DougR
New Member
Nope — as you will see from this screen capture from the Main Street Master Streetscape Plan video, but for a bump out at the corner the plan is for there to still be street parking in front of Courtyard 33.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
DougR
New Member
When this project was submitted for approval the RKHCA was concerned, among other things, about how it was proposing to cantilever forward over top of the public realm, and how the columns supporting the cantilever would end up bifurcating what the ARP called for to be a wide, obstruction-free pedestrian walkway. That was when the renders, including this one of the public realm, showed the columns as being barely noticeable thin black posts. Given what we are ending up with, as shown in this recent photo, it is hard not to feel like we were sold a bill of goods.
adamyyc
Active Member
Walked by this morning. Exterior is growing on me. I’m getting over my initial disappointment that the building isn’t turning out like the renders, but it’s still solid
The Familia
Active Member
Haha those columns compared to the renders are atrocious. How anyone can be pleased with the final product compared to the rendering is beyond me. Oh well, it’s done now and I don’t have to live in it or look at it.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
The columns and overhang are likely built right out to the setback, so that's likely the typical sidewalk width that all projects on 33rd will have.
DougR
New Member
The columns and overhang are built right out to the parcel's front property line, which is 3.9m back from the curb. However, the Marda Loop ARP calls for all new developments to provide at least a 6.0m setback from the curb comprised of, starting from the curb, a 0.5m wide curb zone, a 2.5m wide boulevard zone and a 3.0m wide pedestrian zone, the latter of which "must be kept clear" of obstructions. Needless to say, the approval of Courtyard 33 pretty much blew the ARP's concept for consistent, pedestrian-friendly public realm completely out of the water.
Last edited:
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Typically on a street like this, there would be minimum setback set out by the zoning in the Land Use Bylaw. If the ARP conflicts with that, then it shows what a useless document an ARP is.
DougR
New Member
Except in this case the ARP predated RNDSQR's land use redesignation application, so maybe it was RNDSQR's application for a land use redesignation that conflicted with the ARP, and the City's approval of that application, that was useless.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
The ARP isn't binding though, the Land Use Bylaw is so that's what will be enforced. I definitely get that it's frustrating for a community to work with the city on these documents, then have them completely ignored. The City needs a better process.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
The sidewalk's open now, so I was able to walk by it this morning. The width of sidewalk between the curb and the columns seems very similar to that building further east with the Shoppers Drug Mart. There is more room in between the columns and the retail units, but not really enough room for people to comfortably walk by. It would be enough room for people to stand around waiting to get into a restaurant or something.
My main concern was not the width of the sidewalk, but the steepness of the stairs leading to the courtyard. It looks like a really uninviting climb that will probably prevent most people from wandering up to explore. My biggest fear with this project has always been that it would suffer from the "POPS" problem (privately-owned public space). Basically, the courtyard is technically open to the public, but the building owners and residents have an incentive to keep people out, so the space just becomes an uninviting dead zone. I hope I'm proven wrong. Maybe one of the businesses will be able to make use of it, or RNDSQR will try to avoid this fate. It will probably require a lot of added effort to motivate people to climb those stairs.
My main concern was not the width of the sidewalk, but the steepness of the stairs leading to the courtyard. It looks like a really uninviting climb that will probably prevent most people from wandering up to explore. My biggest fear with this project has always been that it would suffer from the "POPS" problem (privately-owned public space). Basically, the courtyard is technically open to the public, but the building owners and residents have an incentive to keep people out, so the space just becomes an uninviting dead zone. I hope I'm proven wrong. Maybe one of the businesses will be able to make use of it, or RNDSQR will try to avoid this fate. It will probably require a lot of added effort to motivate people to climb those stairs.
DougR
New Member
The ARP is as binding and as enforceable as City Administration and City Council want it to be, and you're right, it is frustrating when these planning policy documents are put in place and then ignored. I am not convinced that the situation will be any different with these new district Local Area Plans that the City has begun to develop. Time will tell.
Last edited:
DougR
New Member
I thought the building code required a landing to be interposed every so many stairs, for safety reasons. This seems like a very long continuous run of stairs. Would hate to trip near the top on my way down!
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Max vertical rise for stairs is 3.7m. I count 26 risers in the photo that shows the whole stair. Which would max at 142mm rise.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
The stairs are as tall as the retail units. I would assume that's somewhere between 12 to 15 feet (3.7 to 4.5m).
You can get a better look at it with the updated Google Streetview: https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0240...NlNo0tCg!2e0!5s20201001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
You can get a better look at it with the updated Google Streetview: https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0240...NlNo0tCg!2e0!5s20201001T000000!7i16384!8i8192