Marc and Mada | 62m | 19s | Truman | NORR

[shermanator]

This project really pushes the precedent of the area, it wasn't long ago that 5 over 1s were pushing the precedent so I can understand how jarring this is to people. I guess what I'm missing and I am open to an explanation is what shortening it a few floors would do?

This design iteration is the worst I've seen of this development since they've turned it into a full block podium with nothing appealing about the ground level. I wish they would've kept the cool little alley or the public access to the steps on the SE corner but that is all gone. Unfortunately there's no going back to what made this development interesting but that should be the conversation, not the height. What they're proposing is more suited to their property along Crowchild in NW, not a main street development in Marda Loop. Here's hoping we can start to demand more quality in our high value locations in this city but I don't know how you do that?

This very much does push the precedent of the area. People are going to complain regardless, but I think it will be better received if it pushes a bit less.

My personal preference is to have European style density where buildings are 4-6 stories with small scale retail at street level over taller towers. I think keeping buildings more human scale brings more vibrancy, there's good reason people flock to neighbourhoods like 17th, Kensington, Inglewood. Build 4-6 stories along 33rd, incorporate them in 34th alongside the work Leonard Development Group is doing, try and do the same along 20th, 22nd, 16th and 14th streets and I think Marda Loop is in great shape.

If what interacts with the street level is more human scale (Enzo and Infinity as recent examples) then that will help. I appreciate that developers are trying to jam as much as they can on the property because the fight to get developments like this approved are long and arduous.

 

[shermanator]

Apart from commutes outside the community, approximately 100% of people living in this development would walk for their daily needs here - there's a literal CO-OP on your first floor, plus multiple banks, daycares, cafes, pharmacies, restaurants and dentists within a block. Marda Loop legitimately has at least 1 of everything people tend to use on a daily basis within 2 blocks, now with better sidewalks.

Now with half better sidewalks. The work is only half done currently and will be incomplete even when the Main Streets project is done.

Even the "loop within the loop" is half amazing, half "why the fuck didn't they finish the job". It's not going to be complete because of the pending Plaza 34 development.

 

[Gullfoss]

I don't really get the benefit of this. It blocks out south facing sun on the north side of 33 ave. It adds to the east-west wind tunnel which can sometimes be 33 ave. Nothing about the height is contextually appropriate and it even extends the height on to 34 avenue SW as well which is even less contextually appropriate.

Living in this area, I find that I avoid 33 ave as much as possible due to the issues above and just spend time at the shops and food/beverage on 34 ave instead where the pedestrian experience is substantially better with more sunlight and less wind. This just makes me want to use 33 ave sw even less. So they're making a more congested high street with a more inferior pedestrian experience. Cool cool cool cool.

Cynically, I feel that co-op overpaid for the site and is using Truman's political clout to push this through so they can justify their land purchase price through higher density. I find it insane that rather than let developers take losses on land purchases, the city and city council seemingly gives them land-lifts at the expense of good planning, which often just hampers the pedestrian experience on our pedestrian streets. And based on those maps in the west elbow lap, which allows for increased height on this parcel only, leadership at city admin and council has seemingly already given this project their thumbs up.

Funny enough the latest LAP amendments even note, "Delete section 2.5.2.3.e. This policy restricted any shadowing on the north side of a portion of 33 Avenue SW. The amended policy would still minimize shadows, but not restrict them altogether." Cool cool cool cool.

 

[trtcttc]

I don't really get the benefit of this. It blocks out south facing sun on the north side of 33 ave. It adds to the east-west wind tunnel which can sometimes be 33 ave. Nothing about the height is contextually appropriate and it even extends the height on to 34 avenue SW as well which is even less contextually appropriate.

Living in this area, I find that I avoid 33 ave as much as possible due to the issues above and just spend time at the shops and food/beverage on 34 ave instead where the pedestrian experience is substantially better with more sunlight and less wind. This just makes me want to use 33 ave sw even less. So they're making a more congested high street with a more inferior pedestrian experience. Cool cool cool cool.

Cynically, I feel that co-op overpaid for the site and is using Truman's political clout to push this through so they can justify their land purchase price through higher density. I find it insane that rather than let developers take losses on land purchases, the city and city council seemingly gives them land-lifts at the expense of good planning, which often just hampers the pedestrian experience on our pedestrian streets. And based on those maps in the west elbow lap, which allows for increased height on this parcel only, leadership at city admin and council has seemingly already given this project their thumbs up.

Funny enough the latest LAP amendments even note, "Delete section 2.5.2.3.e. This policy restricted any shadowing on the north side of a portion of 33 Avenue SW. The amended policy would still minimize shadows, but not restrict them altogether." Cool cool cool cool.

Well the benefit is to all the people living in the condos in the future. That's why I'd prefer to see community investments linked to land use changes. Despite the construction hell, the city has spent millions on the Marda Loop neighborhood, I'm sure other areas of the city want that funding too. I'm not sure why the Main Street investments can't be linked to upzoning the LAP, and making the funding contingent. If you don't want the land use change, then no investment in the streetscape. That will link the benefits and costs of density more directly to local area residents.

Generally find the LAP process useless. Recently went through the Riley plan in our area. They drew different density basically based on what's approved and there right now. For example, 19th street, they put the area south of 2nd Ave as medium density, and the street north of 2nd ave as low density (H-GO/R-CG). And now there is a land use change north of 2nd Ave to an MU, which I don't think is actually bad and should/will be approved, but goes against the LAP they had just approved a month ago.

 

[Gullfoss]

Well the benefit is to all the people living in the condos in the future. That's why I'd prefer to see community investments linked to land use changes. Despite the construction hell, the city has spent millions on the Marda Loop neighborhood, I'm sure other areas of the city want that funding too. I'm not sure why the Main Street investments can't be linked to upzoning the LAP, and making the funding contingent. If you don't want the land use change, then no investment in the streetscape. That will link the benefits and costs of density more directly to local area residents.

Generally find the LAP process useless. Recently went through the Riley plan in our area. They drew different density basically based on what's approved and there right now. For example, 19th street, they put the area south of 2nd Ave as medium density, and the street north of 2nd ave as low density (H-GO/R-CG). And now there is a land use change north of 2nd Ave to an MU, which I don't think is actually bad and should/will be approved, but goes against the LAP they had just approved a month ago.

That is a reasonable take and speaks to adding density within Altadore, south Calgary, Killarney, Richmond, Bank view, Knob Hill. But where in those neighborhoods matter. I'd personally prefer these taller buildings are off the pedestrian oriented high streets (or at least on the north side of the avenue where they don't adversely impacts the pedestrian realm).

I would point out that our city only has like 6 good walking streets: marda, Stephen, 17 ave, 4 street, Kensington, bridgeland. If we ruin the pedestrian experience on those streets by allowing too much height that adversely impacts wind and shadowing, it would be a real shame. Especially when there is so much land available off these streets that could be developed instead.

Beyond this, by allowing a development that has such obvious negative attributes on the pedestrian realm, the city is counteracting their own investments. Like the city just spent millions to make marda loop a hub and destination, but now are allowing a development that adversely impacts that hub and destination by worsening the pedestrian realm through shadowing and wind.

 

[trtcttc]

That is a reasonable take and speaks to adding density within Altadore, south Calgary, Killarney, Richmond, Bank view, Knob Hill. But where in those neighborhoods matter. I'd personally prefer these taller buildings are off the pedestrian oriented high streets (or at least on the north side of the avenue where they don't adversely impacts the pedestrian realm).

I would point out that our city only has like 6 good walking streets: marda, Stephen, 17 ave, 4 street, Kensington, bridgeland. If we ruin the pedestrian experience on those streets by allowing too much height that adversely impacts wind and shadowing, it would be a real shame. Especially when there is so much land available off these streets that could be developed instead.

Beyond this, by allowing a development that has such obvious negative attributes on the pedestrian realm, the city is counteracting their own investments. Like the city just spent millions to make marda loop a hub and destination, but now are allowing a development that adversely impacts that hub and destination by worsening the pedestrian realm through shadowing and wind.

Being off the main street makes sense if there's a logical spot for that density. For example, in Kensington, most of the new condos are on 9a, because there's a natural spot with the LRT. In Marda, I just don't see a spot where you could build anything of significant height other than 33. The amount of local pushback for the Viscount Bennett site, backing onto Crowchild, any of the residential areas in South Calgary/Altadore are probably a non-starter.

I admittedly don't know that much about wind, but would this really create that significant of an effect given it is one building? Would it be worse than other pedestrian streets like 17th or 4th? On the shadowing, I think this is personal preference. But I personally don't find it that bad to have shadowing. I've never walked down any of the pedestrian areas and felt it's so dark here because of all the shadowing. Sometimes it's a nice break on a sunny day, and with the sun position changing throughout, it's not like the full block is shadowed all day long,

 

[shermanator]

I'm finding that 34th is becoming the pedestrian oriented street while 33rd is the "thoroughfare", largely due to the willingness to renovate the existing homes into small businesses.

 

[adamyyc]

I would point out that our city only has like 6 good walking streets: marda, Stephen, 17 ave, 4 street, Kensington, bridgeland. If we ruin the pedestrian experience on those streets by allowing too much height that adversely impacts wind and shadowing, it would be a real shame. Especially when there is so much land available off these streets that could be developed instead.

I'd add 1st St SW between 12 Ave & 17 Ave to this mix as well.

 

[Shaka]

And Inglewood..

 

[CBBarnett]

I don't really get the benefit of this. It blocks out south facing sun on the north side of 33 ave. It adds to the east-west wind tunnel which can sometimes be 33 ave. Nothing about the height is contextually appropriate and it even extends the height on to 34 avenue SW as well which is even less contextually appropriate.

I am not a fan of "contextually appropriate" arguments as it's so squishy - it can mean anything and is subjective. It also fails to account for how much change can and will occur in a place, essentially arguing that "what's here now is reasonably close to the best it can be so we shouldnt change much".

40 years ago, contextually appropriate meant building something that could fit next to a military base ... perhaps an ammunition storage or a truck depot would work at this intersection? Contextually appropriate to MacLeod Trail today is a bunch of trashy autobody shops and car-sewer adjacent strip malls - let's build more of them! Contextually appropriate today isn't the same as tomorrow. In practice, "contextual appropriate" is only a rhetorical tool used in development (most often in opposition).

Contextual appropriateness works in other ways too. For example, I believe an urban format grocery store, with a nice walkable retail podium, and 450 units in a couple of 18 storey towers is contextually appropriate 3km from the core of a rapidly growing metro-region of 2 million people. Further I think it's contextually appropriate to add more housing supply at substantial volume in the heart of a popular and very expensive area. This style and design would fit fine in much of Vancouver, that (equally painfully) converted formerly low-density places into actually nice high-density urban places with this kind of development.

I am skeptical of wind and shadow claims being more disruptive than the current street - 18 storeys is not that high, and the podium is only ~2 storeys. If anything, the biggest barriers to Marda Loop reaching it's urban potential are that commuter cut-through traffic noise that outweighs local needs for walkability, not a lack of sun or too much wind. This development tips the local part of that equation in favour of Marda Loop.

But if we really are concerned about shadows and wind on the main street, then we should support all that height and density a few blocks off into the community and leave the main street open for low-rise, walkable retail. This formula is successful in the Beltline and many other urban streets in Canada - living on 17th Ave isn't great with the noise and traffic, but living a block or two away can be awesome. Putting density in the communities also mean we are minimizing the amount of people living directly on the congested, noisy and polluted corridors - it's a win/win for livability.

But something tells me proposing a 18 storey development on like 20th Street and 31st Avenue SW would be met with even louder cries of "not contextually appropriate!" as well.

So in conclusion that's the real problem - "we" have too many priorities and requirements, and taken together we can't have our cake and eat it too.

• Wealthy enclaves of $2M infills don't want to allow much growth in the communities, so we have to put housing on the corridors. Even a block off a main street is too much density!
• We don't want height on the corridors because of the shadows.
• But we also don't want shadows anywhere else because of the contextually appropriate $2M home problem.
• Because of congestion, we don't want to add more density to Marda Loop so we put more growth elsewhere.
• Because we put growth elsewhere, people are driving more to Marda Loop increasing the congestion more than if we had just built housing there for them in the community in the first place.
• At all times, nothing can change too much out of context to what already exists, even if what exists is woefully inadequate for current or future needs.
• Meanwhile every year forever, 20,000 - 50,000 people (2 to 5x Marda Loop's total population) move to Calgary every year and need places to live.

Density and growth has to go somewhere and all these competing priorities have to be balanced. I think the proposed development is a good effort at balancing this and gets Marda a CO-OP so it's a big win.