haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Good job. You’ve replaced a mall…
… with a strip mall.
… with a strip mall.
Northland Village Redevelopment | 19m | 6s | DIALOG
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Albertasaurus
Active Member
I still think it sucks. It looks like something I'd expect to be built in Airdrie.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
The amount of parking spaces means there's opportunity for the property to intensify.
Cowtown
Senior Member
Very suburban type density development, but at least it’s near an LRT line. If enough density gets built, there’s a good chance that a station will get built eventually.
And to be honest, I’m glad the city is waiting for the density to happen first, rather than build the station and hope for the developer to finish up with the density part.
And to be honest, I’m glad the city is waiting for the density to happen first, rather than build the station and hope for the developer to finish up with the density part.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Would they ever add a train station in Northland? It's kind of half way between Brentwood and Dalhousie, adding a 3rd station would just slow things down, kind of like Anderson and Southland do on the red line.
konradiical
Active Member
yeah I'd prefer if they focus on extending the blue line to the airport/more north and the red line more south before we add stops like Northland or Midtown
badc0ffee
Active Member
There was interest in an infill station there. There's even an accommodation in the tracks - there is more room between them under the Northland Dr overpass.
globalnews.ca
The other locations suggested were 50 Ave S, and the one planned for the Midtown development (Fairmount/Fisher Park area between Chinook and Heritage).
Calgary councilor wants new CTrain stations added to existing LRT line - Calgary | Globalnews.ca
A city councillor is hoping to grow ridership on Calgary CTrains by increasing the number of stops along the Red Line.
globalnews.ca
The other locations suggested were 50 Ave S, and the one planned for the Midtown development (Fairmount/Fisher Park area between Chinook and Heritage).
If the density of Northland builds up substantially I could see another station being built, as the goal I think should be to leverage the existing system as best as possible. Downtown has a station every 3 blocks, with trains having to stop for traffic lights, thus if adding a station adds 3 minutes for commuters in Tuscany, so be it.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
I’d rather see stations at at Northland or Midtown, with a caveat that those areas get developed. We already have extended the LRT out to the far reaches of the earth, we need to start making it more like a transit system, and not a commuter train.
The airport train would be nice though.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
I still think they should connect the new denser suburbs in NE to the LRT line. Northbound Metis Trail and Deerfoot are a mess during peak times. Either way, I think we can all agree that an Airport line should be the number one priority if we had a choice.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
IMO all the transit $ should be going to the green line. Once that's under construction and the north leg is financed, we can look at filling out or extending the existing lines further. Looking at the map, the distance from Brentwood to Northland is about the same as the distance of the University to Brentwood, so not as close as they appeared. If adding a station is in the future, then this would be a good candidate, lots of room to add density too.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
If I were to phase it, I would do:
- Blue Line NE to Redstone
- Green Line S to South Hospital
- Green Line N
But my list is thinking too small. Better yet, pick all three simultaneously and line up the project schedules to share resources, phasing, expertise and efficiency in delivery. Incrementally build out all of them at the same time so by 2030 we are done all of them and on to brand new projects.
badc0ffee
Active Member
I think the only way to get Green line N done is to 1. deliver the downtown -> SE part, and 2. deliver the SE -> McKenzie part, to convince people the line has value, and to soften the blow of the (IMO) inevitable tunnel that is going to have to happen south of 16 Ave N. So, I agree with the phasing you have above, but don't think you could get it all funded at once.
After all that is done, in 2035 or whatever (I'm an optimist), I'd like to see the blue line extended west one stop, to 85 St. Yes, it's a wealthy area with a lot of people driving, and there are still a bunch of undeveloped plots out there. But, there's a growing amount of medium density centred around 85 St, and the station would still be a reasonable distance from downtown, similar to Whitehorn, Dalhousie or Southland. Or Beddington or Ogden on the Green line.
After all that is done, in 2035 or whatever (I'm an optimist), I'd like to see the blue line extended west one stop, to 85 St. Yes, it's a wealthy area with a lot of people driving, and there are still a bunch of undeveloped plots out there. But, there's a growing amount of medium density centred around 85 St, and the station would still be a reasonable distance from downtown, similar to Whitehorn, Dalhousie or Southland. Or Beddington or Ogden on the Green line.
darwink
Senior Member
There will be plenty of money to get down to McKenzie and up to 64th by 2035. We need to keep doing advancing planning for projects for the next round of federal funding (2027 onwards), so we don't run into the greenling problem again where planning takes up most of the funding cycle.
I saw this funny graphic about Seattle, but it applies equally almost everywhere:
I saw this funny graphic about Seattle, but it applies equally almost everywhere:
Last edited:
MichaelS
Senior Member
Don't forget extending the Redline down to Belmont. Lots of surburban density coming down there as well.