haltcatchfire
Senior Member
One major challenge with office conversions is modifying the building envelope to provide balconies for every unit.
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Mull
Active Member
Is that part of the building code?
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
It isn't.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Not building code but amenity space is required in the Land Use bylaw. It can be common when no private is provided as a total units x 5 sq m. Competing with new development that provides private space puts them behind. On some buildings that don’t have podiums or really high rooftops it would also be a challenge to create common outdoor space.
The City wanting to incentivize conversions can accommodate these issues in a bylaw revision though so that’s not an impediment. The market might be.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Does amenity space have to be outdoors? Or, could converting an entire floor into a resident's lounge (or something of that ilk) suffice?
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Some amount can be accommodated indoors. It varies depending on building type and number of units if IRC. Let me look it up.
One of the other issues facing conversions is the HVAC systems have to be redone building-wide. not a show stopper, but a hindrance for sure.
Hopefully some of these hurdles can be overcome and we can see some conversions. That'd be awesome.
Hopefully some of these hurdles can be overcome and we can see some conversions. That'd be awesome.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
That's interesting. Cube has outdoor amenity space in the form of a roof deck. 60 units x 5 sq m = 300 sq m, but the roof deck is maybe 120 sq m or so. Not sure where the rest of the space is.
Normally, I'd suggest that more of the amenity space should be allowed to be indoor amenity space, although in 2020 that seems like a terrible idea. Hopefully by 2022 that will be appealing again.
I think another hurdle would be plumbing; residential water use is something like 3x that of office per sq ft, and is pretty peaky; everyone wants a hot shower at the same time.
Another one is floor shape; if you look at Cube's floorplans, there's gobs of storage, since the floor plate is deep and everybody wants windows in every bedroom and living room, storage is one thing that doesn't need windows.
Every hurdle can be jumped, but once you line them all up.... there's a reason Usain Bolt sets the record as the world's fastest man without any hurdles.
My conversion idea -- free for the taking, developers! -- is a stacked live-work configuration. Redevelop an office building with floor plates with the elevator core surrounded with smallish office spaces, with residential units behind them. You rent the office plus the residential unit; the office is a public-facing space for an individual accountant, physiotherapist, designer, consultant, etc. to meet clients, and then they live in the space "behind", which is actually the space with the windows. That helps with the amenity space, since you can use some of the indoor portion for communal boardrooms, etc. like a coworking space; cheap to provide and maintain. You might even be able to set it up in a tax-advantaged way, where there are two rents for each unit, and the office space rent is much higher since it's a write-off.
--
Also, while I'm noting things, the Globe movie theatre, along with the Riley's building next door is for sale. Not a good sign. (I mean, the sign itself is well-made, Riley's does a good job, but it's not a good omen.)
Normally, I'd suggest that more of the amenity space should be allowed to be indoor amenity space, although in 2020 that seems like a terrible idea. Hopefully by 2022 that will be appealing again.
I think another hurdle would be plumbing; residential water use is something like 3x that of office per sq ft, and is pretty peaky; everyone wants a hot shower at the same time.
Another one is floor shape; if you look at Cube's floorplans, there's gobs of storage, since the floor plate is deep and everybody wants windows in every bedroom and living room, storage is one thing that doesn't need windows.
Every hurdle can be jumped, but once you line them all up.... there's a reason Usain Bolt sets the record as the world's fastest man without any hurdles.
My conversion idea -- free for the taking, developers! -- is a stacked live-work configuration. Redevelop an office building with floor plates with the elevator core surrounded with smallish office spaces, with residential units behind them. You rent the office plus the residential unit; the office is a public-facing space for an individual accountant, physiotherapist, designer, consultant, etc. to meet clients, and then they live in the space "behind", which is actually the space with the windows. That helps with the amenity space, since you can use some of the indoor portion for communal boardrooms, etc. like a coworking space; cheap to provide and maintain. You might even be able to set it up in a tax-advantaged way, where there are two rents for each unit, and the office space rent is much higher since it's a write-off.
--
Also, while I'm noting things, the Globe movie theatre, along with the Riley's building next door is for sale. Not a good sign. (I mean, the sign itself is well-made, Riley's does a good job, but it's not a good omen.)
Mull
Active Member
I think this idea would work on a limited basis, I wonder if there is enough appeal for this type of idea to take up more than one idea? Just thinking there are only so many businesses this plan works for. Still, if it can gobble one more tower up, still good.
Disraeli
Active Member
Council can always amend the bylaw if amenity space requirements are getting in the way of office conversion.
Calgcouver
Active Member
I really think they need to address the fact that no one wants to live on a one-way freeway road which makes up the majority of our downtown streets (4th, 5th, 6th, 9th Ave). The ROWs are way too large for vehicles, have behemoth parking lanes, no tree line assignments and shitty/small sidewalks and public realm. If you want to make streets that are calm enough that people would actually want to live on, convert these Avenues (at least two or three of them) back to two-way streets, or reduce the drive and parking lane widths and keep them one-way for the most of the blocks with the exception of where flyovers come in, etc. No wonder these feel so windy and uninviting there aren't even trees.
Here is what I think:
Which in the renovation of this building the city allowed the road to be widened for vehicle parking, making the public realm even worse:
Here is basically how the ROW was before taking away more sidewalk space for a wider roadway (approx):
And here is what I think it ought to be if you want to create a street that residential development would actually want to be on (Two-Way example):
and one-way possibility:
You could still have oversized drive lanes, big lanes for buses, add tree line assignments and more pedestrian oriented light fixtures, expand the sidewalks a bit, create areas to sit outside of businesses and still have completely adequate traffic flow.
The one-way example would being to look a lot like this:
So sure, City admin/council want to create a better downtown, and for this hotel renovation project they allowed them to widen the vehicular ROW exasperating an already poor condition into one that somehow caters even more to vehicles. They have no plan to improve and beautify downtown except to 'encourage investment in residential'. Well no one wants to live on a freeway of a street with no trees where all the retail is in +15s that close at 5pm sharp. Allowing this additional road widening goes to show that the City didn't have a vision for how to improve the condition of 4 Avenue in front of this 'investment' downtown, they just did they same patchwork they always do. The hotel operator wants a drop off point, take that chance to improve the public realm condition not make it worse.
Figured this is the place to talk about how to create a better vision for how downtown could improve without just saying "it needs investment in residential development". Residential doesn't want to be located on the types of street conditions we currently have downtown it isn't desirable, maybe begin addressing that.
Here is what I think:
Which in the renovation of this building the city allowed the road to be widened for vehicle parking, making the public realm even worse:
Here is basically how the ROW was before taking away more sidewalk space for a wider roadway (approx):
And here is what I think it ought to be if you want to create a street that residential development would actually want to be on (Two-Way example):
and one-way possibility:
You could still have oversized drive lanes, big lanes for buses, add tree line assignments and more pedestrian oriented light fixtures, expand the sidewalks a bit, create areas to sit outside of businesses and still have completely adequate traffic flow.
The one-way example would being to look a lot like this:
So sure, City admin/council want to create a better downtown, and for this hotel renovation project they allowed them to widen the vehicular ROW exasperating an already poor condition into one that somehow caters even more to vehicles. They have no plan to improve and beautify downtown except to 'encourage investment in residential'. Well no one wants to live on a freeway of a street with no trees where all the retail is in +15s that close at 5pm sharp. Allowing this additional road widening goes to show that the City didn't have a vision for how to improve the condition of 4 Avenue in front of this 'investment' downtown, they just did they same patchwork they always do. The hotel operator wants a drop off point, take that chance to improve the public realm condition not make it worse.
Figured this is the place to talk about how to create a better vision for how downtown could improve without just saying "it needs investment in residential development". Residential doesn't want to be located on the types of street conditions we currently have downtown it isn't desirable, maybe begin addressing that.
Attachments
Last edited:
MichaelS
Senior Member
Great post, and related to it (on the bad news front), we can expect to see another layby/widening of the avenue on 5th Avenue when The Dorian gets completed 
artvandelay
Active Member
Bingo. I sure as heck wouldn't want to live in the downtown core even if I was still in my mid twenties and there was an abundance of residential supply - maybe on Stephen Ave, but certainly not anywhere on 4th, 5th, 6th or 9th Avenues.
I was surprised that so many on here seemed to be okay with the provision of the layby with the hotel conversion on 4th. It's really a case of two steps forward one step back - on one hand the street-front interface of the building is much improved, but now there are no trees on the sidewalk and a reduced ability to provide patio seating. It's unbelievable that we are still doing this in 2020.
There is so much excess capacity on 4th Avenue that there would be no issue having 24 hour parallel parking and a simple loading zone in front of the hotel. Transportation engineers at the City unfortunately continue to operate as if we are living in 1972. Didn't Nenshi bring in Rollin Stanley to fix all of this? What happened there?
We need to stop designing our downtown streets with the sole purpose of funneling office workers in and out of the core, and I say this as someone who drives to work in the core everyday - I'd happily sacrifice a couple minutes of drive time in favour of a more walkable, pleasant downtown core. Creating a liveable core is not rocket science - the answer is as simple as looking 970 km west and hitting copy + paste (granted, it's not as easy growing street trees here).
Apologies for the rant.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Lost in all the nuance with codes rules, bylaws and esoteric planning calculations is the fact that most far more urban places in the world don't care that much about indoor amenity space requirements much at all, an apartment with no indoor or rooftop amenities can provide a great urban life if it sits in a good public realm as Calgouver suggests. Our current process and rules don't recognize that a centrally located apartment block - conversion or otherwise - the most important common amenity is the sidewalk right outside the front door. I don't know enough about the rationale/flexibility for on-site amenities requirements, but if there was some mechanism to remove them in return for expanded pedestrian facilities on the block of the development that would be a no-brainer trade.
At the very minimum, we should avoid a public realm that is exceptionally hostile to urban life, as most of the downtown is currently. A difficult task with few mechanisms on the development side (e.g. force wider sidewalks/public realm space without negatively impacting developable area), no mechanisms on the transportation side (e.g. prevent unneeded lay-bys), and little public support beyond exhausted Councillors yelling into the wind for a decade about the state of our terrible sidewalk conditions downtown that never seem to change.
I would suggest a pilot project can help build up that support - but we already have the best candidate street ready to go - with significant residential and mixed-use development already there and the pedestrian traffic numbers to prove it - with a plan in place for the past 8 years: 8th Street SW. It languishes unfunded and seemingly dropping lower and lower off the radar to ever get built.
At the very minimum, we should avoid a public realm that is exceptionally hostile to urban life, as most of the downtown is currently. A difficult task with few mechanisms on the development side (e.g. force wider sidewalks/public realm space without negatively impacting developable area), no mechanisms on the transportation side (e.g. prevent unneeded lay-bys), and little public support beyond exhausted Councillors yelling into the wind for a decade about the state of our terrible sidewalk conditions downtown that never seem to change.
I would suggest a pilot project can help build up that support - but we already have the best candidate street ready to go - with significant residential and mixed-use development already there and the pedestrian traffic numbers to prove it - with a plan in place for the past 8 years: 8th Street SW. It languishes unfunded and seemingly dropping lower and lower off the radar to ever get built.
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
I agree, the lack of street activation and walkability on 4th, 5th & 6th Ave makes those roads less desirable for residential. However, there are lots of other areas in the core that residential development is much more suited and not yet fully developed. i.e West Village, East Village, Beltline, Eau Claire & the Arena District. Over the next few decades, there are only so many people that will want to live downtown. I think the focus and resources need to continue to be on attracting people to those neighbourhoods rather than the more commercial looking parts of downtown.