25th Ave SE LRT Grade Separation

[Surrealplaces]

As many have probably heard, the city is looking at options for grade separation at 25th ave SE. They have unveiled three concepts. Concept A, Concept B, and Concept C

 

[Surrealplaces]

Concept A

 

[Surrealplaces]

Concept B

 

[Surrealplaces]

Concept C

 

[jdixon]

Concept A is the most promising to me, but I just hope the cost isn't too much.
Concept B is interesting from an engineering perspective. If they can somehow make the flyover decent looking, I think it's the most promising for redevelopment potential. With large lots all on one side of 25th, it's easier to get a development going.

 

[Oddball]

I liked the buildings and elevated station of A the most, but the road alignment of B was my preference.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I like option A myself, but mainly if the track stays elevated past the Stampede grounds and can open up 17th into the Stampede.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

I feel like A is by far the most urban and pedestrian friendly option, so I chose it.

 

[evolv]

I'll go with none of the above. Bury it!

 

[Always_Biking]

I'll go with none of the above. Bury it!

That would be the best all around. I chose C on account of cost considerations. It accomplishes much the same as the others, but would be much cheaper. If the elevation went all the way past the stampede grounds, I would go with A. all things equal, burying it would be my choice.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I added the option to put underground. Keep in mind the city isn't offering it as an option, but it's there in the poll.

 

[Oddball]

I like option A myself, but mainly if the track stays elevated past the Stampede grounds and can open up 17th into the Stampede.

I'd easily switch to A if that were to be part of the package.

 

[Just build it]

I would prefer to have it underground, but given the city is only giving us the three choices I'm going with option C

 

[nickheer]

None of these options are particularly terrific.

Options B and C have the same problem, in that they assume that Macleod Trail can be pedestrianized, but it can't be along the south-of-Beltline stretch. Nobody's going to be hanging out on the lawn between Macleod and the tracks, as illustrated in B, so that's going to be a dead zone.

Option A protects pedestrians best, but I worry that the under-bridge area will also become a dead zone, particularly in the winter. Yes, these are illustrations, but think about all of the other under-the-bridge areas in the city and how dead they are: East Village, below the Sunalta overpass, under Centre Street…

Option A is probably the best compromise, but it's also the most expensive of the three, I'm sure. I like that it creates a barrier between Macleod and the more pedestrian train area.

 

[Oddball]

None of these options are particularly terrific.

Options B and C have the same problem, in that they assume that Macleod Trail can be pedestrianized, but it can't be along the south-of-Beltline stretch. Nobody's going to be hanging out on the lawn between Macleod and the tracks, as illustrated in B, so that's going to be a dead zone.

Option A protects pedestrians best, but I worry that the under-bridge area will also become a dead zone, particularly in the winter. Yes, these are illustrations, but think about all of the other under-the-bridge areas in the city and how dead they are: East Village, below the Sunalta overpass, under Centre Street…

Option A is probably the best compromise, but it's also the most expensive of the three, I'm sure. I like that it creates a barrier between Macleod and the more pedestrian train area.

Hahaha, I didn't catch how many people were chilling on the median in the B rendering either. I don't get a very pedestrian vibe from the B layout overall though. Too me it's just a weird quirt of the person who did the render.