gsunnyg said:
I'm talking about the building side, where they have the landscaping rendered on the drawing, the grass surrounding the row of trees can stay. IMO putting grass to fill the spots where the building angles just looks a bit unnecessary. People are guaranteed to walk all over it and it'll probably be yellow for 6 months and snow the other 6, might as well try something cool with it. The next few plots of land next to this site will also be eventually redeveloped to higher density in the future, so more foot traffic down this sidewalk is guaranteed. Maybe they can make it a small public space for people to sit, have lunch, etc. Or like I said before, just expanded concrete to walk/stand on beats a narrow section of grass (Just me nitpicking, getting inspired by Watched Walker videos from Europe lol )
Click to expand...
You see this in some of the new builds in the Beltline, its not just walking but dogs in particular peeing on a very small grass area. Grass doesn't really have a chance when the wear is so concentrated. Some buildings have put up fake grass as a replacement which is a bit ridiculous. I assume this is all to make a modest difference on some sort of permeable surface calculation + reduce maintenance costs. Seems a bit too much of following the letter of rules too specifically without thinking of the bigger picture where the density preserves more areas elsewhere from being impervious by reducing sprawl, roads and impact. Paving a foot or two more would make the public realm so much more useful in some cases too.

I love street trees, shrubberies and swales as much as anyone - but I think it's okay we don't have grass strips or swales if we can't fit them in rather than have worn out ones that are ugly, compacted (so aren't very permeable anyways) or fake.
 
Last edited:
CBBarnett said:
You see this in some of the new builds in the Beltline, its not just walking but dogs in particular peeing on a very small grass area. Grass doesn't really have a chance when the wear is so concentrated. Some buildings have put up fake grass as a replacement which is a bit ridiculous. I assume this is all to make a modest difference on some sort of permeable surface calculation + reduce maintenance costs. Seems a bit too much of following the letter of rules too specifically without thinking of the bigger picture where the density preserves more areas elsewhere from being impervious by reducing sprawl, roads and impact. Paving a foot or two more would make the public realm so much more useful in some cases too.

I love street trees, shrubberies and swales as much as anyone - but I think it's okay we don't have grass strips or swales if we can't fit them in rather than have worn out ones that are ugly, compacted (so aren't very permeable anyways) or fake.
Click to expand...
My preference would be to create larger front patios with picket-fence with gates and high quality landscaping for each of the ground-floor units within the setback area (up to the sidewalk edge). This gives people private space to relax and actually use. When its common area lawn, the grass space is never used and useful amenity space in the setback area for the ground floor units makes them more marketable units to sell or lease. If you make these spaces peoples larger extended patios, they will actually get used and will create a nicer shared experience area even though it is private. If you have a Front Setback Area make it useful and attractive for the actual tenants/occupiers of those ground-floor units.
Examples:
Little Mountain 1
Little Mountain 2
Little Mountain 3
Little Mountain 4
Mission 1
 
Last edited:
It’s a difficult thing to navigate. Do larger patios and the units above don’t sell as well because of the concerns about the larger gatherings below outside their only windows. That’s why some of these developments like Anthem Memorial (whatever long winded name that is) and Providence have huge planters and tiny patios.

Really, they should just extend the lower level of the building further to the sidewalk if they’re not going to provide the space for the residents. Otherwise it just leaves an ill maintained piece of turf. But I’m not sure where the property line falls in relation to the sidewalk and some times that’s the problem when some of it is city property.
 
DP was appealed to the SDAB. Don't see the file on their docket yet but I am 99% sure it is our local litigator Ljubica Stubicar at work again. She appeals every application and revision on the block, often followed by requests for judicial review.
 
I gotta agree, Sunnyside is just the worst. There's so much potential to make it into a year-round vibrant destination with high-density buildings like Bridgeland, yet a late bloomer like Bridgeland is looking like it's going to leap Sunnyside in terms of development. There's a C-train that runs through the heart of Sunnyside which is a huge advantage for creating a true TOD. However, at the current rate, in terms of new developments and the amount of density the community is willing to accept, it's going to take forever to transform the area into its true potential. I wonder how many active developers just skip Sunnyside knowing it's going to be a long hideous process of having a development approved. Not cool Sunnyside!
 
Last edited:
gsunnyg said:
I gotta agree, Sunnyside is just the worst. There's so much potential to make it into a year-round vibrant destination with high-density buildings like Bridgeland, yet a late bloomer like Bridgeland is looking like it's going to leap Sunnyside in terms of development. There's a C-train that runs through the heart of Sunnyside which is a huge advantage for creating a true TOD. However, at the current rate in terms of new developments and the amount of density the community is willing to accept, it's going to take forever to transform the area into its true potential. I wonder how many active developers just skip Sunnyside knowing it's going to be a long hideous process of having a development approved. Not cool Sunnyside!
Click to expand...
This is a good question:
To what degree does community opposition play in multi-family redevelopment decisions by developers? I have my opinions but I'm curious what others think on if it's material vs. other factors that influence development activity and locations (land prices etc.)

Both Bridgeland and Sunnyside/Hillhurst have seen fairly consistent development for years (with Bridgeland really pulling out the stops lately in scale) so it's a bit blurry to compare just on outcomes alone as development has happened in both. Is it that one neighbourhood successfully "defends" against redesignations with increased density better? For example, if I had two parcels with 20m height limits would I be more likely to get approved up to 30m in Bridgeland than Hillhurst on account of community opposition alone?
 
Last edited:
It’s a bit of an apples/oranges situation.

In Bridgeland you have Radius, Dominion, Steps, Jemm, Minto all going up on vacant land and a fair distance downhill from the majorly single family streets north of 1st ave. You also have a neighbourhood light on amenities that could see those take hold with a population jump.

Then in Sunnyside you have development replacing single family homes, in a community that to some feels finished. Kensington is amenity rich compared to most parts of the city, so the need for new residents isn’t so obvious to the locals.

No idea why anyone would be opposed to Jemm though. It has no negatives.
 
haltcatchfire said:
It’s a bit of an apples/oranges situation.

In Bridgeland you have Radius, Dominion, Steps, Jemm, Minto all going up on vacant land and a fair distance downhill from the majorly single family streets north of 1st ave. You also have a neighbourhood light on amenities that could see those take hold with a population jump.

Then in Sunnyside you have development replacing single family homes, in a community that to some feels finished. Kensington is amenity rich compared to most parts of the city, so the need for new residents isn’t so obvious to the locals.

No idea why anyone would be opposed to Jemm though. It has no negatives.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. If the developments were further north in Bridgeland along 1st ave or more north we might see more resistance. Even then, iirc there was resistance from the CA against Dominion. Maybe that's standard fare for all inner city community associations, I mean I'm pro-development, but I can see people in Bridgeland or Sunnyside, thinking, hey my hood's great as it is, don't go fixing something that ain't broke.
 
haltcatchfire said:
It’s a bit of an apples/oranges situation.

In Bridgeland you have Radius, Dominion, Steps, Jemm, Minto all going up on vacant land and a fair distance downhill from the majorly single family streets north of 1st ave. You also have a neighbourhood light on amenities that could see those take hold with a population jump.

Then in Sunnyside you have development replacing single family homes, in a community that to some feels finished. Kensington is amenity rich compared to most parts of the city, so the need for new residents isn’t so obvious to the locals.

No idea why anyone would be opposed to Jemm though. It has no negatives.
Click to expand...
Yea, that definitely could be a legit case for why an area like Bridgeland meets very little resistance. I'm also thinking demographics play a role. In an area like Chinatown, there's always heavy resistance to new developments, even on empty parking lots and even though the whole area is already designated for multi-family units. Sunnyside, Marda Loop, and Chinatown, all seem to attract the grumpy old folks that are more resistant to change, and unfortunately, for the case of increasing density, our inner-city neighborhoods are largely composed of this demographic.

But what baffles me is when in an area, like this Sunnyside project, there are two other 9 storey highrises right nearby, yet these NIMBYist think they have a legit chance of bringing something like this down to 5 storeys. All this redundant NIMBYism does is it either creates uncertainty for investors or adds to the developer's costs which are eventually passed on to buyers. Now I'm all for legit concerns related to good urbanism like massing of retail podiums (cough cough cidex) or shadowing onto mainstreets, but trying to cap density right next to a LRT station is something beyond my understanding. It's like saying, "hey, only my friends and I are allowed to use this part of town, right next to a public transit station and great amenities, and we don't want to share this awesome location with another 200 people, even though there's a lot of room for more." Straight evil if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top