News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.4K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8K     4 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.7K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

I don't think this one has been mentioned yet, it is pretty small, not sure if it warrants a thread, but a new commercial/retail building has been proposed on 10th Street at 5th Ave in the Downtown West End:

DMap

DMap
dmap.calgary.ca dmap.calgary.ca

1757432576398.png

1757432600285.png

1757432620686.png
 
I agree that shadow should be a consideration when looking at sites adjacent to parks and open spaces. However, I also feel like shadow is often being weaponized by some members of the public as a way to prevent multi-family development. We are far from being the northernmost large city in the world on the basis that we're a northern, so-called "winter city". In fact, we are at the same latitude as London, meaning almost every large city in the UK is north of us, along with all of Scandinavia, as well as cities like Hamburg, Brussels, Berlin, Amsterdam, Warsaw etc.

While most of those cities have milder winters than we do, they also have moist climates with far less annual sunshine. While with the exception of London), all of those cities have far less skyscrapers than we do, most have a dense mid-rise built form throughout, built right to the property line along narrower streets. These include public waterfronts and world-renowned parks. Yet most of us view these places as among the most vibrant, beautiful cities in the world.
 
Albertasaurus said:
I agree that shadow should be a consideration when looking at sites adjacent to parks and open spaces. However, I also feel like shadow is often being weaponized by some members of the public as a way to prevent multi-family development. We are far from being the northernmost large city in the world on the basis that we're a northern, so-called "winter city". In fact, we are at the same latitude as London, meaning almost every large city in the UK is north of us, along with all of Scandinavia, as well as cities like Hamburg, Brussels, Berlin, Amsterdam, Warsaw etc.

While most of those cities have milder winters than we do, they also have moist climates with far less annual sunshine. While with the exception of London), all of those cities have far less skyscrapers than we do, most have a dense mid-rise built form throughout, built right to the property line along narrower streets. These include public waterfronts and world-renowned parks. Yet most of us view these places as among the most vibrant, beautiful cities in the world.
Click to expand...
London doesn't have to worry about shadowing because the sun never comes out.
 
CBBarnett said:
I am increasingly skeptical of shadowing concerns for most redevelopment, such as 12 v. 8 v. 6 stories on Riley Park. Mostly this is because shadows are way too often treated as a nuisance to be avoided, rather than a more nuanced pro/con conversations. Avoiding shadows increasingly reminds me of the endless parking debates - where there's gut reaction is to "need" a certain amount parking, but the logic starts to fall apart a bit when tested with real world situations that are more nuanced.

In the case of Riley Park, the area most impacted by shadows is the southern most fringe of the park, which currently looks like this below. Even here shadows from a 12-storey building across the alley to the south would have negligible impact from mid-May to mid-September.
View attachment 679655

But forgotten almost instantly in any community debate is we really aren't debating a 12-storey building, this is what's proposed with step-backs at floor 8, and the whole building pushed far to the south of the site:
View attachment 679656

So when we say we are "shadowing a park" what we mean is we are shadowing the southern fringe of a park, which is already in permanent shadow, for a few hours a day on the shoulder seasons of hottest part of summer.

Development shadow debates also ignore that shadows in parks and streets are increasingly an asset in hotter summers - it doesn't mean this building needs to provide this, but it's just not as a simple as shadows = bad the way that the applications go so far out of their way to minimize shadows at all times.

Winter of course, is a different story. The problem here is that whatever they build is too high if the goal is to minimize shadows as the sun is so low and there's so few hours of sun to begin with, it's mostly a moot point in the depths of winter. At our latitudes a building of any height will cast a reasonably large shadow in the depths of winter. So if we want no shadows in winter maybe 2 to 4 stories is the answer? Maybe we should ban spruce trees in parks as well, they don't let light through in winter.

Most people want the light in winter but understand we can't all just have bungalows and cut down spruce trees everywhere. So we end up with hybrid rule based on the equinoxes of March and September where the shadows are big, but not too big to "balance" things. It's muddled policy that's pretending to be a quantitative scientific approach, but is really just a negotiated position on the degree in which people feel that shadows are bad.

So rather than being distracted with pretty modest differences in height options and hypothetical shadow impacts on the park (that may not even be a bad thing), what should debate focus on? If impacts to the park are the thing we care so much about, why don't we get developments like this to actually make the park better?

For example this is the park access on the southern edge where this development is proposed - ugly and totally underwhelming for such a celebrated community asset that Riley Park is. If you are not local, you'd not even know that through that broken chain link fence is one of Calgary's best urban parks. Why don't people advocate to do something better here?

View attachment 679871

Compare to a fairly basic secondary park entrance in New York. Perhaps we don't need the New York-style wrought iron fence and hyper manicured look, but surely continuity of the sidewalk, consistent pavement materials and an actual entrance would be better? This isn't actually a lot of money and it's the type of stuff we should be advocating development help trigger investment in, rather than just obsess over hypothetical shadows on a really ugly and dilapidated park access.
View attachment 679879
Click to expand...

Fantastic post and analysis. In a warming world shade/shadows need to start bein considered for their positive applications as well. A site like Riley park is perfect because it is big enough that there are plenty of sections to seek out sun, and ample opportunity for nice shady spots on those really hot days. Buildings along 5th avenue at 8-12 storeys should be of no concern, especially with the step downs on the north side. Build away!
 
MichaelS said:
I don't think this one has been mentioned yet, it is pretty small, not sure if it warrants a thread, but a new commercial/retail building has been proposed on 10th Street at 5th Ave in the Downtown West End
Click to expand...
Interestingly this project seems to be just on the empty lot at the corner, and not replacing the two old houses.
 
New aviation training centre to be built at YYC through a partnership between CAE and WestJet. Combined with the Lufthansa Technik engine overhaul facility also being built through a partnership with WestJet, the vision of making Calgary an aviation industry hub is starting to take shape.

WestJet and CAE sign contract to bring world-class aviation professional training facility to Calgary

Ongoing education and talent development to meet future demand of expanding aviation hub
www.westjet.com www.westjet.com
 
Update on this one, Phase 1 passed rezoning 13-1 with Cllr. Chu the only dissenter (go figure). Phase 2 still up for debate, but it's likely to proceed given this precedent. Our dreams of a north bank skyline are a little closer to reality!

There was also a 120m rezoning approved unanimously on the NE corner of Macleod and 61, just across from Chinook Mall, very near Chinook LRT. Just a block away from where a 150m was approved recently as Phase 2 of the 61 Ave Residential project moving forward now. So, our dreams of a midtown skyline are also on a good trajectory!

TooBizzy said:
2 big LOCs coming very close to decision in east Crescent Heights / west Bridgeland.

80m tower along 4 St NE just north of Era going to Public Hearing (and final decision) next Tues, Sept 9. https://dmap.calgary.ca/?p=LOC2024-0166

Both the Crescent Heights and Bridgeland Riverside Community Association Planning Committees oppose it, is asking to keep the max height capped at 50m. CH asking for a detailed market analysis study, adherence to an LAP that doesn't include the site, and requirement for below-market housing. Claims the density and new CRUs will hurt retail vacancy in the area. BR claims development will encourage "transience" and "social disorder".

Bridgeland-Riverside CA as a whole seems ambivalent, wrote a longer letter asking mostly that the development work to preserve and celebrate the historic significance of the street as a 'Little Italy' sort of area - but also explicitly asking for adequate parking for a TOD site.

CPC approved it but quite lukewarmly, could go either way at Council depending on the Hearing.
Docs available here: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings...a=Agenda&lang=English&Item=39&Tab=attachments

Phase 2 of the same project going to CPC October 2nd, and Public Hearing either last-second, or next Council. Just to the south and west of Phase 1, also max 80m tower along the north side of 1 Ave, and 50m on the south. https://dmap.calgary.ca/?p=LOC2024-0221__View attachment 678827
Click to expand...
 
TooBizzy said:
Update on this one, Phase 1 passed rezoning 13-1 with Cllr. Chu the only dissenter (go figure). Phase 2 still up for debate, but it's likely to proceed given this precedent. Our dreams of a north bank skyline are a little closer to reality!

There was also a 120m rezoning approved unanimously on the NE corner of Macleod and 61, just across from Chinook Mall, very near Chinook LRT. Just a block away from where a 150m was approved recently as Phase 2 of the 61 Ave Residential project moving forward now. So, our dreams of a midtown skyline are also on a good trajectory!
Click to expand...
Great information for someone who is @TooBizzy
 
Agreed that the access points for Riley Park (esp the south and west sides) are a disgrace. The design/layout of the parking lot on the north side is abysmal although that can be explained away by the competing requirements for maintenance vehicles, limited space etc. The east side is alright, but should be a lot better.
 
I would love to see a better, more efficient use of land for the Hillhurst school/community centre sites (perhaps consolidate onto one large parcel, with a shared multi storey building and outdoor spaces) and the same with Riley Park Health Centre/Agape Hospice (combine functions in a campus style plot of land).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top