North Hill Development

[DizzyEdge]

So I thought I'd start a thread regarding the "North Hill". The North Hill Area Redevelopment Plan covers to Capitol Hill/Mount Pleasant/Tuxedo Park but I think bits of Winston Heights-Mountview, Crescent Heights, and Renfrew would also be covered. Basically development related to the corridors of 16th Ave North, Centre Street North, 20th Ave North, 4th street North, and the northern reaches of Edmonton Trail.



Proposed, Planned or Active development:

16th Avenue

623 16TH AVENUE NE





http://www.barclaystreet.com/sites/d...20Ave%20NE.pdf

309 16 AVE NW
"KEE BUILDING"



http://tistudios.ca/projects.php

[DizzyEdge]

I've been invited to a Tuxedo Park workshop which will cover these topics:

Center Street
Edmonton Trail
Tuxedo Park
North Central LRT
Traffic

Curious what people feel would be the ideal density for each of these corridors.

For Centre I'd be fine with 4-6 story The Bridges style redevelopment or some of the newer buildings in Marda Loop and Inglewood, perhaps higher.

For 16th, same, perhaps higher.

For Edmonton trail, row/townhousing definitely, maybe the 4-6 story.

For 20th Ave probably only row/townhousing, but maybe 4-6 story at the major intersections.

Thoughts?

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I've been invited to a Tuxedo Park workshop which will cover these topics:

Center Street
Edmonton Trail
Tuxedo Park
North Central LRT
Traffic

Curious what people feel would be the ideal density for each of these corridors.

For Centre I'd be fine with 4-6 story The Bridges style redevelopment or some of the newer buildings in Marda Loop and Inglewood, perhaps higher.

For 16th, same, perhaps higher.

For Edmonton trail, row/townhousing definitely, maybe the 4-6 story.

For 20th Ave probably only row/townhousing, but maybe 4-6 story at the major intersections.

Thoughts?

Personally, I'd be happy with almost any height of building along the corridors you've indicated, so long as the market supports it, especially along 16th and Centre. What I don't want is lots that stay vacant or used only for parking for decades. Regardless of building heights, I think it is also important to preserve some of the great tree canopy in these neighbourhoods.

[DizzyEdge]

I've actually considered if the random tree canopy'd streets should be upzoned from duplex to rowhousing so more people can enjoy those streets.

[shogged]

if it were up to me, I'd model the density levels after the Lincoln park area in Chicago. probably one of my favourite communities in the states with a great mix of buildings and uses.

Either way, it makes the most sense to have the highest density the market will tolerate along the transit routes and major roadways, and branch out from there.

[rotten42]

Just about anything on 16th ave between 10th street and center would be great and long over due. That section just doesn't have any soul to it. I hope a variety of heights get built.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I've been invited to a Tuxedo Park workshop which will cover these topics:

Center Street
Edmonton Trail
Tuxedo Park
North Central LRT
Traffic

Curious what people feel would be the ideal density for each of these corridors.

For Centre I'd be fine with 4-6 story The Bridges style redevelopment or some of the newer buildings in Marda Loop and Inglewood, perhaps higher.

For 16th, same, perhaps higher.

For Edmonton trail, row/townhousing definitely, maybe the 4-6 story.

For 20th Ave probably only row/townhousing, but maybe 4-6 story at the major intersections.

Thoughts?

16th is currently zoned in the 8-10 storey range (I'm not sure of the FAR)

I'd like to see 4th st develop more row/townhouse with some key areas being the 4 storey type. Right now it seems that the homes that are being developed along 4th face the side streets rather than 4th.

Ultimately I'd like to see 4th along with 20th develop into the 4-6 on the ends of the blocks with 2-3 storeys through the middle, but I suspect you'd be in for a fight with the CA's.

One thing I'd like written into the ARP is the preservation of the urban forest, I'm finding many of the new infills being proposed are removing all the trees from the lot and not replacing them. As a CA we have little power to influence this sort of thing on contextual applications, whereas if it was a requirement in the ARP then the city could ensure it.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

16th is currently zoned in the 8-10 storey range (I'm not sure of the FAR)

I'd like to see 4th st develop more row/townhouse with some key areas being the 4 storey type. Right now it seems that the homes that are being developed along 4th face the side streets rather than 4th.

Ultimately I'd like to see 4th along with 20th develop into the 4-6 on the ends of the blocks with 2-3 storeys through the middle, but I suspect you'd be in for a fight with the CA's.

One thing I'd like written into the ARP is the preservation of the urban forest, I'm finding many of the new infills being proposed are removing all the trees from the lot and not replacing them. As a CA we have little power to influence this sort of thing on contextual applications, whereas if it was a requirement in the ARP then the city could ensure it.

You're right that 4th street doesn't really have any properties facing the street, other than a bit of retail. Replacing a couple of lots at the ends of each block with retail/row housing/etc could completely transform the nature of the street (for the better I think). As for 20th, single family home height rowhousing might be acceptible by a CA with the right visual examples and ability to restrict it to high quality developments. The current zoning would allow 25 ft or duplexes, so eliminating the space between narrow units wouldn't change the nature that much. I could see them not being in favor of townhousing where a 2nd row of units face the alley replacing backyards though, but rowhousing with backyards doesn't seem like it would mess with the aesthetic of a 'lowrise residential street' much.

[speedog]

4th Street NW won't change much for a long time just because of how the lots are situated in Mount Pleasant. Centre Street has lots that face directly onto it so the ability to develop multi-story structures is easier to do - really would like to see some of that up around 32-40th Avenues north as there's a lot of boarded up and vacant properties there right now.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

You're right that 4th street doesn't really have any properties facing the street, other than a bit of retail. Replacing a couple of lots at the ends of each block with retail/row housing/etc could completely transform the nature of the street (for the better I think). As for 20th, single family home height rowhousing might be acceptible by a CA with the right visual examples and ability to restrict it to high quality developments. The current zoning would allow 25 ft or duplexes, so eliminating the space between narrow units wouldn't change the nature that much. I could see them not being in favor of townhousing where a 2nd row of units face the alley replacing backyards though, but rowhousing with backyards doesn't seem like it would mess with the aesthetic of a 'lowrise residential street' much.

Given the fight that two developers went through to end up with 5 units (started at 6) on this lot [Streetview] it'd be hard to get anything over 2 storeys on 20th. I would agree that rowhousing would have little (if any) affect on the character of the neighbourhood. IMO given the amount of traffic that 20th sees it could easily be taller than the aves north or south of it and it would create a sound barrier for the rest of the community, just like the higher developments on the south side of 17th ave do for the noise from 16th.

There's two ways to approach this, one you get the CA's to generate the ideas as to what these look like, or you bring an idea that is pushing the limits and be willing to accept something less. I'm hoping to get the committee that I'm on to work on a set of principles that will guide responses and hopefully one day a revision to the ARP.

I would add 10th and 14th streets to your corridor map both are significant transportation corridors and have significant redevelopment potential.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

4th Street NW won't change much for a long time just because of how the lots are situated in Mount Pleasant. Centre Street has lots that face directly onto it so the ability to develop multi-story structures is easier to do - really would like to see some of that up around 32-40th Avenues north as there's a lot of boarded up and vacant properties there right now.

This is a significant issue, particularly with the road widening setback on the one side (the east side IIRC). I know of one DP that has one less unit than it would have without it.

[gantenbein]

I've just noticed a sign up on the empty lot south of Calgary Cycle (east side of Centre at 13th Ave) for a 4-storey, 40-unit development. They're calling it "Centre Green Living" (the rendering shows quite an array of solar panels on the roof). I can't find anything on the interwebs about the development or the developer behind it (Jandl or Jandel if I recall correctly -- there is a modular home builder by the name of Jandel -- let's hope it's not them).

Seems a little fly-by-nightish, but despite the uninspiring design, I'd take almost anything that fills the gaps along Centre.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

The vacant lot off of Edmonton Trail/24th Ave (to the north of Nixx) has been conditionally sold - I heard that there are plans for a 4 storey mixed use building (top 3 floors are residential, main level retail)

Would be a good addition to the area

[DizzyEdge]

I'm a really big fan of the density in Toronto, where there is a lot of people, but a real neighborhood feel, basically 100+ blocks of this:


www.cabbagetowninfo.com

With much of it 3 suites per side.
This but with more contemporary architecture would be great for parts of Calgary.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Given the fight that two developers went through to end up with 5 units (started at 6) on this lot [Streetview] it'd be hard to get anything over 2 storeys on 20th. I would agree that rowhousing would have little (if any) affect on the character of the neighbourhood. IMO given the amount of traffic that 20th sees it could easily be taller than the aves north or south of it and it would create a sound barrier for the rest of the community, just like the higher developments on the south side of 17th ave do for the noise from 16th.

There's two ways to approach this, one you get the CA's to generate the ideas as to what these look like, or you bring an idea that is pushing the limits and be willing to accept something less. I'm hoping to get the committee that I'm on to work on a set of principles that will guide responses and hopefully one day a revision to the ARP.

I would add 10th and 14th streets to your corridor map both are significant transportation corridors and have significant redevelopment potential.

What was the height/stories of that proposed 5 or 6 unit property? I think with the area anything bigger than the existing ex-R-2 probably has to be focussed on the main corridors. I suspect the community thought if a 5 story building was going on that non-corridor corner then it would open up the floodgates to developments like that throughout the community.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

This is a significant issue, particularly with the road widening setback on the one side (the east side IIRC). I know of one DP that has one less unit than it would have without it.

How many lanes would the full extent of the setback provide? I'm wondering if this is one of those setbacks where when you really think about it, you're not ever going to want 4th street to be 6 lanes or something like that. I also wonder if it would be useful to look at Centre and 4th and pick one that's transportation orientated and one that is 'highstreet' orientated, and adjust plans as needed.

I didn't mark 14th street on the map simply because there's only a few short blocks of developable land between the end of the merge lanes and Confederation Park. Maybe I should mark those up though, and 10th.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

How many lanes would the full extent of the setback provide? I'm wondering if this is one of those setbacks where when you really think about it, you're not ever going to want 4th street to be 6 lanes or something like that. I also wonder if it would be useful to look at Centre and 4th and pick one that's transportation orientated and one that is 'highstreet' orientated, and adjust plans as needed.

I didn't mark 14th street on the map simply because there's only a few short blocks of developable land between the end of the merge lanes and Confederation Park. Maybe I should mark those up though, and 10th.

1 more at most (~3-5m IIRC) and I doubt it'll be used for cars, it'll either be transit or bike. I suspect they might utilize it if the Centre St alignment is chosen for the green line.

Note: The above is purely a hypothesis on my part, outside of the existence of the setback.

I was given the impression that if Centre St is chosen as the alignment for the NCLRT, 4th will likely see a change in it's usage. Given it's poor vehicle connection to DT south of 16th, I suspect it will become more active mode oriented.

I think redevelopment along the 4th, 10th, and 14th corridors will make a huge difference in the feel of the street, right now 4th feels like a wasteland south of 20th.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

What was the height/stories of that proposed 5 or 6 unit property? I think with the area anything bigger than the existing ex-R-2 probably has to be focussed on the main corridors. I suspect the community thought if a 5 story building was going on that non-corridor corner then it would open up the floodgates to developments like that throughout the community.

3, single building with detached garage. I guess the original developer (before I was around) had come with a modern design with 6 units and it got a very negative reaction, including an appeal to the SDAB. The second developer came back with a more traditional design and 6 units and we reached a compromise where they would reduce the unit count to 5 and do a couple of other changes, entrance orientations, landscaping, pathways, etc. the revised DP hasn't come back yet so ultimately we won't know for sure til then.

[DizzyEdge]

It will be interesting to see if Tuxedo Park has any different opinions on desification than Mount Pleasant.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

It will be interesting to see if Tuxedo Park has any different opinions on desification than Mount Pleasant.

You'll have to give a full report.