906 Office Conversion | 80.5m | 22s | Makan Properties | Zeidler

Better than the original, but the original was terrible, so not too hard to improve. Overall though, the extra residents will be good for the area and the 8th street corridor.
 
Interesting. CPC voted 5-4 to recommend refusal of this land use to Council. This is in line with Administrations recommendations. The reasons are outlined in the report:
1766099483834.png

We will see what happens when it goes to the public hearing.
 
LOC for office conversion project on the NW corner of 8 St and 12 Ave SW has been rejected by CPC on a tiebreaker 5-4 vote.

The proposal would have added 12 storeys onto the 9 storey building at the same floorplate size as the existing office building (about 1300m2), admin wanted them to do a floorplate half the size (about 650m2) to align with Beltline ARP requirements.

Admin offered a compromise of 900m2 floorplate, developer refused. Admin recommended refusal.

25% of the 314 units would have been Affordable Housing under MLIS.

Wouldn't be surprised if this one doesn't come back. A shame too, would have been a pretty innovative project.

zen_4N4gYKtaOf.png


EDIT: Thanks to whoever moved this into the right thread! I wasn't aware it had a DP in already. Shucks.
 
Last edited:
The points outlined are somewhat valid, but as always the ARP means nothing. Administration will follow the ARP, but the same development might still work outside of the ARP.
My concern is how close it is to the neighboring building. If they can rectify that, then I say build it.
 
Requesting a 1300m2 floor plate is ridiculous and will set a dangerous precedent if approved.
 
Mountain Man said:
I wonder if they can just go with a smaller floor plate for the new floors to respect the ARP a bit more.
Click to expand...
The applicants were asked about that at CPC. I can't remember their answers, made it sounds as if the existing office building and structure would make that rather difficult. It is an interesting conundrum. The rules are clear in the ARP, adminstration even offered compromises, but in the end the development authority just felt it was a bit too much. Do we as a society say to these guys "that's okay, go ahead and build anyway"? If so, how do we ever enforce any sort of planning policy?

If your project depends on being exempt from the rules that should apply to everyone, well, it probably wasn't a viable project to begin with.
 
Who can answer the, who does floorplate matter here? From the City's perspective. I understand the developer wants to maximize their floorplate to have more square feet.
 
Urb said:
Requesting a 1300m2 floor plate is ridiculous and will set a dangerous precedent if approved.
Click to expand...
Floor plate size requirements force us into building typologies that are more expensive and allows for less experimentation.

Sure, lets just lock point towers with high ratios of services and circulation on podiums into law. Then keep FAR the same, effectively reducing the amount of space available for individual units. Raise prices and limit supply due to aesthetic fixation.

I thought we had got rid of that requirement. anyways - wasn't the Beltline/Centre City limit which was set at 7500 square feet 20 years ago removed because it constrained development?
 
MichaelS said:
The applicants were asked about that at CPC. I can't remember their answers, made it sounds as if the existing office building and structure would make that rather difficult. It is an interesting conundrum. The rules are clear in the ARP, adminstration even offered compromises, but in the end the development authority just felt it was a bit too much. Do we as a society say to these guys "that's okay, go ahead and build anyway"? If so, how do we ever enforce any sort of planning policy?

If your project depends on being exempt from the rules that should apply to everyone, well, it probably wasn't a viable project to begin with.
Click to expand...
I did have the thought that aligning the exterior walls would make the most sense structurally. Pulling the floors above back would likely result in them having to add a ton of columns and footings, or at least some massive transfer beams.

I think they need to follow the rules (or at least some compromise of the rules) if they want this to go ahead, otherwise just renovate and try to keep as an office building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top