Search results

A few years ago I proposed a concept of turning 33 AV SW from 14 ST SW to 22 ST SW into a one way WB and the corresponding stretch of 34 AV SW into a one way EB, with EB traffic coming off Crowchild jogging over to 34 AV SW at 22 ST SW. Each direction would have had only one through lane, which...

Huh -- here I was thinking that ARPs were viewed by the development community as a formalized set of community expectations that provide the starting point for negotiations around individual development projects -- particularly regarding issues such as maximum height and FAR. :)

I thought the building code required a landing to be interposed every so many stairs, for safety reasons. This seems like a very long continuous run of stairs. Would hate to trip near the top on my way down!

The ARP is as binding and as enforceable as City Administration and City Council want it to be, and you're right, it is frustrating when these planning policy documents are put in place and then ignored. I am not convinced that the situation will be any different with these new district Local...

Except in this case the ARP predated RNDSQR's land use redesignation application, so maybe it was RNDSQR's application for a land use redesignation that conflicted with the ARP, and the City's approval of that application, that was useless.

The columns and overhang are built right out to the parcel's front property line, which is 3.9m back from the curb. However, the Marda Loop ARP calls for all new developments to provide at least a 6.0m setback from the curb comprised of, starting from the curb, a 0.5m wide curb zone, a 2.5m wide...

When this project was submitted for approval the RKHCA was concerned, among other things, about how it was proposing to cantilever forward over top of the public realm, and how the columns supporting the cantilever would end up bifurcating what the ARP called for to be a wide, obstruction-free...

Nope — as you will see from this screen capture from the Main Street Master Streetscape Plan video, but for a bump out at the corner the plan is for there to still be street parking in front of Courtyard 33.

Agreed — that stairway is going to need something funky to help draw people up to the courtyard.

The top storey also appears to have ended up with noticeably less articulation than shown in the renders. The window/balcony openings also look smaller and more “slit-like” than in the renders — a result of not being able to replicate the renders’ paper-thin floor plates, I guess. But I agree...

I think you're right -- it looks like they are directing drainage from each balcony away from any balcony opening or perforated panel on the storey immediately below.

Interesting that in some cases the perforated panels transition seamlessly into the non-perforated panels above or below, and in other cases there is a hard edge separating the two. Not clear to me why the difference.

Interested to hear more about the changes and challenges that this project faced.

At the time the ARP was being developed I believe the building code limited stick-framed buildings to a maximum of 4 storeys, so there didn’t seem to be a lot of interest in going a bit taller since it would have required going all concrete. Then the building code was changed to allow...

Understood — what I meant by “kill it”, and clearly this did not come through, was not destroy something great that is there now, but rather get in the way of it becoming all that it could be.

When I used the term “quirky” I meant “odd”, certainly not “vibrant”. When we first moved to Calgary and lived in the SE I recall hearing about Marda Loop, but never got around to checking it out. When we returned to Calgary after a few years away and decided to look for a house closer to...

Who exactly are all of you arguing with about vibrancy? I don’t see a CA or anyone on this thread suggesting that replacing a few old homes with a mixed-use building will “drive vibrancy down”.

Agreed, although if developers are allowed to build 6-storey buildings on the north side of 33rd AV SW, it is highly likely that they will also be allowed to build 6-storey buildings on the south side. Particularly given that a 6-storey building has already be built on the south side, being the...

Yes, we were pushing for the greater heights to be along the north side of 34th, and our shadow studies showed that a building in that location could be 48m tall without creating more shadow issues on 33rd than a severely stepped back 23m building on the south side of 33rd.