IceCreamMan
Active Member
I've also signed up to show my support. I am a huge fan of this project and would very much like to have the chance at getting a place here.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.