The city continues to drop the ball with those setbacks.It was good to see that the form of this one is nothing like the generic render on the site sign. Facade is 20 feet too far west though...grumble grumble...old man yells at cloud...
|
|
|
The city continues to drop the ball with those setbacks.It was good to see that the form of this one is nothing like the generic render on the site sign. Facade is 20 feet too far west though...grumble grumble...old man yells at cloud...
The city continues to drop the ball with those setbacks.
Other old man agrees. Want to play checkers in the park and yell at squirrels ?It was good to see that the form of this one is nothing like the generic render on the site sign. Facade is 20 feet too far west though...grumble grumble...old man yells at cloud...
Nice to see what’s going above that massive pit in front of the hospital. It looks nicer than any of the other condos being built there now. The worst is still Cedarglen. Will another development be sharing the north side of that block?
So far the institutional stuff in Seton is on a way higher level than the residential. The rec centre and high school are both fantastic looking buildings. As is the hospital itself. Maybe it’s just price point but Westman Village is a much higher calibre than any of the Seton offerings so far.
Why do they care so much? Is it a case of "setting and forgetting": developer applies, planner checks against set-backs set decades ago and says yes or no, regardless if the original reason is on the books still (road expansion, utilities etc.) or is there some sort of more concerted effort by city administration to resist more urban (i.e. minimal or wide sidewalk only) set-backs like other cities?
I find it bizarre how dumb these quasi-suburban retail fronting buildings are and yet loads get approved with little fanfare. Set-back fails have the same dumbness-to-occurrence ratio as too high parking minimums in this city.
I'm on the other end of that spectrum forum friends! I like big wide yards with no shared walls but friendly neighborhoods. So 70's to 80's is my favorite. And depending on the area some older but I'm not a big fan of certain things in older homes, mainly wiring.
I'm with you Rollerstud98.
Not sure why it's assumed by most on here that people want high densities and early 20th century form - yuck
Why do they care so much? Is it a case of "setting and forgetting": developer applies, planner checks against set-backs set decades ago and says yes or no, regardless if the original reason is on the books still (road expansion, utilities etc.) or is there some sort of more concerted effort by city administration to resist more urban (i.e. minimal or wide sidewalk only) set-backs like other cities?
I find it bizarre how dumb these quasi-suburban retail fronting buildings are and yet loads get approved with little fanfare. Set-back fails have the same dumbness-to-occurrence ratio as too high parking minimums in this city.
There was some discussion of this on the board at some point (can't remember which thread). My sense was it's a combination of "setting and forgetting" and dinosaurs continuing to hold onto the misguided belief that Edmonton Trail might someday be expanded (particularly since the LRT is going to be running on Centre Street).
The area around 14th and 17th seems to be heating up a bit recently. The Arlington in the NW corner of that intersection, the nearby Scarboro 17, the recently completed 1515 and then this.So, I think it is safe to say we now know the location of Batistella's next project:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2018-2275
To give a brief history, yes these road widening setbacks (see section 53(1) of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007) date back to the 60s I think. They were intended to add lanes of traffic. So, 5.182m on both sides of Edmonton Trail was intended to add a lane in each direction, making it a 6 lane road. Luckily, not all of these happened (16th Ave through Montgomery is 10.363 on the south side, and the intention is to allow for a 6 lane road eventually and it is still on the books I think).
Since then, the table has lumbered on in existence, without any major reforms unless a major road widenign project was undertaken (16th AVe from 14th West to 6th East for instance). Roads continues to demand it be protected, from heaven to hell, no matter the circumstances. Downtown finally received some compromise, allowing developers to encroach in this space starting at the P2 level of the parkade, and 9.0m above the grade level (so 3rd floor could cantilever over). Any non-city centre development seeking the same relaxation was typically stonewalled. This is why nothing has been built on the north side of 16th Ave since the ARP was passed over a decade ago. Losing 5.182m of your property meant any sort of parkade was just not feasible.
Fast forward, and the new CTP and Complete Streets policies get approved, essentially confirming that we aren't going to widen all roads all the time. However, as seems to be the norm, not all policies/bylaws were updated to reflect these new overarching desires, and the stupid bylawed setback table continued to lumber along. The one positive is, the table protected for wider boulevards, allowing proper room for things like boulevard trees, wider sidewalks and cycling infrastructure. However, this still doesn't solve the problem of inefficient parkades, and developers even offering to build a sidewalk on their parkade, and set the building back with a public access easement, was typically met with a refusal.
Currently, there is a consortium of inner-city developers meeting with City representatives on how to improve the process for redevelopment, making things easier/cutting red tape. I have heard this table is high on their agenda, but not sure what progress has been made on it.
That's what I take away from it also. Honestly, it wouldn't hurt for the city to hire a some summer co-op students who are taking urban planning and have them take a run at the bulk of this stuff, with some experienced planners reviewing and signing off on it.So, from what I take away from this, is that there are layers of paperwork accumulated over decades at city hall and no one bothered to do any house keeping.
That, plus some older personalities and departments that still strongly believe in the older layers, and less so in the new layers. It is mind boggling sometimes, as you can point to a direct council approved policy asking for X, but have members of administration tell you they still nee Y. When you point out that the actual, council approved plan says X, the response is "well, plans can change, so we need to protect for Y". It is a much larger task than simply doing some "house cleaning". It will require a dedicated interest and clear direction from senior members of administration, which just doesn't seem to care based on my experience.So, from what I take away from this, is that there are layers of paperwork accumulated over decades at city hall and no one bothered to do any house keeping.