J. DELIBERATION - HOLYROOD GARDENS REZONING (Closed to the public)
A.Zepp and W. Sims left the meeting due to conflicts.
MOVED: D. Deshpande
Motion of Non-support
In general the Edmonton Design Committee supports higher densities for Transit Oriented Developments in this area but a fundamental redesign of this project is needed.
The Committee has a number of general concerns; namely that:
● The proposed development represents a literal interpretation of City design guidelines (e.g. angular planes) without exploring a more creative integration of built form with the existing neighbourhood character or pattern.
● The responses to the Principles of Urban Design appear to be primarily focused on providing density rather than creating a sense of place or addressing the character of the area.
● There are apparent errors in the numerical calculations contained within the package.
● There are inconsistencies between the DC2 text and the graphics (e.g. the amount of green space to be provided).
The Committee also has a number of specific concerns related to the following outcomes as identified by the Applicant:
1. Site Layout and Planning
○ The package lacks sufficient analysis of the existing community context, and could benefit from an identification of basic placemaking elements, including nodes, paths, edges, districts, landscapes, street patterns and landmarks.
○ The proposed design lacks a well designed and integrated open space and public realm, with no hierarchy of open spaces identified.
2. Overall Massing and Built Form
○ The focus of development and architectural treatment has been concentrated along the west edge of the site; the Applicant is encouraged to consider alternative built forms and architectural definition along the eastern edge of the site abutting the existing neighbourhood.
○ The pattern of built forms and open space is very repetitive; similarly, more variation is needed in building types and uses.
○ The Committee supports the exploration of alternative built forms for the provision of family-oriented housing, particularly along the back alley (e.g. row housing housing).
○ Rather than a blanket DC2 text the Applicant is encouraged to consider sub-areas which define specific densities, uses and precincts, and should reflect site-specific conditions as well as the realities of construction phasing.
3. Integration into the Community
○ The proposed design lacks a sufficient consideration of edge conditions.
○ The Applicant is encouraged to consider how 93 Avenue will be used daily by the community; i.e. how is the transit plaza accessed, is there appropriate bicycle parking, interaction between vehicles and pedestrians, etc. Similar considerations are required at the southwest corner of the site.
4. Access to and From the Site
○ The package lacks clarity regarding connectivity to the east and west communities; i.e exploring ways to promote the development as a focal point for both the Holyrood and Strathearn neighbourhoods.
○ The Committee feels that the proposed pathways and walkways to adjacent neighbourhoods lack the provision of integrated and seamless connections with mutually supportive public realm and building design.
5. Enhanced Pedestrian Realm
○ The proposed design shows little evidence of an enhanced pedestrian realm, with little design support within the package in the form of cross sections, precedent images, etc.
○ The proposed design does not sufficiently explore the open space and landscape opportunities within the large areas of landscape over structure (i.e. green roof).
6. Pedestrian Experience
○ The proposed ‘transit plaza’ does not appear to be of sufficient size or configuration to function much differently as a widened sidewalk. The package lacks detail on how the plaza is to be used or programmed.
○ In addition to glazing requirements, the Applicant is encouraged to include requirements for active frontages to activate the public realm.
○ There appears to be little differentiation in the types of open spaces or the anticipated functions of the open spaces.
7. Sun shadows
○ The Committee is concerned about the impact of shadows on proposed open spaces and the adjacent neighbourhood. The Committee supports the exploration of alternative built form and massing scenarios, including the use of point towers over podiums at appropriate locations and variation of floor-plates for towers and mid-rise buildings to modify shadow impacts.
○ In addition, the Committee is also concerned about the wind impacts of this proposed design. The Committee strongly recommends that the proposed design be accompanied by a wind impact study to understand the impacts of wind, particularly on the open spaces proposed within the development.
SECONDED: B. Nolan
FOR THE MOTION: M. Figueira, R. Labonte, T. Antoniuk, S. Kaznacheeva, J. Mills, C. Holmes, D. Brown, B. Nolan
"
