News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.6K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.7K     0 

General Construction Updates

Calgary's never done Transit Oriented Development; they've done Transit Proximate Development, where you slap something within an 800m circle of an LRT station and call it a day. If there was one amenity that I could place near every LRT station it would be a supermarket; they're the most broadly visited store (everybody goes to them) and the most frequently/reliably visited (people go weekly). They also tend to serve other needs; pharmacy, ATM, takeout food, coffee shop. A supermarket near transit means that everybody within walking distance from transit is also within walking distance of groceries, and being able to meet this basic need makes living a low-car lifestyle much more feasible. Even people who transfer to a bus could use the store - it's a pain carrying a lot of shopping on transit, but if you go past the supermarket five times a week, you can make a couple of quick stops and carry less.

But this depends on transit oriented development -- an entrance to the grocery store needs to be immediately adjacent to the transit stops, so it's quick to get there and so you aren't carrying stuff hundreds of metres to transit. Calgary has achieved transit proximate development instead; there's a supermarket in the 800m circle, check. In reality, we're the world leader in putting transit stops next to the loading dock of a Superstore.
Southland, 1981:
LRT station at the ass end of a Superstore


Shawnessy, 2004:
LRT station at the ass end of a Superstore


McKnight-Westwinds, 2007:
McKnight Westwinds.PNG


As Goldfinger said in the Ian Fleming novel,
“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

Luckily, even if the 2000s repeated the mistakes of the 1980s, the new generation can learn from the mistakes of the past.
Future Shepard station, 202x:
LRT station at the ass end of a Superstore

(the station site is the lower centre of the picture.)

Maybe for the pink line in the 2040s we'll do better.
 

Attachments

  • Shawnessy.PNG
    Shawnessy.PNG
    2.3 MB · Views: 150
Calgary's never done Transit Oriented Development; they've done Transit Proximate Development, where you slap something within an 800m circle of an LRT station and call it a day. If there was one amenity that I could place near every LRT station it would be a supermarket; they're the most broadly visited store (everybody goes to them) and the most frequently/reliably visited (people go weekly). They also tend to serve other needs; pharmacy, ATM, takeout food, coffee shop. A supermarket near transit means that everybody within walking distance from transit is also within walking distance of groceries, and being able to meet this basic need makes living a low-car lifestyle much more feasible. Even people who transfer to a bus could use the store - it's a pain carrying a lot of shopping on transit, but if you go past the supermarket five times a week, you can make a couple of quick stops and carry less.

But this depends on transit oriented development -- an entrance to the grocery store needs to be immediately adjacent to the transit stops, so it's quick to get there and so you aren't carrying stuff hundreds of metres to transit. Calgary has achieved transit proximate development instead; there's a supermarket in the 800m circle, check. In reality, we're the world leader in putting transit stops next to the loading dock of a Superstore.
Southland, 1981:
View attachment 264328

Shawnessy, 2004:
View attachment 264330

McKnight-Westwinds, 2007:
View attachment 264331

As Goldfinger said in the Ian Fleming novel,
“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

Luckily, even if the 2000s repeated the mistakes of the 1980s, the new generation can learn from the mistakes of the past.
Future Shepard station, 202x:
View attachment 264332
(the station site is the lower centre of the picture.)

Maybe for the pink line in the 2040s we'll do better.

Totally agree, the "oriented" part of Transit Oriented Development is not a small issue.

Specifically with respect to grocery stores, if you are going to serve customers that are coming via transit, these mega-format grocery stores also aren't ideal.

Kensington Safeway is only semi-oriented towards the Sunnyside station (sideways, with the parking lot in between the platform and the entrance, but at least not backing to it). However, since the store is 38,000 sqft, it appeals to the 'pick up one bag on the way to/from work' shopper much more than the 100,000+ sqft Superstores ever will. Once you have crossed the massive parking lot to some of these suburban grocery stores, walking all the way around the loading docks to the entrance, you then have another 500m walk to get milk and bread. Not a big deal if you are loading down your Yukon XL every 2 weeks, but it doesn't work for a transit user.
 
Totally agree, the "oriented" part of Transit Oriented Development is not a small issue.

Specifically with respect to grocery stores, if you are going to serve customers that are coming via transit, these mega-format grocery stores also aren't ideal.

Kensington Safeway is only semi-oriented towards the Sunnyside station (sideways, with the parking lot in between the platform and the entrance, but at least not backing to it). However, since the store is 38,000 sqft, it appeals to the 'pick up one bag on the way to/from work' shopper much more than the 100,000+ sqft Superstores ever will. Once you have crossed the massive parking lot to some of these suburban grocery stores, walking all the way around the loading docks to the entrance, you then have another 500m walk to get milk and bread. Not a big deal if you are loading down your Yukon XL every 2 weeks, but it doesn't work for a transit user.
Good discussion and I agree.

The "Transit" part is always a bit of a red-herring. It's important, but not even always necessary to having a sustainable, accessible and well connected neighbourhood. The number one challenge in all our TOD (and overall planning) remains that cars are planned for first and the vast majority of design compromises when balancing between the modes goes to the car. This reality prevents walkable grocery stores and logical pathway connections, with or without transit involved. As mentioned, lots of reasons why we are like this (e.g. car-dependency cycle, most people drive so we build more car-oriented places which causes more people to drive etc.)

Instead of copying our rich history of building transit to the backs of mega-format grocery stores, imagine if we learned from some simple stuff we did right in the 1980s? Like this example in Whitehorn where the pathways system directly connects - minus some unnecessary curves as usual - to the transit station and mall. While it lacks in design, width and some of the other connectivity things (e.g. high quality crossings on streets, unnecessary fencing etc.), it's actually a pretty simple local example, giving most of the neighbourhood an almost car-free connection to schools, parks and transit. Note, also that not much parking or bus bay infrastructure separating the community from transit.

1597936818692.png

A block from the station, looking towards it:
1597940123988.png


If we took Whitehorn as an imperfect but promising example from 1980s and leaned in over 40 years into the walking and "oriented" part, we might have ended with something closer to this Dutch example for a low/mid density neighbourhood (train station in distance, complete with cycle/pedestrian underpass) that truly gives the community a chance at a transit-oriented or walking lifestyle:

1597940219313.png


A block from the station, looking towards it:
1597940095903.png


But none of this is possible if we maximize car-connectivity, bus bays and park-and-rides at the exact same time at our stations and all compromises come at the expense of the walking, bicycle and transit parts.
 
I think people forget we live in a winter city where the weather is damn cold for 7 months of the year. People don’t want to walk in that kind of weather.
I live in the burbs and I like to drive. If there was a c-train station right beside my house I doubt I would ever take it. I don’t like commuting with people breathing down my neck. I like the solitude of my vehicle and listening to some tunes. Walkability should be focused on the downtown and inner city where density is highest. Leave the suburbs as is.
 
I think people forget we live in a winter city where the weather is damn cold for 7 months of the year. People don’t want to walk in that kind of weather.
I live in the burbs and I like to drive. If there was a c-train station right beside my house I doubt I would ever take it. I don’t like commuting with people breathing down my neck. I like the solitude of my vehicle and listening to some tunes. Walkability should be focused on the downtown and inner city where density is highest. Leave the suburbs as is.
Not everyone can afford all the expenses that come with owning a vehicle and PT is the only option for them regardless of living in the inner city or suburbs.
 
I think people forget we live in a winter city where the weather is damn cold for 7 months of the year. People don’t want to walk in that kind of weather.
I live in the burbs and I like to drive. If there was a c-train station right beside my house I doubt I would ever take it. I don’t like commuting with people breathing down my neck. I like the solitude of my vehicle and listening to some tunes. Walkability should be focused on the downtown and inner city where density is highest. Leave the suburbs as is.
Why not both? TBH I drive to work (and occasionally bike but should bike more!) instead of taking PT even with a direct LRT trip (after a walk) and while living in the Beltline. Everyone will make their own call. It isn't about forcing anyone to travel a certain way. It is about enabling the choice. Who doesn't like the freedom? Being able to use the LRT instead when traffic is FUBAR'd or when the S/O needs the car is pretty nice. Being able to bike when I feel ambitious is nice.

Enabling the freedom doesn't cost money most of the time, it saves money. Sure there are one time costs for retrofitting poorly designed areas, but as a society enabling a 3 car household to be 2 car, or a 2 car household to be 1 is an incredible savings for the family AND for the city (enabling less road infrastructure that needs to be built to meet the peak of the peak). Sure, that savings doesn't apply to everyone, throughout their entire life, at all times, in all circumstances, but that doesn't mean the savings does not exist.
 
I think people forget we live in a winter city where the weather is damn cold for 7 months of the year. People don’t want to walk in that kind of weather.
I live in the burbs and I like to drive. If there was a c-train station right beside my house I doubt I would ever take it. I don’t like commuting with people breathing down my neck. I like the solitude of my vehicle and listening to some tunes. Walkability should be focused on the downtown and inner city where density is highest. Leave the suburbs as is.

I think we are having a different discussion.

Why not both? TBH I drive to work (and occasionally bike but should bike more!) instead of taking PT even with a direct LRT trip (after a walk) and a living in the Beltline. Everyone will make their own call. It isn't about forcing anyone to travel a certain way. It is about enabling the choice. Who doesn't like the freedom? Being able to use the LRT instead when traffic is FUBAR'd or when the S/O needs the car is pretty nice. Being able to bike when I feel ambitious is nice.

Let me summarize the decision tree here:

1) Should we have transit to the suburbs?
Since about 1980, most mayors/councils/Calgarians have said yes. If you wish we had a 12 lane Deerfoot and Crowchild instead of the red line, fair enough but that’s not the way we went.

2) If there is LRT, should we have park-and-ride or transit-oriented development in the suburbs?
Since about 2005, the city’s stated policy has been to push for less park-and-ride and more TOD. There’s been debate about the trade-offs on a station by station basis but that’s been the general stated goal.

3) If we are going for TOD, how should we do it?
This is where the policy and the implementation seem to collide. Council says they want TOD, but when we get around to specific land use and development permit decisions, we seem to forget that the loading docks of a 100000 sqft Superstore aren’t the best TOD feature at a new station.
 
The Subaru dealership on Macleod Trail directly south of the Mission Crossing project has started shoring for construction of their new dealership. I couldn't find the sketch of it that was floating around a year or so ago but It should help make another spot along that stretch look a little better.
 
The Subaru dealership on Macleod Trail directly south of the Mission Crossing project has started shoring for construction of their new dealership. I couldn't find the sketch of it that was floating around a year or so ago but It should help make another spot along that stretch look a little better.
If you find it, please post it!
 

Back
Top