won't be missed.

I think many NIMBY situations could be avoided if the average person understood just what kind of density and pedestrian traffic you need to have a walkable place with everyday, pedestrian-oriented retail. That won't placate all NIMBYs, but may help resolve the internal inconsistency of those that struggle with a "having your cake and eating it too" problem around development.

 

[Habanero]

It make sense to build up 33rd with higher built forms and densities. It's unfortunate your house backs onto these properties. However, nothing would get built if we responded to everyone claiming the sun as their own. We aren't a museum piece. We're a fast growing city. Intensification of existing communities is extremely important. It also needs to be worthwhile to developers for this to work. I'm guessing but, the proforma on 4 storeys doesn't work otherwise they would build it as 4 storeys.

Who knows if your opinion actually reflects the greater community or that the developer hasn't engaged its concerns. As you say, you only have a facebook site and your backyard rants to go by.

That's just it. I understand the need for sunlight and shadowing laws, etc.. but at some point there has to be a trade off. Retail corridors like 33rd ave are the types of streets that multistory buildings are suited for, it's what makes sense and what helps cities become better.

 

[AccUnit]

Yeah it's gonna suck living in front of a 6 story building, but hey this is life in a real city. I lived in a neighbourhood that is developing on overdrive (Killarney), wasn't keen on the changes, so I sold my house and bought somewhere different. Things change and you can't expect new developments on 33rd to stay 4 stories and below, just isn't going to happen as the city grows. Single family homes are replaced by infills and townhomes and mainstreets get more dense, so goes. At least this project is awesome I mean you could be behind something terrible.

 

[Mountain Man]

The people behind it definitely get some sympathy, going from a house to a 6 storey building across the alley is not insignificant. If I owned that property I would be actively trying to sell it to a developer as there is obviously pressure to intensify the neighbourhood.

 

[haltcatchfire]

If people used their garages for parking instead of filling it with junk, having multiple cars and parking them on the street, no one would ever have to wait a few seconds for traffic to clear at the remaining 100 feet of their 40 minute commute.

 

[AccUnit]

Man you're getting heated. You're just not going to get huge sympathy from this crowd. Projects like this invoke a semi from most people on here, busy steets and neighborhoods in the inner city are kind of the point. With that comes dealing with change as places evolve. You're using the arp as a crutch, traffic is already busy and one more building isn't changing things. They said the same thing in Kensington before their boom and you don't really notice the traffic change.
Bottom line is that you're pissed things will change for you.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I live in Marda Loop and didn't own a car until a few months ago. I still don't use it day to day. I do all of my daily shopping on foot. I take a bus or bike to work. Marda Loop is definitely not a car dependent neighborhood and we shouldn't artificially stunt population growth in the neighborhood for the sake of catering to those people who still insist on putting their cars ahead of all other priorities. We really shouldn't even devote resources to traffic studies. Traffic studies are just part of the whole planning regime that results in cars getting prioritized over every other urban design consideration.

Really the only way to get people to stop driving is to make driving intolerable while adding attractive alternatives. You need to have both. If we continue to try to make everyone's car commute as pleasant as possible (by limiting density or expanding road capacity, for example), they will never choose another option no matter how much transit or bike lanes are available.

(This is not to suggest that I think this development in particular will have much an impact on traffic in the area. I do not.)

 

[haltcatchfire]

I live along this alley (on the Memorial Drive side) and walk through it daily. Along with all of the single family, it’s lined with 15 multi-family buildings and a string of commercial including a hotel at the east end. There’s rarely ever any significant traffic.

No alleys were turned into roadways in Kensington, but vehicle access for the two condo complexes that were built on Kensington Close is in the alleyway, and concerns were the alleyway would be flooded with traffic, - traffic which never materialized. I think people make traffic a bigger concern than it really is.