[DougR]

You coulde be right, they might not have to do it for the building to work, but with a different design like this, you would be surprised how quickly the costs rise.

So basically the building height is your main concern? The lack of sunlight is an issue for the purchasers, and I have no doubt they will be fine with what they get.

I would describe our concern more generally as a substantial lack of compliance with the vision laid out in the recently enacted Marda Loop ARP, including with respect to its height and overall mass, of which one of the results is excessive overshadowing of the homes to the north. We also have concerns that the courtyard, being the prize that the community is to receive in exchange for accepting the increased height, mass and overshadowing, may not end up being much of a prize given its grade-separated location on the 2nd level, the limited sightlines between it and the City sidewalk out front, the lack of sunlight to help extend its usefulness beyond the summer months, all of which could easily result in the courtyard becoming more of a place to avoid than a vibrant public space. Our understanding, from sources such as Jan Gehl's "Cities for People", is that grade-separated public spaces can be a real challenge to activate.

 

[MJC]

The community is only one (often outspoken) of many stakeholders. This development will almost surely pass as is. Won the mayors design award. Affordable and innovative, need more developers like this. Build as is, really bad political signal if a teaspoon of negativity discourages good development.

 

[DougR]

If substantial non-compliance with the applicable statutory plan only amounts to “a teaspoon of negativity”, then what is the point of having statutory plans at all, or any planning policies for that matter? Is it your view that the City should leave the planning of the city entirely to developers?

 

[MJC]

ARP are only there to get current neighbourhood's feedback and suggest minor planning tweaks. They largely ignore other people interested living in the neighbourhood and suggest only miniscule change so the neighbourhood doesn't get too excited before something tangible is proposed. It's a bit of a balance but developers in much better position to know what the market wants and what is needed. Developers will not get involved in ARP with anything specific because planners/administration will not take on a battle that big with politicians who know very little about good development. So it creates a one off incremental progress situation. The Mezzo in Edmonton was the first residential high rise off Whyte that was approved minutes after ARP was passed calling for low lying midrises only. Obviously high rises make sense in that location, neighbourhood too scared, politician no vision. So left to smart, sophisticated developmer with industry support to educate council on a one off basis and defend how it makes sense.

 

[DougR]

But none of those developments offer any of the public amenities or design quality that we see with Courtyard 33. I agree that sun is important, but it is one of many considerations. I don't agree with maintaining a blanket cap on the heights of buildings for the sake of ensuring that a couple single family homes have full sunlight on every single floor for a minimum of 40 weeks a year or whatever. We should be willing to make trade-offs. As Mountain Man says, as the neighborhood transitions for suburban to urban, the public realm will play an increasingly important role in people's daily lives, so ensuring a vibrant public realm will be more important than ensuring absolute protection over everyone's private property.

As far as public amenities go, Garrison Corner, Odeon and Infinity all include MF retail, as Courtyard33 does, and ML33 includes a courtyard space, as Courtyard33 does, although ML33 chose to locate their courtyard at ground level and orient it to the rear, where it acts as a landscaped buffer to soften the transition to, and reduce overlooking of, the single family homes across the lane.

The Marda Loop ARP does represent a compromise/trade-off, as it increased the existing height limits along the north side of 33 AV SW from a mixture of 10m/12m/14m to 16m/4 storeys, with the potential to go to 5 storeys on certain specified "landmark" corners. Subsequent to the ARP's approval, the building code was changed to increase the maximum allowed height for stick-framed buildings from 4 storeys to 6 storeys, which appears to have made 6-storey buildings a "sweet spot" for developers in terms of profitability. However, the primary goal here should not be to maximize profit for developers, but rather to turn the Marda Loop business district into a vibrant "main street" area where people want to live, work, shop and enjoy spending time at, which transitions and integrates well with the surrounding infill areas.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I do feel bad about the shadowing for those living immediately north of the development, as sunlight is important, but I do really like this development, and think it'll be a positive addition to Marda Loop over all.

 

[LloydBraun]

As far as public amenities go, Garrison Corner, Odeon and Infinity all include MF retail, as Courtyard33 does, and ML33 includes a courtyard space, as Courtyard33 does, although ML33 chose to locate their courtyard at ground level and orient it to the rear, where it acts as a landscaped buffer to soften the transition to, and reduce overlooking of, the single family homes across the lane.

The Marda Loop ARP does represent a compromise/trade-off, as it increased the existing height limits along the north side of 33 AV SW from a mixture of 10m/12m/14m to 16m/4 storeys, with the potential to go to 5 storeys on certain specified "landmark" corners. Subsequent to the ARP's approval, the building code was changed to increase the maximum allowed height for stick-framed buildings from 4 storeys to 6 storeys, which appears to have made 6-storey buildings a "sweet spot" for developers in terms of profitability. However, the primary goal here should not be to maximize profit for developers, but rather to turn the Marda Loop business district into a vibrant "main street" area where people want to live, work, shop and enjoy spending time at, which transitions and integrates well with the surrounding infill areas.

I find it interesting that the 'community' ardently appealed ML33. Now it's a shinning example of compromise and contextual fit? There's a lot of hyperbolizing going on here, Doug. I hope this building gets built as is. To say this is a profitability grab is absurd. Look at the design quality of all recent builds in the mid-rise family. This far exceeds anything in a 6-storey form....most can fairly agree with this.

 

[DougR]

I find it interesting that the 'community' ardently appealed ML33. Now it's a shinning example of compromise and contextual fit? There's a lot of hyperbolizing going on here, Doug. I hope this building gets built as is. To say this is a profitability grab is absurd. Look at the design quality of all recent builds in the mid-rise family. This far exceeds anything in a 6-storey form....most can fairly agree with this.

I keep hearing about the design quality of Courtyard33. Can someone explain in what respects the design quality of Courtyard33 is so much better than a typical mid-rise mixed use development? The angled walls on the inset balconies are certainly unusual, but will also make the balconies less functional.

 

[DougR]

I find it interesting that the 'community' ardently appealed ML33. Now it's a shinning example of compromise and contextual fit? There's a lot of hyperbolizing going on here, Doug. I hope this building gets built as is. To say this is a profitability grab is absurd. Look at the design quality of all recent builds in the mid-rise family. This far exceeds anything in a 6-storey form....most can fairly agree with this.

I never said ML33 was a “shining example of compromise and contextual fit”, I merely included it as one of several examples of projects in the area that still expect to be profitable despite being less than 6 storeys tall and having an FAR of less than 4.0, and as one that has a courtyard

 

[LloydBraun]

I keep hearing about the design quality of Courtyard33. Can someone explain in what respects the design quality of Courtyard33 is so much better than a typical mid-rise mixed use development? The angled walls on the inset balconies are certainly unusual, but will also make the balconies less functional.

That's actually a great question. A debate on the architecture is understandbly subjective but a couple of things to applaud are 3 of the building's ground floors appear to be all dedicated to activating retail space (that's including the alley). The courtyard brings a double fronting living space condition for future residents of the building (more light, better views). And some would disagree, but I think the stairs provide a good extension of the 33rd. If done right, this could be a cool hang-out zone adding to the vibrancy of the main street.

Above all though, I'm just a fan of the architecture. Hard to characterize properly unless you write for Taschen or something like that, but it's beautiful. A sentiment shared by most contributing in this forum.

You mentioned with the Marda building that you were seeking a architectural interesting terminus in exchange for greater height, but ultimately didn't receive this in the design. Regardless of height, do you not agree that Courtyard 33 ACTUALLY achieves the same intent?

 

[DougR]

That's actually a great question. A debate on the architecture is understandbly subjective but a couple of things to applaud are 3 of the building's ground floors appear to be all dedicated to activating retail space (that's including the alley). The courtyard brings a double fronting living space condition for future residents of the building (more light, better views). And some would disagree, but I think the stairs provide a good extension of the 33rd. If done right, this could be a cool hang-out zone adding to the vibrancy of the main street.

Above all though, I'm just a fan of the architecture. Hard to characterize properly unless you write for Taschen or something like that, but it's beautiful. A sentiment shared by most contributing in this forum.

You mentioned with the Marda building that you were seeking a architectural interesting terminus in exchange for greater height, but ultimately didn't receive this in the design. Regardless of height, do you not agree that Courtyard 33 ACTUALLY achieves the same intent?

The Courtyard33 site doesn’t really create much of a visual terminus opportunity, and although the building’s exterior looks pretty snazzy in the Vision Brief images, when you boil it down it is a 6-storey box with a slightly stepped back top floor and angled inset balconies. I am not sure that, from a distance, it would stand out as appearing materially different than other mid-rise developments.

 

[haltcatchfire]

I’d still like to see the elevation drawings of this one. The renderings are pretty ‘fast and loose’.

This one will be a lot less like it’s render than ML33 was. All elements are shown 2” thick or so when (if this is wood frame) the floors will be 14”+. The balconies will be at least 7” depending on how they’re framed, but if they’re different than the internal floor, suddenly the soffit doesn’t line up with the ceiling and the deck doesn’t line up with internal floor. The windows of the top two floors can’t be that close to the top of the parapet either. There’s going to be possibly a two foot band there and even more for floor 5 if there are balconies for floor 6.

I’m sure they’ll find a way to screen the outside so those cladding sections line up to a single horizontal and vertical intersection but the building behind it won’t.

 

[Mountain Man]

6 storey wood frame is tough to make a profit on actually, the extra floors of wood make it so that the corridor and demising walls on the lower floors have a stud spacing of about 8" (this is needed to support the weight of the additional floors), that adds issues and expense in keeping the sound ratings and requires more materials (usually drywall and resilient channels). This building would likely have the main floor and below in concrete, and the second floor up in wood, and the concrete is more expensive than the wood framing would be. 6 storey is good on paper, but there is a reason we aren't getting many true wood frame 6 storey buildings.

AS for the design of this, it's obviously better than the typical wood frame building clad with vinyl siding or hardi. The Architect is using materials in different planes, some are perforated to create interesting shadows and play with the light a bit, they show vines growing up some of the walls in the courtyard.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and the community can represent their interests in whatever way they want, ultimately this building is exactly what the city is looking for and follows the model of development main streets like 33rd and 34th need. They developer is seeking to activate the streetfront by including retail and adding the courtyard (I agree that is will have minimal use for the community as a whole though) and having a nicer design. IF the community is adamantly opposed then oppose the design and take it to SDAB, if your concerns are founded then they will be heard and discussed, and the board may send it back to have tweaks to the design to satisfy the concerns.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I've quoted Greg Morrow on this message board several times (he's really worth a follow on twitter). But I came across this recent tweet and thought it was relevant to the discussion:

It's really insane that after all the hoopla in this city about increasing density, reigning in sprawl, and all of the cranes that seem to fill the skyline in the inner city, we are still sprawling out of control. As Morrow points out, this is totally unsustainable and it will come back to bite us in the end. One of the factors at play is that any inner city development that increases density undergoes much deeper scrutiny than anything built on the fringes of the city.

So, as we discuss the height of the building, we need to keep in mind that density (in addition to sunlight, vibrancy, and design quality) is one of the most important factors at stake. From what I understand, despite all of the infilling and development, Marda Loop has not even regained the population it had in the 1960s (despite the fact that the city's population is 3-4 times as large).

 

[DougR]

6 storey wood frame is tough to make a profit on actually, the extra floors of wood make it so that the corridor and demising walls on the lower floors have a stud spacing of about 8" (this is needed to support the weight of the additional floors), that adds issues and expense in keeping the sound ratings and requires more materials (usually drywall and resilient channels). This building would likely have the main floor and below in concrete, and the second floor up in wood, and the concrete is more expensive than the wood framing would be. 6 storey is good on paper, but there is a reason we aren't getting many true wood frame 6 storey buildings.

AS for the design of this, it's obviously better than the typical wood frame building clad with vinyl siding or hardi. The Architect is using materials in different planes, some are perforated to create interesting shadows and play with the light a bit, they show vines growing up some of the walls in the courtyard.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and the community can represent their interests in whatever way they want, ultimately this building is exactly what the city is looking for and follows the model of development main streets like 33rd and 34th need. They developer is seeking to activate the streetfront by including retail and adding the courtyard (I agree that is will have minimal use for the community as a whole though) and having a nicer design. IF the community is adamantly opposed then oppose the design and take it to SDAB, if your concerns are founded then they will be heard and discussed, and the board may send it back to have tweaks to the design to satisfy the concerns.

It is an interesting design that proposes a gamble -- a much more externally massive structure than contemplated in the new ARP in exchange for an internal courtyard and grand staircase that may or may not "work" as public gathering spaces. My sense is that the community would like the "stakes" to be a bit lower (lop off at least 1 storey?) and the "odds" to be a bit better (better visual sightlines and sunlight penetration into the courtyard area?), before being subjected to the "bet". We haven't seen any sign to this point that the applicant is willing to consider making substantive changes, or that City Council or City Administration will insist on substantive changes, but who knows, maybe one or more of those parties will pleasantly surprise us.