Magna | 21m | 6s | Jayman | Integra Architecture

This is kind of a unique development. The large greenfield space of a suburban community with inner-city like amenities and close to two major centres, UofC and FMC. The only other space with similar potential was probably Currie, but that was bungled pretty badly. Props to UofC Properties, they held to their vision and got it built. I'm sure there were people skeptical with a recession and them having all apartments/condos/townhouses in a city of SFHs (at the time).
 
trtcttc said:
This is kind of a unique development. The large greenfield space of a suburban community with inner-city like amenities and close to two major centres, UofC and FMC. The only other space with similar potential was probably Currie, but that was bungled pretty badly. Props to UofC Properties, they held to their vision and got it built. I'm sure there were people skeptical with a recession and them having all apartments/condos/townhouses in a city of SFHs (at the time).
Click to expand...
It's also amazing what a neighbourhood can look like when it starts with the assumption that there will be no surface parking as part of developments and that sidewalks are important.

Those two priorities being set early and not watered down or compromised is actually unique in Calgary and the product shows that. It's one of the reasons why "new" urban areas are actually competitive with older "real" ones, like the Beltline - Beltline is a compromised, inconsistent vision full of high urbanism, strip malls, random sidewalk improvements (or lack there-of).

The Beltline's 17th Avenue drive-thru being proposed and approved despite protest v. the U/D walk-up McDonalds, for example.
 
CBBarnett said:
The Beltline's 17th Avenue drive-thru being proposed and approved despite protest v. the U/D walk-up McDonalds, for example.
Click to expand...
I think that illustrates one of the differences between UD and a "real"/established urban neighbourhood. An urban neighbourhood like Beltline is going to have traffic going through it - a lot of traffic. Like it or not, 17th is a commuter artery, and that probably informed the decision (which I'll note I don't personally agree with) to make a drive-thru.

UD, on the other hand, only needs the road capacity to get local traffic to/from the nearby arteries, and has the luxury of limited to no cut-through traffic. It's kind of an island that can be avoided as far as traffic is concerned. But that's not to say it's car-oriented itself.
 
badc0ffee said:
I think that illustrates one of the differences between UD and a "real"/established urban neighbourhood. An urban neighbourhood like Beltline is going to have traffic going through it - a lot of traffic. Like it or not, 17th is a commuter artery, and that probably informed the decision (which I'll note I don't personally agree with) to make a drive-thru.

UD, on the other hand, only needs the road capacity to get local traffic to/from the nearby arteries, and has the luxury of limited to no cut-through traffic. It's kind of an island that can be avoided as far as traffic is concerned. But that's not to say it's car-oriented itself.
Click to expand...
The bolded is a choice, not a necessity. When the City put in tens of millions of dollars into construction on 17th Avenue, they COULD have chosen a design that removed lanes of traffic, narrowed the road, and widened the sidewalks. Yes, it would have impacts on other roads in the area that the traffic would get diverted to, and woudl have impacted the flow of traffic on 17th itself, but that is the choice that needs to be made. Instead, the compromised outcome is what was chosen.
 
I'm concerned on removing lanes of traffic. The car ownership percentage will drop as the city increases densities adding another million people. However, the number of vehicles on the roads will still increase.
 
maestro said:
I'm concerned on removing lanes of traffic. The car ownership percentage will drop as the city increases densities adding another million people. However, the number of vehicles on the roads will still increase.
Click to expand...

That's a fair way to think about it and probably true citywide - but the reality is that vehicle counts haven't grown for this specific location around the 17th Avenue McDonalds:

From city data on vehicle volumes maps here: https://www.calgary.ca/planning/transportation/traffic-volume-flow-maps.html:

17th Avenue east of 14th Street:
  • 2022: 14,000
  • 2019: 13,000
  • 2015: 18,000
  • 2009: 17,000
  • 1998: 23,000
  • 1988: 21,000
  • 1973: 19,000
  • 1964: 21,000
What this information doesn't tell us is how that traffic's distribution has changed. I would take a big anecdote-heavy opinion that traffic on 17th Avenue is less peak-y than most other roads used in commuter corridors, largely because while commuting is a function, it's not the main one compared to more obvious commuter corridors (e.g 9th Ave).

Part of that is it's not as major or direct of a road to get anywhere, but the largest factor is 17th Avenue has a primary function that's far more local shopping, weekend and night-life oriented. I don't know if data exists, but I would guess the 24-hour count of pedestrian traffic on the north side of 17th Avenue on a sunny, warm summer Saturday is likely to exceed all other road users easily. Outside of summer, northside traffic is likely still a large minority of total street traffic. I guarantee pedestrian volumes in front of 17th Avenue McDonalds vastly exceed road users accessing McDonalds drive-thru on almost every day of the year.

In this way, 17th Ave is a bit more similar to U/D as the road's function is less purely commuter-oriented than other roads nearby.
 
I think this is missing my broader point. I'm attempting to explain why the McD's owner on 17th might have wanted a drive-thru, not that it's a good thing or that 17th as a commuter route is a good thing, or even that I have the free flow of traffic in mind.

UD is "urban", but still a master-planned island surrounded by arteries and escarpments, and managed connections to outside arterial roads. Cross-town traffic does not pass through so much as go around. On the other hand, 17th Ave evolved slowly, is connected to every single street nearby (it's on a grid), and has lots of pass through traffic. There are competing uses for every street, which is why you get nice patios next to not so nice drive thrus, and things like parking restrictions on certain times of the day.
 
I think this is missing my broader point. I'm attempting to explain why the McD's owner on 17th might have wanted a drive-thru, not that it's a good thing or that 17th as a commuter route is a good thing, or even that I have the free flow of traffic in mind.
badc0ffee said:
UD is "urban", but still a master-planned island surrounded by arteries and escarpments, and managed connections to outside arterial roads. Cross-town traffic does not pass through so much as go around. On the other hand, 17th Ave evolved slowly, is connected to every single street nearby (it's on a grid), and has lots of pass through traffic. There are competing uses for every street, which is why you get nice patios next to not so nice drive thrus, and things like parking restrictions on certain times of the day.
Click to expand...
I guarantee that UD McDonalds franchisee would have preferred a drive-thru too, had the developers not actually dictated that this is something they explicitly didn't want. Unlike 17th Avenue location, the landowners were different than the franchise and held all the cards to force that outcome.

For 17th Avenue SW, there is no master planned community developer to guide this. Instead we have policy and local planning that shape a bunch of different land owners and their objectives. The balance of policies point against drive-thru uses on 17th Avenue as being acceptable. This is why city administration recommended against it - however in this case Council overruled the recommendation and allowed it.
 
IMG_0662.jpeg
IMG_0657.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top