DougR said:
It’s not so much fighting density — more trying to manage it to achieve a really good outcome. As you are all likely aware by now, my concern is that taking a quirky “Main Street”, particularly one with east-west orientation in a northern city with prevailing westerlies, and lining it with 6 storey buildings, is more likely to “kill” it than enhance it. I think a much better outcome could have been achieved by keeping the building heights along the Main Street more “human scale” and putting the taller buildings/higher densities a block over, where the greater scale and shadowing would have far less impact on the Main Street’s public realm.
Click to expand...
Can't say I disagree with that. I've always preferred the low rise feel of a main street with density in behind, but that's just my opinion. I am happy that it's being kept to at least 6 stories and not 8, 10 or 12, etc..

My own preference would be that all of 33rd was lined with buildings between 2 and 4 floors and maybe 6-8 floors along the north side of 34th, but again just my preference.
 
haltcatchfire said:
Until multi-unit developers begin to set up storefront facades as individual architectural elements left to tenants to design in conjunction with their internal tenant improvements, we may be heading that way. Breaking away the storefronts from the main building design team would allow from them to not feel from the same brain. Then over time they would evolve and change as tenants change, keeping a hybrid of character on newer development. Now, we essentially just get a sign change.
Click to expand...
That is the 100% the solution.
 
Calgcouver said:
Hi Doug, i am curious why you think a 16m building is so much more appropriate for the 33 Avenue right-of-way than a 22m building? Best practice in building height to ROW width to create the appropriate sense of enclosure is a 1:1 ratio, measured from building edge to building edge.
Measuring it considering the public realm in front of the ARC building proposed, looks to be a minimum of 22m ROW width. View attachment 299416
In my opinion the 22m building is perfectly scaled for this type of ROW as the building height to ROW width is perfect to create a human scaled street. What do you think is the optimal height and public realm and why?
www.strongtowns.org

Width, and the Perception of Width

Our guest post today from the Strong Towns Network comes from Stephen Stofka. Stephen is currently pursuing a Master's in Civil Engineering with a focus on transportation engineering. Having ventured this way from the world of land use planning, among Stephen's core interests is the development of
www.strongtowns.org www.strongtowns.org
Also i understand and don't disagree with your concern about losing quirky main streets to boring aluminum clad franchises, i think we can all agree that sucks.
Click to expand...
It is in part based on the results of the shadow studies that the RKHCA Development Committee conducted and the desire to allow sunlight to reach the public realm and shop windows on the north side of 33rd for a good portion of each year, to help the new Marda Loop be a place people want to wander and hang out in throughout the year, not just during the summer months..
 
Sadly the city would never go for that, the design of the retail spaces needs to be resolved at the DP stage, long before discussions with tenants even begin. Would be neat if the streetscape could be that dynamic though!
 
Habanero said:
Can't say I disagree with that. I've always preferred the low rise feel of a main street with density in behind, but that's just my opinion. I am happy that it's being kept to at least 6 stories and not 8, 10 or 12, etc..

My own preference would be that all of 33rd was lined with buildings between 2 and 4 floors and maybe 6-8 floors along the north side of 34th, but again just my preference.
Click to expand...
Yes, we were pushing for the greater heights to be along the north side of 34th, and our shadow studies showed that a building in that location could be 48m tall without creating more shadow issues on 33rd than a severely stepped back 23m building on the south side of 33rd.
 

Attachments

  • C567D1C2-4E76-43F2-8EC7-65E88BD8111E.jpeg
    C567D1C2-4E76-43F2-8EC7-65E88BD8111E.jpeg
    148.2 KB · Views: 149
haltcatchfire said:
The streetside half of the buildings on the north side of the street could increase in height and have no additional shadowing impact.
Click to expand...
The one difference would be that there are houses in behind the buildings that would be on the north side of 33rd, whereas there are more buildings in behind the buildings on north side of 34thave. That said, 4 storeys on the north side of 33rd shouldn't be a shadow problem. Maybe even 5 storeys.
 
Habanero said:
The one difference would be that there are houses in behind the buildings that would be on the north side of 33rd, whereas there are more buildings in behind the buildings on north side of 34thave. That said, 4 storeys on the north side of 33rd shouldn't be a shadow problem. Maybe even 5 storeys.
Click to expand...

The image already shows the north side of 33rd at 4 storeys. A couple extra storeys on the southern half wouldn't increase shadowing on the single family. The precedent is already set though with Courtyard not having a northern setback, and 6 storeys a shade under 22m.
 
I'm still stuck on the idea that Marda Loop is losing a quirky, vibrant main street. 33 Ave is not exactly Saint Laurent Boulevard or Queen Street West. It's mostly residential houses and strip malls. This building will be replacing a couple desolate single family houses and a duplex. It's across the street from a totally bland 90's strip mall next to a gas station. The only section of 33 Ave that I would lament losing would be the two buildings that house Boogies and K-Thi. Quirkiness comes with time as the buildings get re-adapted for new purposes over and over again, and because the riskier, off-beat businesses have to rely on renting old, out-of-date retail spaces. New spaces often go to chains. But the thing is, you don't end up with old retail units without building new ones. 33 ave lacks the "bones" of a vibrant mainstreet. There's nothing to re-adapt yet.

In terms of the impact of the height on the vibrancy of 33 ave, I simply present exhibit A and exhibit B:
mardaloop.jpg

gastown.jpg
 
Silence&Motion said:
I'm still stuck on the idea that Marda Loop is losing a quirky, vibrant main street. 33 Ave is not exactly Saint Laurent Boulevard or Queen Street West. It's mostly residential houses and strip malls. This building will be replacing a couple desolate single family houses and a duplex. It's across the street from a totally bland 90's strip mall next to a gas station. The only section of 33 Ave that I would lament losing would be the two buildings that house Boogies and K-Thi. Quirkiness comes with time as the buildings get re-adapted for new purposes over and over again, and because the riskier, off-beat businesses have to rely on renting old, out-of-date retail spaces. New spaces often go to chains. But the thing is, you don't end up with old retail units without building new ones. 33 ave lacks the "bones" of a vibrant mainstreet. There's nothing to re-adapt yet.

In terms of the impact of the height on the vibrancy of 33 ave, I simply present exhibit A and exhibit B:
View attachment 299442
View attachment 299443
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more brother. There's pretty much northing quirky about 33rd. There's more quirkiness on the 2 retail blocks along 34th than on all of 33rd.
 
Also, I know we've all complained endlessly about the street design in Marda Loop, but I just have to comment on how pathetic the lighting is along 33. I see just two highway-style lampposts in the first picture. Given how short daylight is in Calgary during the winters, I'd say proper lighting was far more important than shadowing in raising the appeal of our main streets. I mean, just look at the lighting in the second picture!!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top