[Mountain Man]

The making of a future main street here !

 

[Chinook Arch]

Once the project across the street from it is finished, 19th'll have a whole different feel to it. I see a junior Kensington in the works.

 

[Urban Outdoorsman]

 

[Silence&Motion]

While I love seeing this stretch of 19 St getting built up, it's very unfortunate that all the new buildings are raised off the sidewalk. I assume they've all been designed to be level with the back alleyway, which seems to be a little higher than the street. Either way, it's not great from a streetscape perspective.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

It's the floodplain. No one wants to risk the potential serious damage if they don't have to.

 

[haltcatchfire]

West Hillhurst isn't in the flood plain.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

That doesn't stop some developers from being squeamish. This development is only 500 meters from the riverbank. I don't know, it would give me pause for sure.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I'd hate to think what would happen to the rest of the inner-city if flood waters ever reached 19th and 1st Ave NW. That part of Hillhurst is probably about 5 m above the river. Are the extra two steps of elevation going to make the difference?

That's why I think it has to do with an elevation change between the back alley and the street. Better to have a raised front door than a sunken back door, perhaps? Not from a customer's standpoint.

 

[CBBarnett]

I'd hate to think what would happen to the rest of the inner-city if flood waters ever reached 19th and 1st Ave NW. That part of Hillhurst is probably about 5 m above the river. Are the extra two steps of elevation going to make the difference?

That's why I think it has to do with an elevation change between the back alley and the street. Better to have a raised front door than a sunken back door, perhaps? Not from a customer's standpoint.

Yeah that seems likely. As I mentioned, we typically talk about raised front steps as it relates to the floodplan (driven by all the tower discussions over the years in Victoria Park primarily). But there is more going on here all over the city where we build pedestrian-oriented but (ironically) inaccessible retail on our main streets.

It's not all the time, but more often than I would have guessed if the idea was a walkable main street. And it's been happening forever, old and new buildings both (at least old buildings can claim ignorance to accessibility issues). Perhaps Calgary's typical main street sites are just more hilly on a local level? Perhaps building policies are silent or not interested in this issue so we get a big range of outcomes? Perhaps its just a correlation bias - where businesses that concentrate on main streets tend to want more separation from the street for some reason? I don't know exactly.

Marda Loop:

Edmonton Trail:

Centre Street:

 

[haltcatchfire]

I'd hate to think what would happen to the rest of the inner-city if flood waters ever reached 19th and 1st Ave NW. That part of Hillhurst is probably about 5 m above the river. Are the extra two steps of elevation going to make the difference?

That's why I think it has to do with an elevation change between the back alley and the street. Better to have a raised front door than a sunken back door, perhaps? Not from a customer's standpoint.

The grade change here is also detrimental to the sidewalk as the property grade is higher and relatively flat for 95% of the lot and then drops off 500-600mm at the front. At one time lots were likely more gradually sloped as they are up to the single family on the east side of the street, but as they slowly shifted to commercial developments the lane grade was brought out level through the development and has now forced all developments to follow suit. The whole street needs to be raised but that is relatively impossible now.

There is however surface drainage grading to the street, that raising everything would defeat.

 

[sidewalk]

Pretty sure it's because that dip in 19th St North of Kensington Rd runs the risk of becoming a giant puddle if there's a drainage problem.

As a wheelchair user, a newly built block with all the shop entrances having steps is a nightmare, with at-grade disability access and parking at the rear of the building- like the Dentist next door - the practical solution.

Of course having 'out of sight, out of mind' disability access in the rear service entry space increases the risk that changes messing with it will slip by unnoticed..

Finding rear-of-building wheelchair paths newly blocked by garbage/recycling bins and bollards, badly remediated trenching, impossible slopes left after repaving or drainage repairs or doors blocked by maintenance trucks, cables and tools is surprisingly common, and much less likely to happen at a shop's main entrance.

 

[Cowtown]

Agree it would be better if the front was more level with the sidewalk. Unfortunately it’s a lot easier to raise the front of of the building then it is to have the back of the building sunken.

While I love seeing this stretch of 19 St getting built up, it's very unfortunate that all the new buildings are raised off the sidewalk. I assume they've all been designed to be level with the back alleyway, which seems to be a little higher than the street. Either way, it's not great from a streetscape perspective.

 

[CBBarnett]

Pretty sure it's because that dip in 19th St North of Kensington Rd runs the risk of becoming a giant puddle if there's a drainage problem.

As a wheelchair user, a newly built block with all the shop entrances having steps is a nightmare, with at-grade disability access and parking at the rear of the building- like the Dentist next door - the practical solution.

Of course having 'out of sight, out of mind' disability access in the rear service entry space increases the risk that changes messing with it will slip by unnoticed..

Finding rear-of-building wheelchair paths newly blocked by garbage/recycling bins and bollards, badly remediated trenching, impossible slopes left after repaving or drainage repairs or doors blocked by maintenance trucks, cables and tools is surprisingly common, and much less likely to happen at a shop's main entrance.

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

I don't understand why we are willing to allow such inferior and random outcomes that directly impact people so severely as to prevent them from using a building reliably. We leave so much up to random chance (e.g. someone making sure bins and debris aren't blocking things) rather than enforce designs that allow anyone to use a front door of a building for 50 to 100 years.

We shouldn't allow slight and well within the margin-of-error (especially over the 50 to 100 years of a building's life) drainage and water flow assumptions guide our development to the extent it excludes the building from being used by any human with any degree of mobility.

 

[Surrealplaces]

 

[Beazley66]

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

I don't understand why we are willing to allow such inferior and random outcomes that directly impact people so severely as to prevent them from using a building reliably. We leave so much up to random chance (e.g. someone making sure bins and debris aren't blocking things) rather than enforce designs that allow anyone to use a front door of a building for 50 to 100 years.

We shouldn't allow slight and well within the margin-of-error (especially over the 50 to 100 years of a building's life) drainage and water flow assumptions guide our development to the extent it excludes the building from being used by any human with any degree of mobility.

You nailed it. Side story: We designed a dental office building, which was to be located on 14t street NW in Hillhurst. The accessibility to the front entry was significantly degraded, an certainly not code worthy. The elevation differential if I recall was about 3' from entry to sidewalk. Our design mitigated that with an accessible ramp, and we included an accessible entry to the side. The story in this case, relates to the owners ambivalence towards those accessibility requirements, and frankly not understanding that accessibility is a right. That was one of the "falling off " points for us, and eventually went our separate ways. Later on at the City, I requested a review of the permit drawings, and saw that whoever he hired not only appropriated parts of our design, and distilled down the design, but neglected to provide an adequate accessibility solution to an existing condition, ( required code upgrade). How the hell that passed, I have no idea.