What's the consensus?

  • Great

    Votes: 9 16.7%
  • Good

    Votes: 21 38.9%
  • Okay

    Votes: 14 25.9%
  • Not Great

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • Terrible

    Votes: 7 13.0%

  • Total voters
    54
It's kind of hard to see, but appears as part of the Main Street work 33rd is losing it's parking lane in front of the development for a wider public realm. Could by another 3m of sidewalk right there.

View attachment 326584
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.
5D8D191C-C4ED-40B8-8949-9E928FEC009E.png
 
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.
8791B0FD-88C3-4D49-999F-64CF1784D7E6.png
F66D104D-89E8-47F3-BFE1-9DD3088F1FAB.png
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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:
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
stairs.jpg
 
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.
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:
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.
View attachment 328215
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!
 
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!

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.
 

Back
Top