[MichaelS]

Add the vowels back into RNDSQR and it makes sense. RouNDSQuaRe. Their website explains it a bit better.

 

[Oddball]

Add the vowels back into RNDSQR and it makes sense. RouNDSQuaRe. Their website explains it a bit better.

Yeah I kinda had that figured. At least the "square" part of it anyway. Regardless of having tasteful, unique or eye catching reasons to name their companies how they did, we are still dealing with the fact that RNDSQR hired 5468796 to design their building and it looks kinda funny.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Many things to like about it. The renderings look like a concept. The facade appears to be floating held up by Area 51 tech. The public courtyard with retail is awesome. It's something the major developments in the Beltline should have implemented. I do have concerns that there are 25 steps to reach that space.

The facade seems to be held up by those columns that extend several feet out into the sidewalk (see picture #3). I agree about the stairs, though. It's my main concern about the project. Public plazas built within private developments rarely succeed even without a major physical barrier that separates them from the street (i.e. stairs). But even attempting to build a public plaza puts this development far beyond similar projects in the rest of the city, let alone the neighborhood. With the right retail and signage, the plaza might work. And if the plaza works, the stairs might even become an asset.

 

[astraya]

Hey Doug,

I have to say I am personally frustrated with the comment here. RNDSQR has probably undertaken the most comprehensive engagement with regards to Courtyard 33 compared to any other private development on 33rd Avenue to date. Not to mention that we hosted an Open House session for all key stakeholders along with launching back last summer at Mardigras. This process has been both patient and thorough long before any formal application was submitted. We are continuing that process with a concurrent DP application showing our commitment to presenting this vision as planned. RNDSQR along with the team with Civic Works has been diligent in dealing with all feedback received either directly through our website www.engagecourtyard33.com or directly. This last information session is also now gathering all 3 development comittees to have a round table while they have an opportunity to look at some of the changes that have been made or rational that has been provided.

I've been very happy with all of our conversations to date but find this very defeating and implying that we ignored the CA or their concerns is completely false.

If you have "undertaken the most comprehensive engagement" perhaps that's because Courtyard 33 clearly DOES NOT conform to the "Marda Loop Area Redevelopment Plant" found here http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/coci...-asp/arp/marda-loop-arp.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1 . Here is the pic that shows the maximum allowable heights

What is confusing about that?

Furthermore, to say that you are having conversations with the community is simply untrue. If you were listening then you would have heard at the September "Community" BBQ that there is a stream running under 2235 and 2237 straight through your proposed development. The stream is vigorous in the Spring. You've had five months to further investigate this. If you don't understand what it could mean then go to a beach, dig a hole and see how fast the water rushes in once you've hit the water table.

I have much more to say about this but I think the City would be very concerned about the stream as it's a constant battle for them to fill the sinkhole in the back alley. The neighbouring properties on all sides should be very concerned as it's a well known fact that creating a Void that fills with water will destabilize adjacent land. I suggest each neighbour consults with their Insurance companies if you aren't willing to do the due diligence and respond to the communities' concerns.

I will send this to your http://www.engagecourtyard33.com contact page as well. There's no forum.

I will have much more to say in the future behind the Common Sense reasoning of the City's in limiting the height of buildings directly behind South Facing Residential.

 

[astraya]

Hey Doug,

I have to say I am personally frustrated with the comment here. RNDSQR has probably undertaken the most comprehensive engagement with regards to Courtyard 33 compared to any other private development on 33rd Avenue to date. Not to mention that we hosted an Open House session for all key stakeholders along with launching back last summer at Mardigras. This process has been both patient and thorough long before any formal application was submitted. We are continuing that process with a concurrent DP application showing our commitment to presenting this vision as planned. RNDSQR along with the team with Civic Works has been diligent in dealing with all feedback received either directly through our website www.engagecourtyard33.com or directly. This last information session is also now gathering all 3 development comittees to have a round table while they have an opportunity to look at some of the changes that have been made or rational that has been provided.

I've been very happy with all of our conversations to date but find this very defeating and implying that we ignored the CA or their concerns is completely false.

I just used the Contact Form to send you the same message as above on www.engagecourtyard33.com . I did not receive a confirmation that you received it. Please confirm that your Contact Form is working and that you are receiving the Feedback you are soliciting.

 

[MichaelS]

Without wading into the height issue, can you provide more info on this underground stream? Would a 4 storey building, with two levels of underground parking, run into the same problem? Is there any way development could occur on this corner, in your opinion, without causing issues related to this underground stream?

 

[Alkarimd]

If you have "undertaken the most comprehensive engagement" perhaps that's because Courtyard 33 clearly DOES NOT conform to the "Marda Loop Area Redevelopment Plant" found here http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/arp-asp/arp/marda-loop-arp.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1 . Here is the pic that shows the maximum allowable heights View attachment 134635
What is confusing about that?

Furthermore, to say that you are having conversations with the community is simply untrue. If you were listening then you would have heard at the September "Community" BBQ that there is a stream running under 2235 and 2237 straight through your proposed development. The stream is vigorous in the Spring. You've had five months to further investigate this. If you don't understand what it could mean then go to a beach, dig a hole and see how fast the water rushes in once you've hit the water table.

I have much more to say about this but I think the City would be very concerned about the stream as it's a constant battle for them to fill the sinkhole in the back alley. The neighbouring properties on all sides should be very concerned as it's a well known fact that creating a Void that fills with water will destabilize adjacent land. I suggest each neighbour consults with their Insurance companies if you aren't willing to do the due diligence and respond to the communities' concerns.

I will send this to your http://www.engagecourtyard33.com contact page as well. There's no forum.

I will have much more to say in the future behind the Common Sense reasoning of the City's in limiting the height of buildings directly behind South Facing Residential.

Appreciate your comments and feedback. We have conducted a geo technical survey and a phase 1 & 2 environmental on this site. We also have engaged our civil engineer WATT Consulting group to help with the storm water retention plan and have gone pretty in depth over these areas with our prime consultant. We do however appreciate your comments and will make sure we further look into the ground water matter ! Further to this I would say we have faced ground water at many sites before in the inner city and where there's a will there's a way.

I would disagree with your comment that we are not having conversations with the community. We have been out multiple times and just last week had a comprehensive round table discussion with the MLCA, RKHCA and the BIA. This process had long begun prior to any land use application even being submitted. We have made some substantial changes to better the project through this engagement and are excited with the project as is.

Unfortunately our belief is the Height for 33rd at that location is appropriate and allows us to provide a much more attractive retail urban pedestrian realm.

 

[haltcatchfire]

There are many techniques and technologies to handle a parkade development in areas of a high water table.

 

[Mountain Man]

Wait, they didn't do community engagement, now everyone agrees that they have done extensive community engagement? Sounds like NIMBY reasoning to me lol.

Underground water is not an issue, most of Downtown has a very high water table and many underground streams. Put in a sump pump, pay close attention to the waterproofing on the foundation and you're good. The houses on that site currently will already have sumps if there is water there anyway.

Also, I don't think height should be an issue on this site as there is a 6 storey building 2 blocks away. 33rd needs to become a more urban street, and higher density development like this is exactly what should be built.

 

[astraya]

Appreciate your comments and feedback. We have conducted a geo technical survey and a phase 1 & 2 environmental on this site. We also have engaged our civil engineer WATT Consulting group to help with the storm water retention plan and have gone pretty in depth over these areas with our prime consultant. We do however appreciate your comments and will make sure we further look into the ground water matter ! Further to this I would say we have faced ground water at many sites before in the inner city and where there's a will there's a way.

I would disagree with your comment that we are not having conversations with the community. We have been out multiple times and just last week had a comprehensive round table discussion with the MLCA, RKHCA and the BIA. This process had long begun prior to any land use application even being submitted. We have made some substantial changes to better the project through this engagement and are excited with the project as is.

Unfortunately our belief is the Height for 33rd at that location is appropriate and allows us to provide a much more attractive retail urban pedestrian realm.

You have the platform to share your Geo Tech Survey and Environmental Studies on www.engagecourtyard33.com. Please do. And share any more investigations. Again conversations require you to listen and respond. So if you heard our concerns about the underground stream and you have the information to respond then why hold it back? Conversations are two ways.

Contrary to what the Trolls on here are saying it's my understanding that there have been projects rejected due to Underground Streams in South Calgary/Altadore. And our area is different than Downtown.

Here's a community with similar concerns in Manhattan.
"An Ancient Stream Under a Manhattan Building Leads to a Dispute"
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/...ilding-dispute-about-subterranean-stream.html

Unfortunately your "belief" does not align with the Plans and Policies of the City of Calgary. Clearly the City of Calgary has taken into consideration the residents on the North Side of the development and the overall community. If there weren't significantly more profit in developing a six story building over a four story building, people may buy your argument that you are charitably contributing to the attractiveness of the community. Obviously your motivations in developing a 6 story building are not the same as the City's in developing their "Marda Loop Redevelopment Plan".

 

[Silence&Motion]

Redevelopment plans are guidelines, not laws. Ultimately each project needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Even if I was attached to the 16 meter limit (I'm not), I'd be willing to sacrifice the 6 extra meters for the benefits provided by this development (especially in contrast to the dilapidated suburban bungalows that currently sit on the site): a public square, added density, sidewalk retail, good architecture. I say this as a resident of the neighborhood as well.

I'm not under the illusion that developers are motivated by charity. But, then again, neither are NIMBYs.

 

[MichaelS]

Redevelopment plans are guidelines, not laws. Ultimately each project needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Even if I was attached to the 16 meter limit (I'm not), I'd be willing to sacrifice the 6 extra meters for the benefits provided by this development (especially in contrast to the dilapidated suburban bungalows that currently sit on the site): a public square, added density, sidewalk retail, good architecture. I say this as a resident of the neighborhood as well.

I'm not under the illusion that developers are motivated by charity. But, then again, neither are NIMBYs.

Just to clarify the bolded point, if they are statutory plans as designated by Council, and the language is of the "must / shall" as opposed to "may / should" variety, they are definitely laws. Having said that, they are laws set by City Council, and can be changed by City Council. It happens all the time. You make an application to change it, it is evaluated by Administration, and a recommendation is put forward first to Planning Commission, and then Council. At the time of the Council meeting, everyone can have their 5 minutes to speak for or against the change, but it is ultimately up to Council to decide on the merits of what is proposed, and if they should change the laws (policy) governing the parcel/area or if they should reject the requested change and maintain what is there.

 

[astraya]

Just to clarify the bolded point, if they are statutory plans as designated by Council, and the language is of the "must / shall" as opposed to "may / should" variety, they are definitely laws. Having said that, they are laws set by City Council, and can be changed by City Council. It happens all the time. You make an application to change it, it is evaluated by Administration, and a recommendation is put forward first to Planning Commission, and then Council. At the time of the Council meeting, everyone can have their 5 minutes to speak for or against the change, but it is ultimately up to Council to decide on the merits of what is proposed, and if they should change the laws (policy) governing the parcel/area or if they should reject the requested change and maintain what is there.

AND? So what? RNDSQR is not motivated by the best interests of the community, period. Thanks to all the Trolls who've become so "motivated" to participate in this discussion at the drop of a hat though....

 

[Silence&Motion]

AND? So what? RNDSQR is not motivated by the best interests of the community, period. Thanks to all the Trolls who've become so "motivated" to participate in this discussion at the drop of a hat though....

You decide to post your grievances on a public forum, and now you're angry that people are participating it the discussion?

Someone who has been a member of the forum for less than 24 hours is not in a position to throw around the "troll" label, particularly at people who have been members for years.

 

[Mountain Man]

You have the platform to share your Geo Tech Survey and Environmental Studies on www.engagecourtyard33.com. Please do. And share any more investigations. Again conversations require you to listen and respond. So if you heard our concerns about the underground stream and you have the information to respond then why hold it back? Conversations are two ways.

Contrary to what the Trolls on here are saying it's my understanding that there have been projects rejected due to Underground Streams in South Calgary/Altadore. And our area is different than Downtown.

Here's a community with similar concerns in Manhattan.
"An Ancient Stream Under a Manhattan Building Leads to a Dispute"
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/...ilding-dispute-about-subterranean-stream.html

Unfortunately your "belief" does not align with the Plans and Policies of the City of Calgary. Clearly the City of Calgary has taken into consideration the residents on the North Side of the development and the overall community. If there weren't significantly more profit in developing a six story building over a four story building, people may buy your argument that you are charitably contributing to the attractiveness of the community. Obviously your motivations in developing a 6 story building are not the same as the City's in developing their "Marda Loop Redevelopment Plan".

So I'm a troll now because I pointed out that underground water is a common problem that is easily remedied? Which project has been cancelled due to this issue? I haven't heard of one. BTW I've worked on projects with a 7 storey parkade underground that hit the underground steam in the middle of excavations, and this stream didn't show up on the geotechnical report due to the seasonality of said stream, and guess what, it got built and hasn't leaked a drop in the last 10 years!