The Shadow By-law [Archive] - SkyscraperPage Forum

freeweed

Jul 5, 2009, 4:43 PM

y are these laws applied anyway:shrug: could some1 explain??

Because in other cities, we've seen what happens when development is allowed to happen unchecked - downtowns basically become concrete canyons, sterile places where no one wants to actually BE.

Calgary has a tremendous amount of greenspace (especially) by the river that is enjoyed by people from all over the city. Imagine if we built a wall of highrise towers right next to it, leaving it in perpetual shadow - not only would trees and such stop growing, but people would abandon the area. Natural light is important to most of us.

This law is on par with the decision made in the 1960s to not run massive freeways through the heart of Calgary.

That's my take on things, anyway. The experts here can provide a more detailed explanation.

koval95

Jul 5, 2009, 5:27 PM

:previous: i agree but if some1 wants to build a 400m tower in east village will it approved or canceled????

freeweed

Jul 5, 2009, 5:57 PM

:previous: i agree but if some1 wants to build a 400m tower in east village will it approved or canceled????

Depends on where. The law isn't just a "no buildings over x height in the east village", it's a complex calculation designed to minimize shadowing impact of a building.

It's unlikely someone would build a 400m tower in Calgary anywhere (this is nearly 2x the height of the Bow!), but if they tried, it would have to be set back a lot more from the river. From what I gather, very few exceptions have ever been allowed, and this would be the mother of all exceptions.

O-tacular

Jul 5, 2009, 6:37 PM

Bigtime

Jul 5, 2009, 7:01 PM

I voted for the "good but should be flexible" option.

Things I love about the shadowing bylaw:

-the stepped look of our CBD as the building heights lower towards the river
-having loads of natural light shining on the paths and parks along the river

Things I don't love:

-how an exception couldn't be made for an outstanding building like The Bow

mooky

Jul 5, 2009, 7:48 PM

I fully support the shadowing bylaw. All you need to do is walk downtown on a really bright day, and look at how dark many of the streets still are to see that the little daylight to be found anywhere in teh core is a welcome ray of sunshine. I mean it can be nice and sunny, 21C, but windy, and when the wind funnels through some of the blocks that are shadowed, the breeze is cool, chilly cool. Sort of makes street cafe's on blocks where there is sun an oddity instead of the norm in the core.

With that said, the river pathway area being unblocked by shadows is a place you can go on a sunny day and always expect to find sun and that's how it should be kept. I just wish it was redeveloped with more of a European cafe feel to it as well, a little more life inside with big windows facing the river front for the ~6 months out of the year that the river paths are underused due to the climate.

Riise

Jul 6, 2009, 3:02 AM

I'm especially disappointed they couldn't make an exception for the Bow. It's ironic Druh complained about the compromise in the atrium design, when had this building's original height been allowed, their would have been no need.

I'm actually quite happy that the City dug in their heels. Also, I find Druh's comments avoidable rather than ironic. If the designers of the Bow had kept Calgary's shadowing bylaws in mind when they were drawing it up they could have accommodated both an atrium and enough office space. Therefore, they wouldn't have been forced to make the changes to find extra space.

Things I don't love:

-how an exception couldn't be made for an outstanding building like The Bow

Slippery slope, very slippery. Additionally, this exception wouldn't have taken into consideration other future outstanding buildings and their numbers.

DLLB

Jul 6, 2009, 4:12 AM

Shadow nazis suck!

Nudrock

Jul 6, 2009, 4:29 AM

As a shadow-nazi, I voted for "Fully support the by-law" even though I don't know exactly all that it encompasses.

I'm for the prevention of building towers that might cast shadows on the river parks/paths and some other parks.

As we only have one small river park system on the shadow side of downtown, we don't have too many options on creating natural sunny green spaces. On constructing a 60 or 70 story tower, we have many options that won't create shadow issues - those options are on 9 and 10th Ave. and spots further south. I think it is just that simple.

Go ahead, build upwards people - no shadow-nazi will stop you from building a 70 story building on 9th ave - at least not me.

devonb

Jul 6, 2009, 6:16 AM

:previous:

Agreed. With so many areas to build a giant building, we need to protect the river.

Fully support - no exceptions.

wild wild west

Jul 6, 2009, 2:13 PM

I have no problem with the shadow bylaw. The fact that we still have one of the best skylines in North America, even with it, shows how it allows Calgary to have an iconic skyline while at the same time protecting valuable open spaces.

While it may be disappointing that buildings such as Bow and the proposed City Centre were trimmed back from their original proposed heights, I would suggest that is a problem with the developer acquiring sites not ideal for their intentions, not with the bylaw itself. As others have noted there are plenty of downtown sites that would allow for the construction of buildings that could be the tallest in Canada, if a developer were interested in doing so.

We still have buildings nearly 600' tall within a few blocks of the river (Canterra, Centennial and Jamieson). Even buildings within a block of the river are 15-20 storeys...if this were Winnipeg or Ottawa, at those heights those buildings would be prominent in the skyline. This is not a particularly draconian bylaw.

I guess it comes down to whether we want our waterfront to resemble the Toronto waterfront, or something more humanly scaled like, say, Boston or Portland.

freeweed

Jul 6, 2009, 4:28 PM

I guess it comes down to whether we want our waterfront to resemble the Toronto waterfront, or something more humanly scaled like, say, Boston or Portland.

Bingo. Same reason why I bring up the spectre of having a freeway run right through downtown. I still shudder to think of how much that would have ruined the city (Gardiner is in my mind).

The "stepped" look is a wonderful side-effect. It really adds to the sense of density and a full skyline.

frinkprof

Jul 6, 2009, 6:15 PM

Shadow nazis suck!DLLB, I've seen you say this, or things to this effect, a number of times in the past - probably more than any other forumer, but never with much other explanation. I'd be curious to hear why you dislike the by-law so much.

As for myself, I can see the positives it brings, as others have pointed out. I guess I'm somewhere between "support it fully" and "it should be more flexible," if that makes any sense. I'd like to see it relaxed for buildings like the Bow. Something like once or twice a century (not that highrises in Calgary, or anywhere, have been around much longer than that). However, Riise makes a good point that it is a slippery slope, and there is no accounting for architectural taste. If it were to be relaxed for something like the Bow, someone would make a case that it should be relaxed for a mediocre tower, or worse, something as bad as Oscar.

Bigtime

Jul 6, 2009, 8:08 PM

I hear ya Frink, I'm the same way. I fully acknowledge what Riise has said, and agree that it would be a very slippery slope to grant exceptions.

DLLB

Jul 6, 2009, 10:50 PM

DLLB, I've seen you say this, or things to this effect, a number of times in the past - probably more than any other forumer, but never with much other explanation. I'd be curious to hear why you dislike the by-law so much.

As for myself, I can see the positives it brings, as others have pointed out. I guess I'm somewhere between "support it fully" and "it should be more flexible," if that makes any sense. I'd like to see it relaxed for buildings like the Bow. Something like once or twice a century (not that highrises in Calgary, or anywhere, have been around much longer than that). However, Riise makes a good point that it is a slippery slope, and there is no accounting for architectural taste. If it were to be relaxed for something like the Bow, someone would make a case that it should be relaxed for a mediocre tower, or worse, something as bad as Oscar.

I think it is too intrasigent and that is what I really dislike about it. Allow exceptions. If you allow some, you don't have to allow them all. Look at each one on it's own merits or problems. If I had the attitude of the shadow nazis in my line of work I would be fired in 2 seconds flat. Yes we have rules and some good ones but if what is reuired goes against a rule we have, we look at all pro's and con's and whether overall it is in the best interests of the overall need. In other words, if it is necessary to provide the users with what they need to do their job and the downside is acceptable, we do it..

I guess what I am saying is that it is a very mindless way to operate - allow exceptions. There is no thought whatsoever - just a NO! When something like the Bow comes along and is stopped by a mindless approach, it really bugs me. How many more opportunities like the Bow will we have?

I don't think one fish will commit suicide if there is a shadow on the river, nor do I think people will go crazy. As well, shadow's move - when we have them.

Blader

Jul 7, 2009, 12:08 AM

Thank you Wooster for starting this thread.

I, frequently, cycle and rollerblade the Bow River pathways and really appreciate the sunshine. Still, new construction in the core, abiding by the existing bylaws, will continue to erode sunshine on the riverbank. How sad!! Lost forever!!

Knowledgeable developers know how to make money in the existing framework. Nonetheless, some choose to test the resolve of the city. If the city budges it sends a message.

Controls on shadowing is only one piece of a larger plan to make a city serve the needs of its people. After all, if the city and industry, don't care then what is it all about?

Really the discussion is "What is it all about".

mooky

Jul 7, 2009, 12:56 AM

To generalize, in this city, one word - MONEY

Really the discussion is "What is it all about".

freeweed

Jul 7, 2009, 1:28 AM

Oh come on - monkey's shadows aren't THAT big.

Bigtime

Jul 7, 2009, 1:31 AM

Still, new construction in the core, abiding by the existing bylaws, will continue to erode sunshine on the riverbank. How sad!! Lost forever!!

I'm confused by this statement, because the bylaw prevents this from happening. Or are you referring to the times of the year that fall outside the shadowing bylaw? In that situation the sun is so low on our horizon that of course buildings are going to cast a shadow over the pathway system and river.

bob1954

Jul 7, 2009, 6:39 AM

Wooster

Jul 7, 2009, 4:00 PM

I'll echo the sentiments of WWW - the by-law is really important to downtown Calgary. So far, Calgary has done a great job protecting and taking advantage of the great resource that the bow river and its beatiful banks provides the city. The sun is a big part of keeping that resource as valuable to Calgarians as possible.

The by-law has been around for a very long time, so developers and architects are perfectly aware of the restrictions it places on sites in the downtown, including EnCana. If a developer or company like EnCana wants to build something super tall, there are lots of suitable sites to do this - why should exceptions be made when they developers have every opportunitiy to perform their due dillegence and select sites appropriate to their ambitions!? It's not like it is that restricting either, you can build million sq ft 550 foot buildings only a couple blocks from the riverbank and fairly tall buildings that step down right up against the river!

Wooster

Jul 7, 2009, 4:02 PM

What cast's a greater shadow? A shorter, much wider building or a Taller much narrower structure! I wonder... It sounds like you folks are saying there's no sun in DT!! I lived in Chicago for many years, and I know it's not the same as Calgary, but there's a few tall buildings there and I'm not aware of the "quality of life" being dimminished in any way!!

The difference is that these walls of tall buildings are not casting a shadows on Grant Park or Millennium Park. The way the city is oriented, the buildings only shadow onto themselves and the canyon streets below.

bob1954

Jul 8, 2009, 5:30 AM

Wooster, I think I see some of your thinking... On the south end of Grant Park in Chi they're building some 70- 80 -90 story condo towers, but come to think of it they're lined up east to west in row so they probably won't cast much of a shadow on the park!!! My main concern is that it does'nt become a detractor for future developement in the central areas!

DizzyEdge

Jul 8, 2009, 10:12 AM

I think it is too intrasigent and that is what I really dislike about it. Allow exceptions. If you allow some, you don't have to allow them all. Look at each one on it's own merits or problems. If I had the attitude of the shadow nazis in my line of work I would be fired in 2 seconds flat. Yes we have rules and some good ones but if what is reuired goes against a rule we have, we look at all pro's and con's and whether overall it is in the best interests of the overall need. In other words, if it is necessary to provide the users with what they need to do their job and the downside is acceptable, we do it..

I guess what I am saying is that it is a very mindless way to operate - allow exceptions. There is no thought whatsoever - just a NO! When something like the Bow comes along and is stopped by a mindless approach, it really bugs me. How many more opportunities like the Bow will we have?

I don't think one fish will commit suicide if there is a shadow on the river, nor do I think people will go crazy. As well, shadow's move - when we have them.

The issue is, we have a better chance of having an opportunity to get another Bow-like building, than reclaiming the pathway/park from a shadowing building once it's built. Sure there may only be a few exceptions.. but as buildings get bigger and bigger and take up entire blocks (or perhaps more than one?) how long until there's enough exceptions that the entire area is in shadow? Even if there's only one exception every 15 yrs, I bet in 100 years the park would be permanently shadowed.

Ramsayfarian

Jul 8, 2009, 2:41 PM

Because in other cities, we've seen what happens when development is allowed to happen unchecked - downtowns basically become concrete canyons, sterile places where no one wants to actually BE.

I find this photo by Surrealplaces is a good example:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3692381169_c3fdd58850_b.jpg

bob1954

Jul 9, 2009, 5:21 AM

Looks like the street is realy deserted!!!!

Ramsayfarian

Jul 9, 2009, 1:34 PM

Looks like the street is realy deserted!!!!

Actually it's not, if you look closer you'll notice that it's full of people waiting for the parade to start.

What I was referring to was the lack of sunlight due to the buildings.

freeweed

Jul 9, 2009, 4:43 PM

Anyone know if Central Park in NYC has any sort of shadowing laws at all? I know it's surrounded by highrises but I could almost see something at least on the south side of the park...

Calgarian

Jul 9, 2009, 5:30 PM

I fully support the bylaw, we have an absolute jewel in the Bow River and the pathway, and it would be spoiled by being in shadow.

If a company wants to build an iconic building they should find a suitable site. I'm glad we didn't make an exception for EnCana because other projects would expect it too.

Wooster

Jul 9, 2009, 6:11 PM

Anyone know if Central Park in NYC has any sort of shadowing laws at all? I know it's surrounded by highrises but I could almost see something at least on the south side of the park...

Much of Manhattan is governed by shadow by-laws that date back to the early 20th century. It's based on an angular plane to allow sun to reach the street level. This is why you see so many stepped wedding cake building forms there.

Some examples in thes pictures:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/manhattan2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/manhattan.jpg

As for Central Park, pretty much all of its surroundings have been permanently built up with pre-war buildings. Not many of them are enormously tall.

DizzyEdge

Jul 9, 2009, 6:24 PM

Actually it's not, if you look closer you'll notice that it's full of people waiting for the parade to start.

What I was referring to was the lack of sunlight due to the buildings.

I think he was trying to be sarcastic, but yes this is parade - day, so it will never have nearly as many people outside of this day.

Calgarian

Jul 9, 2009, 9:55 PM

I never realized they stepped their buildings in NYC, how does it look from the street?

Ramsayfarian

Jul 9, 2009, 11:03 PM

I think he was trying to be sarcastic, but yes this is parade - day, so it will never have nearly as many people outside of this day.

Thanks for the heads up, but I was actually returning the sarcasm.

wild wild west

Jul 10, 2009, 5:50 AM

I never realized they stepped their buildings in NYC, how does it look from the street?

My opinion, is that the "stepped" buildings in New York give it more of an open feeling than most of North America's other skyscraper cities...including Toronto and Calgary...at least in Midtown. Vancouver I would argue to be an exception, which due to its unique bylaws has narrower, shorter "point towers" with more space between them, thus gives a surpising feeling of openness in the highrise forest.

Lower Manhattan, though, that's a different story...canyon city.

bob1954

Jul 10, 2009, 6:01 AM

MichaelS

Jul 10, 2009, 2:31 PM

I did'nt know what you were reffering to Ramsayfarian! Yea, there's a little shadowing, so what, the people on the street could probably care less! Looks to me like they were gonna have good time doing whatever they were gonna do! If you want sunshine all the time then maybe the suburbs or living out in the country is the answer! Sorry, not trying to be sarcastic or a wise guy!

When we were watching the parade, we couldn't wait for the sun to get to an angle where it would be shining on our seats. It got pretty cold in the shadow, to the point that if we were shadowed the whole time, we probably wouldn't have stuck around for the whole parade. A lot of people around us felt the same way, so yes, the people do care about getting sunlight.

Wooster

Jul 10, 2009, 2:33 PM

My opinion, is that the "stepped" buildings in New York give it more of an open feeling than most of North America's other skyscraper cities...including Toronto and Calgary...at least in Midtown. Vancouver I would argue to be an exception, which due to its unique bylaws has narrower, shorter "point towers" with more space between them, thus gives a surpising feeling of openness in the highrise forest.

Lower Manhattan, though, that's a different story...canyon city.

The Vancouver model is what Calgary has adopted for the most part, except perhaps right in the business district. Most ARPs have a maximum residential floor plate for towers of 750 square metres, 25 metre spacing and all that.