HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Buildings & Architecture, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


View Poll Results: Do you support shadow restrictions for the River Pathway system and downtown parks?
Yes, sunny spaces are vital to a vibrant core. 49 59.04%
No, taller is better. 13 15.66%
Should be discretionary for signature buildings 21 25.30%
Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 4:36 PM
Northski Northski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
FAR (floor area ratio) is sometimes a greater restriction than height. The city could set aside extra FAR that could be sold every year, say at 100$ square foot which you could add 25% to the existing FAR of a site. The money could be set aside for a LRT/rapid transit fund.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 5:34 PM
Spring2008 Spring2008 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lower Mount Royal, Calgary
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northski View Post
FAR (floor area ratio) is sometimes a greater restriction than height. The city could set aside extra FAR that could be sold every year, say at 100$ square foot which you could add 25% to the existing FAR of a site. The money could be set aside for a LRT/rapid transit fund.
Interesting concept, but I'd rather see the density bonusing system further expanded to allow for much greater heights given exceptional design and other elements. Developers paying for the FAR directly would likely mean a drop in quality, as they'd still be looking to maintain their profit margins.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 5:55 PM
MasterG's Avatar
MasterG MasterG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring2008 View Post
Interesting concept, but I'd rather see the density bonusing system further expanded to allow for much greater heights given exceptional design and other elements. Developers paying for the FAR directly would likely mean a drop in quality, as they'd still be looking to maintain their profit margins.
Is there any ability of the city to blanket an area for rezoning? i.e. SFH to allow for duplexes, 4-storey walkups etc.

Could the city rezone entire districts even on land they do not own?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 6:09 PM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,135
Get rid of Shadowing altogether. Close proximety to other high-rises and the shear width/bulk is creating more shadows than the height! Sometimes I think the planning dept. is more concerned about having some kind of "suburban feel" to areas of DT, Beltline & Eau Claire! Plenty of sunshine in areas.... if you want more, well, I hear Okotoks is nice!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 6:55 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Couldn't disagree more TallBob. Sunshine is something that should be celebrated in a climate like ours, not pushed out to the burbs.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 7:14 PM
Spring2008 Spring2008 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lower Mount Royal, Calgary
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by googspecial View Post
I have fallen into the depths of old threads. Anyways, this article I read recently has an interesting position on supertalls and shadowing.
I have fallen into the depths of old threads. Anyways, this article I read recently has an interesting position on supertalls and shadowing.

Quote:
In New York City, four of the tallest buildings in the country are being built on the same street, West 57th. They're all supertalls (over 300 meters) and all luxury towers. But here's the thing—they're all supertalls, yes, but thanks to ridiculous construction advances, they're all super thin. One is only 40 feet wide. Even if it doesn't have a restaurant or retail on the bottom floor, 40 feet isn't going to do that much to disrupt the nature of the sidewalk below, or the views from neighboring buildings, or even the availability of light on the ground.

Instead of fretting about height restrictions, cities should focus on mandating width-restrictions if the building isn't providing value to the community. After all, it's all about that street life; it's about where that supertall touches the ground and serves its neighbors. For a luxury building, 40-feet wide seems about right—go as high as you want. But if it's an affordable housing project with a preschool on the bottom floor, these are the projects we want to hold the largest footprints in our cities. They can go up and out.
http://gizmodo.com/tall-is-good-how-...1478168830/all

http://gizmodo.com/tall-is-good-how-...1478168830/all
Very impressive, but how many people would feel safe in a 40foot wide, 400m+ tower in a windstorm or hurricane? Especially after years of wear and tear. Also, think this tower is so slim and tall, it appears a bit disproportional. Idk maybe its just me. Major props to NY regardless, lots of supertall construction going on there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 7:56 PM
DarthMalgus DarthMalgus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 534
I voted "discretionary". I think that restricting shadow along the riverfront, for example, is a very important goal but I also think there should be at least some measure of discretion. I would have loved to have seen The Bow be the tallest in Canada (but not at the cost of it overshadowing a huge swath of riverfront). Of course, determining impact would depend a lot on shadow studies.

Unfortunately, we are a winter city, which means daylight is in very short supply. Too bad downtown isnt on the north side of the river...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 8:59 PM
Full Mountain's Avatar
Full Mountain Full Mountain is offline
YIMBY
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
Couldn't disagree more TallBob. Sunshine is something that should be celebrated in a climate like ours, not pushed out to the burbs.
QFT...Amazing the affect that sunlight has on a cold day here
__________________
Incremental Photo - @PhotogX_1

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own not those of any affiliated organizations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 9:06 PM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterG View Post
Is there any ability of the city to blanket an area for rezoning? i.e. SFH to allow for duplexes, 4-storey walkups etc.

Could the city rezone entire districts even on land they do not own?
Yes, the city initiates rezoning on land they don't own all the time. Sometimes its a single parcel (such as Union Square 2, which was city initiated), or entire swaths of a community (such as a large stretch of 10th Ave in Sunalta during the WLRT process to allow for increased density). And sometimes it comes back to bite them in the ass, such as when they accidently downzoned the land that the President Apartments sits on, which then required them re-upzoning it after the owner realized what had happened.
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 10:29 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMalgus View Post
I would have loved to have seen The Bow be the tallest in Canada
1. It never would have been. Shadowing cut the height by a tiny bit, but it was never close to Canada's tallest. At least not in any realistic "we're gonna actually build this sucker, oh wait, shadowing bylaws!!!!" sense.

2. There's a butt-ton of available land in this city that could support a new tallest. The cost of a slightly-different lot is nothing compared to the cost of a 300m+ tower. Developers aren't settling in around the low 200m range because of shadowing bylaws.
__________________
Suburbs are the friends with benefits of the housing world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2014, 5:27 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,135
^^ Good point Freeweed.... but still!! ^^
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 4:17 AM
tomthumb2's Avatar
tomthumb2 tomthumb2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 682
I voted to scrap it. The weather is always crappy in Calgary for 6 months of the year anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 7:12 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,135
Ya! Why fight it!! LOL. I used to say.... Too much sun causes skin cancer!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2014, 1:15 AM
Tills13 Tills13 is offline
Looking Up
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 516
I think the bow river should remain unshadowed. It's a good place to relax/take a walk on the sunny days Calgary does have.

There's no shortage of space South of the Bow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2014, 3:59 AM
Spring2008 Spring2008 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lower Mount Royal, Calgary
Posts: 5,147
I'm all for bigger heights, but I much prefer the layered look and height variety that comes from the river path shadowing bylaw, than a flat top wall look.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2014, 4:01 AM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomthumb2 View Post
I voted to scrap it. The weather is always crappy in Calgary for 6 months of the year anyway.
Nah, all the more reason to have them. Even -5 in the sunshine in winter feels very pleasant. In a shadow, not so much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2014, 7:25 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 19,968
I like the shadow bylaw, just because I treasure my sunlight.

I would be okay with the city allowing one building to break the bylaw by allowing a one time only 300' extra height allowance. First tower in gets the relaxation of the bylaw, and after that...no more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 4:51 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,135
^^ Or, just pay off the planning commision! I could see relaxing some of the Shadowing restrictions if the developers of potential project sets asside a percentage of "Below market" apartments/condos! Affordible housing is a bigger issue/problem than shadows cast by Tall buildings are!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 8:29 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surrealplaces View Post
I like the shadow bylaw, just because I treasure my sunlight.

I would be okay with the city allowing one building to break the bylaw by allowing a one time only 300' extra height allowance. First tower in gets the relaxation of the bylaw, and after that...no more.
Would that be subject to legal challenges though?

How bout once you get into shadow territory, the floors much be double height and the glazing transparent...would that even work? Could sunlight travel through a building like that? Or what about double height floors, but the top half of each of them is actually open space, with just support beams.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Buildings & Architecture, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.