Shadow Restrictions, do you support them?

[Calgarian]

With some recent discussion, and due to the fact that this seems to come up every once in a while, I think a thread (and poll) is warranted. Anyone who reads the main thread knows I am very much in favour. How about you?

[frinkprof]

Fata!

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=171164

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Fata!

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=171164

Dammit, should have done some research first.

[freeweed]

Meh, that's a 2 year old poll. I see value in re-visiting the idea based on changing conditions in Calgary. Did anyone back then seriously think we'd be on the cusp of another construction boom so quickly? And have we seen any actual "stops" put on projects due to the bylaw since then?

I also like the way Calgarian worded his options better (no offense to Wooster).

[earl69]

Re-post.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I also like the way Calgarian worded his options better (no offense to Wooster).

Wooster had a go Flames option, he wins! lol

[Koolfire]

I went with option 3 but I think that we should allow taller buildings if they create/improve green space for public/city use. For example to build a taller building they would have to pay for improvements to St. Patrick Island or a project like Emerald Necklace (13th Avenue Greenway Project).

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I also like the way Calgarian worded his options better (no offense to Wooster).

I'm deeply offended!!

[Wooster]

I like how the constraints of the shadow by-law produce this kind of effect along the river's edge. Much better than a wall of buildings.

[Bigtime]

Agreed with Wooster 100%. The tapering effect we get towards the river looks great. Just look at how awesome the view from McHugh Bluff is, watching as each building going south gets taller than the one in front of it.

And if that isn't your cup of tea than just go over to Scottsman's hill and see the opposite, with newer buildings blocking parts of the downtown core from view (arriVa and company).

[Boris2k7]

I still support the shadowing bylaw. We ought to protect key spaces, intended for public enjoyment, from what I believe is a form of encroachment (note: I would not make this argument for private spaces except for the case of sidewalk patios). The one major downside of the shadowing bylaws is that it can hinder sites from being as developed as they might have been otherwise.

[Calgarian]

I also like the tapered effect the shadow bylaw is creating. While having a big wall of towers similar to the Chicago waterfront would be cool, this provides a more human scale to the area.

[DizzyEdge]

Where we might get a really cool wall one day a ways into the future is the north side of memorial, although I'm somewhat torn about redevelopment of that stretch.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Where we might get a really cool wall one day a ways into the future is the north side of memorial, although I'm somewhat torn about redevelopment of that stretch.

That will happen eventually, but not for a very very long time.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Where we might get a really cool wall one day a ways into the future is the north side of memorial, although I'm somewhat torn about redevelopment of that stretch.

That is a tricky spot to redevelop like that. There are quite afew historic buildings along there and the character of that road is dependent on them. I don't think you will see the north side of Memorial redeveloped much in your lifetime except for renovations of historic buildings into higher end condos and filling in the gaps between the historic buildings with expensive character condo's that suit the street.

I don't think it will EVER become tall condo complexes right along there.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Tropics

That is a tricky spot to redevelop like that. There are quite afew historic buildings along there and the character of that road is dependent on them. I don't think you will see the north side of Memorial redeveloped much in your lifetime except for renovations of historic buildings into higher end condos and filling in the gaps between the historic buildings with expensive character condo's that suit the street.

I don't think it will EVER become tall condo complexes right along there.

Sure it will, as developable land becomes scarce (we're talking 40 - 50 years down the road), Sunnyside, Hillhurst, Bridgeland will all see denser development. You are already starting to see the beginning of that area become a dense, innercity neighbourhood. I doubt it will be tall like the CBD isl, but probably fairly dense.

[UC-LAW]

I like the Tapered look as well, but i think you could have a problem when the Core becomes to dense for commercial towers. I agree that the tapered look along the river is great but i dont think you can do it south into the beltline or you could start to get a roller coaster DT.

[DizzyEdge]

It's very likely that the few historic apartments on Memorial will stay, along with very few of the best restored single family housing; the rest will go. Although it gets used as an example perhaps a bit too much, I don't think "The Bridges" style multifamily interspersed with a few historic buildings will be a bad look for Memorial.

[googspecial]

I have fallen into the depths of old threads. Anyways, this article I read recently has an interesting position on supertalls and shadowing.

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

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by UC-LAW

I like the Tapered look as well, but i think you could have a problem when the Core becomes to dense for commercial towers. I agree that the tapered look along the river is great but i dont think you can do it south into the beltline or you could start to get a roller coaster DT.

in 100 years? Our downtown has so much more space available to develop we could build for the next 100 years and not fill it. No need to start reviewing shadowing laws until we maxed out all the space between 5th ave and 17th ave. To which there is TONS (parking lots, derelict short rise buildings that can be demoed etc.)