Overall, we feel that the project as approved represents both a lack of respect for the ARP and a missed opportunity to create what could have been a great "pedestrian gateway" into the Marda Loop business district.
 
^^ As it is, absolutely.
 
DougR said:
Overall, we feel that the project as approved represents both a lack of respect for the ARP and a missed opportunity to create what could have been a great "pedestrian gateway" into the Marda Loop business district.
Click to expand...
I haven't researched the plans for this one, but it at first glance seems reasonable for that particular location. With the slope and the off ramp to Crowchild could you really get a good pedestrian environment?

On the other hand I agree with you about the ARP. Seems pointless to have an ARP if it's not going to be followed.
 
DougR said:
Overall, we feel that the project as approved represents both a lack of respect for the ARP and a missed opportunity to create what could have been a great "pedestrian gateway" into the Marda Loop business district.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the site and thanks for you posts @DougR
 
DougR said:
Overall, we feel that the project as approved represents both a lack of respect for the ARP and a missed opportunity to create what could have been a great "pedestrian gateway" into the Marda Loop business district.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input DougR. What are your thoughts on how Odeon is turning out?
 
Yes I can confirm the name. The developer is Providence Group who has recently done another one in Marda Loop as well as they are just completing a project in Bridgeland.
 
2017-08-03 10.30.24.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2017-08-03 10.30.24.jpg
    2017-08-03 10.30.24.jpg
    2.6 MB · Views: 872
That's awesome! What a surprise. Marda Loop intensifying like crazy!
 
Alex_YYC said:
Thanks for your input DougR. What are your thoughts on how Odeon is turning out?
Click to expand...
Odeon turned out not too bad. Although its approval predated the Marda Loop ARP, it did a better job of complying with that ARP, which was then only in draft form, than subsequent developments that were, in theory, subject to the now approved ARP. Disappointments include only a single retail tenant that occupies the entire ground floor, a complete lack of street trees (and no, we don’t count the white metal thing as a street tree) and a compromised public realm on the 20th Street SW (west) side, where the already too narrow sidewalk was further narrowed and the 20th Street bikeway was shifted out away from the curb and undersized relative to recommended minimum width standards, to squeeze in street parking for 4 cars.
 
Ronmor wanted to put in street trees on 33rd ave, but a utility line in the boulevard meant they were not allowed to (unless an unreasonable cost was paid to relocate the line for blocks).
 
MichaelS said:
Ronmor wanted to put in street trees on 33rd ave, but a utility line in the boulevard meant they were not allowed to (unless an unreasonable cost was paid to relocate the line for blocks).
Click to expand...
Hmmm — suspect Ronmor gave up too soon on that issue, as we initially received that same response from the Main Streets group that has just begun work on a Streetscape Master Plan for the 33/34 AV SW Main Streets. We pushed back, taking the position that street trees were a must have, and the project leader has now confirmed that the standard utility clearance setbacks (which tend to overreach) will be relaxed to allow street trees to be planted.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top