Courtyard 33 | 22m | 6s | RNDSQR | 5468796 Architecture

Marcanadian

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
3,434
Reaction score
6,562
The architect is from Winnipeg -- IIRC it was the serial number assigned to them when registered and they just went with it.
 

BKha

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
601
Reaction score
271
Love this. Build it now!

Awesome, I love it. Hope the NIMBYs don't get the better of this one.
There was some opposition to the development across the street to the west, but this one is better designed to what the community wants.
 

MichaelS

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
824
Reaction score
1,782
Appealed by the community?
Well, the one to the west was, and I assume same thing with this smaller one. I also think Infinity Marda Loop, at 19th Street and 34th Ave, also got appealed.

This project is pretty cool, but I see they need to do a re-zoning to allow an increase in height from 16m to 22m. It will be quite the public hearing at Council for that one. Maybe if Council grants the re-zoning, they won't have their DP appealed. Who knows. It looks like a lot of thought has gone into this project from the developer and their design team already:
http://www.engagecourtyard33.com/

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59766ce4f7e0ab450070523e/t/5984a281c534a5814d9e225b/1501864609466/17.08.04+Courtyard+33+Vision+Brief.pdf
 

MichaelS

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
824
Reaction score
1,782

DougR

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
29
Well, the one to the west was, and I assume same thing with this smaller one. I also think Infinity Marda Loop, at 19th Street and 34th Ave, also got appealed.

This project is pretty cool, but I see they need to do a re-zoning to allow an increase in height hearing at Council for that one. Maybe if Council grants the re-zoning, they won't have their DP appealed. Who knows. It looks like a lot of thought has gone into this project from the developer and their design team already:
http://www.engagecourtyard33.com/

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59766ce4f7e0ab450070523e/t/5984a281c534a5814d9e225b/1501864609466/17.08.04+Courtyard+33+Vision+Brief.pdf



Those 3 Marda Loop developments ended up getting appealed primarily because they did not conform to the vision set out in the Marda Loop Area Redevelopment Plan that City Council passed in 2014. What is the point of taking a community through the process of putting an ARP in place and then promptly ignoring it when LOC and DP applications come in? Why create all sorts of expectations in terms of a beautiful, wide, sun-dappled, engaging pedestrian realm with street trees, seating, etc. and then approve developments that provide for narrow, sunless, unengaging, treeless pedestrian realms? Why can't developers and the City deliver what the ARP promised?
 

DougR

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
29
Well, given that this project is on the north side of 33rd avenue, it's height won't cause extra shadows along the public realm for the high street. It will, however, cause further shadows for the residents to the north. According to their engagement materials, they will meet the public realm requirements on 33rd Ave. See page 15 of this document:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59766ce4f7e0ab450070523e/t/5984a281c534a5814d9e225b/1501864609466/17.08.04+Courtyard+33+Vision+Brief.pdf
With a proposed height of 22m, 6m higher than allowed by the ARP, increased shadowing of the single family homes across the lane to the north will likely be an issue.
 

DougR

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
29
Well, given that this project is on the north side of 33rd avenue, it's height won't cause extra shadows along the public realm for the high street. It will, however, cause further shadows for the residents to the north. According to their engagement materials, they will meet the public realm requirements on 33rd Ave. See page 15 of this document:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59766ce4f7e0ab450070523e/t/5984a281c534a5814d9e225b/1501864609466/17.08.04+Courtyard+33+Vision+Brief.pdf
In terms of pedestrian realm it appears there may be some issues as well. The ARP calls for front facades to step back a further 3m above the 1st, 2nd or 3rd storey, whereas this front facade appears to step forward instead, and the support posts for this cantilever appear to fall in the middle of what is supposed to be a 3m wide clear pedestrian walkway.
 

Surrealplaces

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
13,082
Location
Calgary
It looks like the supporting posts fall in the middle of the pedestrian walkway, but will be in line with the trees, but yes, it'll be a shallower pedestrian walkway. From my point of view I don't see a problem so much with the height, as it will be roughly the same height and scale as Bucci's Kensington project, but I would like to see the setback increased so a to make a wider pedestrian way. With the balcony overhang and trees combined it could make for a dark atmosphere.

Image5.jpg
 

Attachments


Top