JoeUrban
Active Member
Fun fact, that building is in one of the new North Hill Heritage Guidelines areas lol. Obviously it was approved before those guidelines took effect.
|
|
|
Infill Development Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Good God! Someone send this to the woman who runs the McMansion Hell blog! I’d love a piece-by-piece dissection of everything that makes it truly horrible.
potatopizzafan
Active Member
Wow what a terrible day to have eyes
Urban Outdoorsman
Active Member
trtcttc
Active Member
I’m not super familiar with all the zoning code but does H-GO only allow for rowhouses? I feel like we should have mandatory density along designated main streets so we are not tearing up 4 single family homes to build only 6 townhouses. Main streets should be reserved for apartments with main street retail.
YYCguy
Active Member
From the Development Map linked above, it describes H-GO as this:
- H-GO is a residential designation in the developed area that supports of infill housing forms where units may be attached or stacked at a 3 storey scale.
Hope that helps!
I suspect something like this would end up being more like 16-20 units (assuming units maybe below ground ) as well.
But I agree for a main corridor like 19th an apartment style build would be much better.
Catalyst on 20th Ave. is roughly the same footprint and it has 75 units.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
H-GO on existing retail streets is going to be looked back on as a major mistake.
Just like the semi-detached on 33rd blocking retail spreading east in Marda Loop and the Live/Work townhouses on 1st Ave NE in Bridgeland.
Added population is great at first but the future success of the street needs to be considered.
Breaks in the continuity are like a wall for the pedestrian vibrancy.
It’s not just non retail developments that are a problem. Junk like the HSBC and the parking lot on the north of Kensington Road cause all pedestrians to stop and turn around. It’s the perception of there being nothing more worth going to down the road, and cuts into potential customers for the businesses further west.
Just like the semi-detached on 33rd blocking retail spreading east in Marda Loop and the Live/Work townhouses on 1st Ave NE in Bridgeland.
Added population is great at first but the future success of the street needs to be considered.
Breaks in the continuity are like a wall for the pedestrian vibrancy.
It’s not just non retail developments that are a problem. Junk like the HSBC and the parking lot on the north of Kensington Road cause all pedestrians to stop and turn around. It’s the perception of there being nothing more worth going to down the road, and cuts into potential customers for the businesses further west.
100% agree.
badc0ffee
Active Member
I mentioned this property before. It's a bungalow on an extra deep M-CG lot in Bankview, with plans for a 7-plex.
It's back on the market in a new listing.
It's back on the market in a new listing.
jianxia15
New Member
Infill townhome in Bankview at the junction of 16 St and 21 Ave.
JoeUrban
Active Member
In simplest terms residential on a retail street should be large enough to have retail units of its own to not stop the flow.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Question about rowhousing.
Typically when one thinks about rowhousing they might think of a group of semi-detached without the spaces between, ei a row of houses each having rear yards. But all I have seen so far is more akin to truncated townhousing, with more or less no rear yards.
Has there been any new rowhouses that actually have normal rear yards?
Typically when one thinks about rowhousing they might think of a group of semi-detached without the spaces between, ei a row of houses each having rear yards. But all I have seen so far is more akin to truncated townhousing, with more or less no rear yards.
Has there been any new rowhouses that actually have normal rear yards?
Overall I really like the rowhome option for many reasons. It's a good way to increase density to inner city areas and blend into the existing context, also it offers a compromise of density boost but allows people to have their ground level entrance, and possibly a garage, etc...
My biggest gripe is the placement of them. I think any street that has potential to be a retail corridor should be set aside for higher density development with the possibility of retail, or if not retail, at least an apartment style build. I think the city is blowing a good opportunity by having rowhomes on 19th street. They've been blowing it on 4th street or 20th ave in the NW. by allowing duplexes or when it comes to rowhomes on 4th st nw not having the fronts face onto 4th street and instead having the frontage face onto the avenue and the alleyway.
My biggest gripe is the placement of them. I think any street that has potential to be a retail corridor should be set aside for higher density development with the possibility of retail, or if not retail, at least an apartment style build. I think the city is blowing a good opportunity by having rowhomes on 19th street. They've been blowing it on 4th street or 20th ave in the NW. by allowing duplexes or when it comes to rowhomes on 4th st nw not having the fronts face onto 4th street and instead having the frontage face onto the avenue and the alleyway.
trtcttc
Active Member
Totally agree. I also don't understand the appeal of these. Why do the buyers want to have a ground entrance facing a potential future main street? Not to mention the very real possibility the adjacent plots will be multi-story apartments.