News   Apr 03, 2020
 2.5K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.2K     0 

Infill Development Discussion

Urban Outdoorsman

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
594
Reaction score
4,439
Pretty dense little row house development in Banff Trail. I counted 12 units plus basements suites = 24 units. I love these kinds of developments! They're attractive, fit in well and pack in an astonishing amount of density. 3 houses have now become 24.

Would love to see these on every corner parcel in the inner city
PXL_20211104_194504605.jpg
PXL_20211104_194407965.jpg
PXL_20211104_194437655.MP.jpg
 

Just build it

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
385
Reaction score
840
Man, the North Hill area has been on an absolute tear the past year or so. Especially in regards to rowhouses and other missing middle type buildings. Here's a proposal along 20th Ave for a 22 unit rowhouse complex https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/?find=LOC2021-0154

I honestly might go around and do an inventory soon but if I had to guess I'd say between Banff Trail and Capital Hill alone 50+ residential units have been added in just the past year or so
The north hill has a fairly large area made up of grid streets. It's the perfect place for increased density.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
2,124
Reaction score
12,939
An interesting land use application is going to CPC next week. It is a mid-block rezoning along 18th Ave NE in Tuxedo Park, going from R-C2 to a Direct Control on the M-CG district. More details in the Report.
The CA is opposed to it, and I can kind of see why. There is an accompanying DP summary here:
1637949981226.png
1637950012272.png


10 units where there used to be 1-2. I am not to worried about the density, or the reduced parking, but more so the built form a bit, that puts the second building (with the 2 upper units and 2 basement suites) much deeper into the parcel, to accommodate the parking stalls. In this particular instance, it might not be so bad, as the two homes on either side appear to be original ones that are likely destined for redevelopment. But, if you had a typical infill, with the garage closer to the lane, and one of these got built on either side of you, it would certainly make your yard feel very "walled in". Maybe that isn't a bad thing, but, like the CA letter says, is a mid-block parcel appropriate for this level of density, if it requires the amount of relaxations and compromises as this one does? Especially when there is no shortage of land along the more major corridors where higher density can go?
 

Calgcouver

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
663
Reaction score
4,015
An interesting land use application is going to CPC next week. It is a mid-block rezoning along 18th Ave NE in Tuxedo Park, going from R-C2 to a Direct Control on the M-CG district. More details in the Report.
The CA is opposed to it, and I can kind of see why. There is an accompanying DP summary here:
View attachment 365583View attachment 365584

10 units where there used to be 1-2. I am not to worried about the density, or the reduced parking, but more so the built form a bit, that puts the second building (with the 2 upper units and 2 basement suites) much deeper into the parcel, to accommodate the parking stalls. In this particular instance, it might not be so bad, as the two homes on either side appear to be original ones that are likely destined for redevelopment. But, if you had a typical infill, with the garage closer to the lane, and one of these got built on either side of you, it would certainly make your yard feel very "walled in". Maybe that isn't a bad thing, but, like the CA letter says, is a mid-block parcel appropriate for this level of density, if it requires the amount of relaxations and compromises as this one does? Especially when there is no shortage of land along the more major corridors where higher density can go?
Love this. I get why the CA is against it, but here is the rub: you need to use M-CG to build anything reasonable on a mid-block site. R-CG doesn't work/function for mid-block. This is absolutely the type of development i would be fine with anywhere in that is currently R-1 or R-C2 (although i think in this instance the basement suites might be a little overkill.
 

adamyyc

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
379
Reaction score
1,480
An interesting land use application is going to CPC next week. It is a mid-block rezoning along 18th Ave NE in Tuxedo Park, going from R-C2 to a Direct Control on the M-CG district. More details in the Report.
The CA is opposed to it, and I can kind of see why. There is an accompanying DP summary here:
View attachment 365583View attachment 365584

10 units where there used to be 1-2. I am not to worried about the density, or the reduced parking, but more so the built form a bit, that puts the second building (with the 2 upper units and 2 basement suites) much deeper into the parcel, to accommodate the parking stalls. In this particular instance, it might not be so bad, as the two homes on either side appear to be original ones that are likely destined for redevelopment. But, if you had a typical infill, with the garage closer to the lane, and one of these got built on either side of you, it would certainly make your yard feel very "walled in". Maybe that isn't a bad thing, but, like the CA letter says, is a mid-block parcel appropriate for this level of density, if it requires the amount of relaxations and compromises as this one does? Especially when there is no shortage of land along the more major corridors where higher density can go?
I think there are similar (identical?) proposal(s) on 33rd Ave SW. Looks like the same development team. I actually don't love these proposals on 33rd, as I think development on 33rd Ave SW should exclusively be 4-6 story condos, but row housing continues to be proposed on the street. I think the form makes sense at this location on 18 Ave NE, although it's too bad that they couldn't have purchased the lots on either side of this lot to make this a larger development, particularly the other mid-block lot, because redevelopment of those lots will probably have follow a similar formula.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
2,124
Reaction score
12,939
Love this. I get why the CA is against it, but here is the rub: you need to use M-CG to build anything reasonable on a mid-block site. R-CG doesn't work/function for mid-block. This is absolutely the type of development i would be fine with anywhere in that is currently R-1 or R-C2 (although i think in this instance the basement suites might be a little overkill.
Push the smaller, second building to the lane, and get rid of the two basement suites and instead have 2 suites above a 4 car garage, and pretty much all of my concerns go away. yes, you go from 10 to 8 units, but still, 8 units! And a built form that would be nearly identical to a semi-detached. Plus, I do worry that the courtyard for this project as currently shown will be nothing but a dark, shadowy place of no real value. Pushing it back would provide an amenity space that is much more enjoyable for the remaining 8 units.
 

Calgcouver

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
663
Reaction score
4,015
Push the smaller, second building to the lane, and get rid of the two basement suites and instead have 2 suites above a 4 car garage, and pretty much all of my concerns go away. yes, you go from 10 to 8 units, but still, 8 units! And a built form that would be nearly identical to a semi-detached. Plus, I do worry that the courtyard for this project as currently shown will be nothing but a dark, shadowy place of no real value. Pushing it back would provide an amenity space that is much more enjoyable for the remaining 8 units.
I feel like this would work if the rear/lane units were built above the garages and had at grade entrances along the courtyard (like typical slab on grade townhouses). If they did that and got rid of the basement suites on the rear units and did or did not keep the basement suites on the street facing units this would be a perfect example of small lot, mid block row homes that should be an easily approvable option.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
2,124
Reaction score
12,939
An interesting one proposed along 33rd Ave in Marda Loop, at 1615 and 1619 33rd Ave SW, called Loop 33:

FAAS again is the architect, and a similar concept to the Tuxedo one above on this page, but a larger scale. 22 units, 11 parking stalls:
1640808027316.png

1640808058924.png


There seems to be a LOT of these cropping up everywhere in the inner-city, where basement suites (now dubbed micro-dwelling units) are included, but no parking for them provided.
 

Top