19+2 | 16m | 5s | FAAS Architecture

maestro said:
Common sense usually prevails. Any community involvement is good. Many times I've seen ideas implemented from the most intense NIMBYs that has improved development. Let them organize. Let them have their five minutes.
Click to expand...
Calgary (IMO) has been fairly successful at approving infill like this by North American standards. I am not commenting on the design, density or proportion of overall development but on successfully approving density increases in SFH dominated places - from SFH-dominated to townhome to low and mid-rise (e.g. Marda Loop).

The ongoing horror show of lack of housing supply growth in many areas of Toronto and Vancouver, but even more acute in the big coastal American cities (Portland, Seattle, San Francisco Bay Area, LA, New York etc.) has helped create enormous problems of affordability and weird concentrations of development. We are much younger and smaller than all these places - so our pressures are much less - but we are starting to get some decent examples and proposals of low and mid-rise density popping up in places that have never been much more that SFH. 19th, 24th Avenue proposals, Marda Loop, 14th Street, Shaganappi etc.

We still have weird locked-off "yellow belts" (parlance from Toronto planning based on the colour of the SFH zoning maps I think, where essentially non-SFH development has and continues to be banned for the past 50 years, even duplexes) but they form much more into small pockets (Mount Royal etc.) rather than whole swathes of the inner city like they do in other cities. Hopefully with some continued progress on projects like this, we can stave off the calcification of any more neighbourhoods and continue to allow their gradual development and intensification.
 
maestro said:
Common sense usually prevails. Any community involvement is good. Many times I've seen ideas implemented from the most intense NIMBYs that has improved development. Let them organize. Let them have their five minutes.
Click to expand...
I'm all for community involvement and pushing for higher standards, etc... Not sure it would apply here, as the opposition is to two things height and traffic. It's my own opinion, but I believe the height is totally fine. Lowering the height isn't an improvement, again only my opinion. Traffic and parking...I don't know how they could push for improvements other than scaling down the project. At the end of the day, you're right, opposition is fine, and ultimately common sense will prevail and things will move on.
If the city wants to be serious about trying to avoid approving another 14 greenfield communities, they need to make sure these kinds of developments (scale and form) go through.
 
CBBarnett said:
Calgary (IMO) has been fairly successful at approving infill like this by North American standards. I am not commenting on the design, density or proportion of overall development but on successfully approving density increases in SFH dominated places - from SFH-dominated to townhome to low and mid-rise (e.g. Marda Loop).

The ongoing horror show of lack of housing supply growth in many areas of Toronto and Vancouver, but even more acute in the big coastal American cities (Portland, Seattle, San Francisco Bay Area, LA, New York etc.) has helped create enormous problems of affordability and weird concentrations of development. We are much younger and smaller than all these places - so our pressures are much less - but we are starting to get some decent examples and proposals of low and mid-rise density popping up in places that have never been much more that SFH. 19th, 24th Avenue proposals, Marda Loop, 14th Street, Shaganappi etc.

We still have weird locked-off "yellow belts" (parlance from Toronto planning based on the colour of the SFH zoning maps I think, where essentially non-SFH development has and continues to be banned for the past 50 years, even duplexes) but they form much more into small pockets (Mount Royal etc.) rather than whole swathes of the inner city like they do in other cities. Hopefully with some continued progress on projects like this, we can stave off the calcification of any more neighbourhoods and continue to allow their gradual development and intensification.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this has to do with allowing all opinions to be heard and considered.

Shortages in housing growth supply is more perception than reality in many of these urban centres. We have turned housing into a stock market and affordability has suffered.

Toronto is a great example. There isn't a short supply in Toronto. There is an affordability crisis. I see Hillhurst type developments all over the place. The ban didn't stop the proliferation of walk up apartment buildings 70 years ago It isn't going to stop development now. Smaller scaled development isn't worthwhile for the big developers building $100 million dollar towers and too big for the little guys turning bungalows into monster homes.

Building codes are a detriment to small scaled development more than NIMBY opposition. There's very little within the codes between large scale and small scale. More of the floor space becomes unsellable with smaller scale development. 19+2 Hillhurst has an advantage of a large assembled lot allowing for a larger footprint. It isn't necessarily small scaled infill.
 
Just build it said:
I'm all for community involvement and pushing for higher standards, etc... Not sure it would apply here, as the opposition is to two things height and traffic. It's my own opinion, but I believe the height is totally fine. Lowering the height isn't an improvement, again only my opinion. Traffic and parking...I don't know how they could push for improvements other than scaling down the project. At the end of the day, you're right, opposition is fine, and ultimately common sense will prevail and things will move on.
If the city wants to be serious about trying to avoid approving another 14 greenfield communities, they need to make sure these kinds of developments (scale and form) go through.
Click to expand...

I'm in complete agreement that the form, function and scale here is perfect and this group's concerns are groundless. I still believe they deserve to have their say over what is happening in their community. I've been apart of many community consultations and you would be surprised how many times the most fanatical of NIMBYs was the one to bring forth a simple idea that made a great urban design even better. Let's show them some courtesy. We all have an inner NIMBY lurking because we all share the same passion for our communities.

Commonsense will prevail.
 
maestro said:
I'm not sure what this has to do with allowing all opinions to be heard and considered.
Click to expand...
I was agreeing to your comment on "common sense prevailing" when developments like this getting approved over typical NIMBY objections and generally Calgary has done a reasonably decent job allowing neighbourhoods to transition from SFH to others (acknowledging as you pointed out, there is more to the story than just pro/anti-development local politics).
 
maestro said:
I'm in complete agreement that the form, function and scale here is perfect and this group's concerns are groundless. I still believe they deserve to have their say over what is happening in their community. I've been apart of many community consultations and you would be surprised how many times the most fanatical of NIMBYs was the one to bring forth a simple idea that made a great urban design even better. Let's show them some courtesy. We all have an inner NIMBY lurking because we all share the same passion for our communities.

Commonsense will prevail.
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement that the community has the right to be heard, and in some situations could be a benefit, I only meant that in this case it's mostly a nimby argument, and that common sense would prevail. totally agreeing with you.
 
Looks like they have submitted a DP just recently. (DP2019-0979 )

They've also cleared the lots.
1178_0000.jpg
 
*fans face*
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top