The city continues to drop the ball with those setbacks.
|
|
|
General Construction Updates
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Why do they care so much? Is it a case of "setting and forgetting": developer applies, planner checks against set-backs set decades ago and says yes or no, regardless if the original reason is on the books still (road expansion, utilities etc.) or is there some sort of more concerted effort by city administration to resist more urban (i.e. minimal or wide sidewalk only) set-backs like other cities?
I find it bizarre how dumb these quasi-suburban retail fronting buildings are and yet loads get approved with little fanfare. Set-back fails have the same dumbness-to-occurrence ratio as too high parking minimums in this city.
Danpersand
New Member
Other old man agrees. Want to play checkers in the park and yell at squirrels ?
maestro
Senior Member
There has been a concerted effort on the design front and it shows. The environment created by these buildings isn't any different from any other suburb.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
There was some discussion of this on the board at some point (can't remember which thread). My sense was it's a combination of "setting and forgetting" and dinosaurs continuing to hold onto the misguided belief that Edmonton Trail might someday be expanded (particularly since the LRT is going to be running on Centre Street).
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
The wiring is much easier to replace than the urban form. And Calgary doesn't really do heritage protection, so it's easy to build new houses in old neighborhoods.
Because it's a "cities" board and most people who like cities tend to like things that go with cities: public spaces, walkability, crowds, amenities, etc. More generally, if you look at the neighborhoods across North America experiencing the most gentrification, they're all pre-1950s. Also, survey research suggests that there has been a generational shift in consumer preferences. Millennials are less likely than Baby Boomers to desire a car or a large house. They are experience-oriented rather than possession-oriented. They want to be close to amenities. As a millennial myself, I concur. Who the hell wants to spend their weekend mowing their gigantic lawn or sitting in their car waiting to get into the Costco/Walmart parking lot? Who wants a giant garage and several unused rooms in their house full of junk? "The things we own end up owning us," as they say.
Even if consumers really wanted huge lots and total car dependency, these neighborhoods simply aren't economically or environmentally sustainable, particularly in larger cities. The property taxes they produce do not pay for the costs of the services required to sustain them. They lead to gridlock because they can't be effectively served by any mode of transportation. And that's just the economic side of the picture. Think of all the additional carbon produced from all that driving, heating and powering a giant, detatched McMansion, all the carbon produced with road repair, garbage pick up, etc.
MichaelS
Senior Member
To give a brief history, yes these road widening setbacks (see section 53(1) of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007) date back to the 60s I think. They were intended to add lanes of traffic. So, 5.182m on both sides of Edmonton Trail was intended to add a lane in each direction, making it a 6 lane road. Luckily, not all of these happened (16th Ave through Montgomery is 10.363 on the south side, and the intention is to allow for a 6 lane road eventually and it is still on the books I think).
Since then, the table has lumbered on in existence, without any major reforms unless a major road widenign project was undertaken (16th AVe from 14th West to 6th East for instance). Roads continues to demand it be protected, from heaven to hell, no matter the circumstances. Downtown finally received some compromise, allowing developers to encroach in this space starting at the P2 level of the parkade, and 9.0m above the grade level (so 3rd floor could cantilever over). Any non-city centre development seeking the same relaxation was typically stonewalled. This is why nothing has been built on the north side of 16th Ave since the ARP was passed over a decade ago. Losing 5.182m of your property meant any sort of parkade was just not feasible.
Fast forward, and the new CTP and Complete Streets policies get approved, essentially confirming that we aren't going to widen all roads all the time. However, as seems to be the norm, not all policies/bylaws were updated to reflect these new overarching desires, and the stupid bylawed setback table continued to lumber along. The one positive is, the table protected for wider boulevards, allowing proper room for things like boulevard trees, wider sidewalks and cycling infrastructure. However, this still doesn't solve the problem of inefficient parkades, and developers even offering to build a sidewalk on their parkade, and set the building back with a public access easement, was typically met with a refusal.
Currently, there is a consortium of inner-city developers meeting with City representatives on how to improve the process for redevelopment, making things easier/cutting red tape. I have heard this table is high on their agenda, but not sure what progress has been made on it.
MichaelS
Senior Member
So, I think it is safe to say we now know the location of Batistella's next project:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2018-2275
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2018-2275
jdixon
Active Member
The area around 14th and 17th seems to be heating up a bit recently. The Arlington in the NW corner of that intersection, the nearby Scarboro 17, the recently completed 1515 and then this.
Social Justice
Active Member
So, from what I take away from this, is that there are layers of paperwork accumulated over decades at city hall and no one bothered to do any house keeping.
That's what I take away from it also. Honestly, it wouldn't hurt for the city to hire a some summer co-op students who are taking urban planning and have them take a run at the bulk of this stuff, with some experienced planners reviewing and signing off on it.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
DiscoStu
Active Member
There are starting to be too many boxes in that view. I really wish someone would try a condo with a bit more of a daring shape or orientation to it.
MichaelS
Senior Member
That, plus some older personalities and departments that still strongly believe in the older layers, and less so in the new layers. It is mind boggling sometimes, as you can point to a direct council approved policy asking for X, but have members of administration tell you they still nee Y. When you point out that the actual, council approved plan says X, the response is "well, plans can change, so we need to protect for Y". It is a much larger task than simply doing some "house cleaning". It will require a dedicated interest and clear direction from senior members of administration, which just doesn't seem to care based on my experience.