MichaelS
Senior Member
A DP has been submitted for 527 and 531 17th Ave NW, a muilti-family building adding 75 units. Design is... well.... it's a building for sure:
Mount Pleasant Multi-Family | 22.5m | 6s | Comtech Design
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
Thrillhou
New Member
Its not going to win any awards but I'm happy with the way that the densification is going. Catalyst on 14th Street is a lot better or a design and I'd rather have more of those than this. Beggars can't be choosers.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Can't wrap my head around building residential without balconies. Immediate limiting of buyer/renter pool.
The design leaves much to be desired, but it works for the location.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
You can tell this is a design from a company that usually does warehouses lol.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
This is a pretty dense building if the numbers are to be believed - it's almost as if it's a hotel or a student dorm type design. 13 units per floor at ~8000sqft a floor is only 615 sqft per unit, and I don't think that includes common areas/hallways?
Great location for as many density and units as you can fit, but no obvious attention to end user or resident experience with what's been provided. Only a minor reduction in Class 1 bicycle parking ratio though, which is good - tiny units need places to store bicycles. Assuming this is targeted for an affordable product, pumping up the bicycle storage capacity is another good tool to help the end user maximize their space and budgets.
I do wish these types of developments (and the rules that govern them) thought a bit more about the connections to neighbouring parcels. Despite a ton of density and lot coverage, space is wasted all over on the fringes - it's giant blocky building that will have a lack of light and airflow in many units particularly as the parcels are developed around.
Again, it's not the size of the units themselves that is the issue - smaller, but thoughtfully designed units are critical tool to reduce housing costs than our often bloated and wasteful standards - it's the orientation and blocky-ness of the building that suggests a risk of a pretty mediocre living experience at the end IMO. This is more important than the colours and materials of the building (which also leave something to be desired of course).
We shall see how it turns out once it's built!
Just build it
Active Member
Looks like one of those self storage buildings!
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
The no balcony thing makes sense on one hand -- walk around any inner city neighbourhood and look at the balconies; you'll see stuff stored out there, a barbecue, flowers if they're ambitious, but rarely any people. But on the other hand, as a prospective tenant, it's something that people look for (even if they won't use it much) -- again, the reality isn't as important as the perception, because people make decisions based on their perception.
The market that makes sense without balconies is students, especially out-of-towners who might only be in their unit 8 months, 6 of them snowy and cold.
That said, there is apparently a rooftop amenity space, which might actually make more sense -- the balconies would probably be tiny anyways, a shared space could be a lot nicer. Here's the view:
Which is pretty good, especially since you wouldn't be able to see this building from the rooftop.
As a side note, a 6 storey building that is this blocky barely breaks 4 FAR. Floor area ratio is hard to get your head around sometimes...
The market that makes sense without balconies is students, especially out-of-towners who might only be in their unit 8 months, 6 of them snowy and cold.
That said, there is apparently a rooftop amenity space, which might actually make more sense -- the balconies would probably be tiny anyways, a shared space could be a lot nicer. Here's the view:
Which is pretty good, especially since you wouldn't be able to see this building from the rooftop.
As a side note, a 6 storey building that is this blocky barely breaks 4 FAR. Floor area ratio is hard to get your head around sometimes...
badc0ffee
Active Member
I always loved having a drink or smoke on the balcony. I also see people on them all the time when visiting a friend on 12 Ave (who also uses his balcony a ton).
One thing I don't see people use much in most neighbourhoods is their front porches, unless they're in a place like Bankview where front setbacks are small, streets are narrow, and it feels more natural to be out front.
One thing I don't see people use much in most neighbourhoods is their front porches, unless they're in a place like Bankview where front setbacks are small, streets are narrow, and it feels more natural to be out front.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I practically lived on my balcony in the summertime last apartment I lived in. I really don't get why most people just use it as storage, save for the occasional dart / doobie.
it’s strange, because I see lots of buildings, where nobody uses the balconies at all, but I see lots of low rise buildings around the beltline that are full of people using them on summer days or evenings. Some of the low rise buildings I’m pretty sure don’t have a seesaw that would be a big reason for it I think.
badc0ffee
Active Member
A seesaw?
MichaelS
Senior Member
In relation to the discussion that has occurred earlier in other threads, the invention of H-GO seems to be impacting developer's choices on whether they build apartment buildings with expensive parkades, or simply go with an H-GO product that is still pretty dense, but cheaper and easier to construct, this one has now been changed to a typical H-GO type product:
While the initial design wasn't a looker, this change has gone from a potential 75 units to only 30 units.
While the initial design wasn't a looker, this change has gone from a potential 75 units to only 30 units.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
lol, what? that looks so bad!
Thrillhou
New Member
While I preferred the last version, I didn't think it had much of a chance of being built. There was significant community opposition towards it.