Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode