News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Roads, Highways & Infrastructure

lemongrab said:
In relation to the eventual creosote cleanup, I'd rather see EB Bow Trail more aligned to the north and flowing into 5th ave; WB would flow more out of 4th Ave (moreso than 6th ave as currently). 4th and 5th effectively flow to/from Memorial on the east side.

Bow Tr could be trenched with a flood barrier and linear park/pathway on the north side and several ped crossings. Probably would need to be a cut/cover tunnel from around 11 St to 8 St, which would allow more space for the pathway and eliminate a conflict with the red line.

6th and 9th become the urban boulevards to/from West Village, but still with Bow Tr entrance/exits on the west side. West Village wouldn't be a rush hour hell-hole this way.
Click to expand...
I gotta disagree here. To make the West Village work for the city from a financial perspective, it's about maximizing land value and development yield to make the CRL make sense.

Because I'm a huge nerd, here's how I'd do it. Push as much traffic as possible southward close to the tracks. Essentially write-off 9th Ave as an urban street and make it into a two-way artery - add lanes where possible with a lane reversal to achieve the capacity. 9th becomes a Calgary version of West Georgia Street. This creates a much more pleasant riverwalk area, and with less space dedicated to roads, we have room for small scale riverfront developments similar to M2 in the East Village.
Downtown West.png
 
I guess the question I've landed on is whether it makes sense to use WV for typical resi/commercial development, at all. I'm sure developers would love the blank slate to draw up a bunch of empty promises, but I think there is immense risk it flops like Eau Claire. I just don't know how long until it would make sense to begin, but there are tons of lots in EV, near Eau Claire, north Beltline, Sunalta gentrification, etc...I don't know if it makes sense to flood the market with more dispersed urban supply instead of targeting more concentration where there is already some traction.

Or, is this a rare opportunity to check off a whole bunch of other boxes? Tucking Bow Tr close to the CP tracks might still make the most sense, or you trench them to 4th/5th and set your sights on 6th/9th as better urban boulevards (9th being a bit of a pipe-dream, but I'd argue that any improvement there would do more to help the overall DT core than WV development would). Of course you could still leave some choice plots available in WV for more typical development...I just think it's a fun spot to dream big.

On the financial opportunity cost standpoint is where I think partial redevelopment of Shag GC could offset things - and also just be a general improvement as the current golf course has surprisingly hostile barriers. Or, would WV actually be a better location for a fieldhouse (not CNext), leaving more land at Foothills for other development?
 
FaNl_79UcAAmz1-.jpg


TransEd (P3 building Edmonton's Valley Line LRT) gave out books to kids. Twitter user @bikey_mike said: 'Seems as though the folks in transportation DO understand how active travel is the least priority. Look how this wheelchair user gets to detour in this maze to try to (get) home.'

Yikes...
 
Last edited:
I’d like to see the downtown street grid extended west as far as possible (up to Crowchild ?) - which the West Village plan seems to be (sort of) trying to do.
14th Street is the obvious exception as it has to bridge over the river on the north and then tunnel under the tracks to the south so grade separation is required.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
East Village is actually where they should've built the massive city centre park. Its where the two rivers meet, you have Fort Calgary (or what's left of it), St. Patrick's Island, the Zoo, a future Culture and Entertainment District. Condo development was already happening on the west side of downtown. They didn't spur any more development by creating EV, they actually stole it from the west side of downtown, at least IMO. Imagine all the EV condos in the west.
Click to expand...
This makes a whole lotta sense!
But I guess that ship has sailed.
If the creosote clean-up is too big a barrier maybe we should do as lemongrab suggests:
“when in doubt - build green space”.
 
There is no plan b, the creosote will need to be cleaned up 100%, otherwise it will stay there forever, it is a preservative after all. The part that nobody wants to deal with on it is who pays to clean it up.
 
Right, but does it have to stay as car dealerships & the old Greyhound terminal or would park space be permitted without remediation ?
 
FCC1982 said:
Right, but does it have to stay as car dealerships & the old Greyhound terminal or would park space be permitted without remediation ?
Click to expand...
It would likely be possible to have park space without remediation. From a risk assessment perspective, there would be minimal exposure (no exposure to ground water, no exposure to soil (assuming it is capped with clean clay fill), and minimal exposure to vapours (well ventilated for short periods of time).

Corktown Common in the Canary District in Toronto is a park build largely on brownfield lands thy were not remediated.

The greatest risk would likely remain to any contractors / utility workers who migh disturb contaminated soil, but that can be addressed through proper planning.
 
adamyyc said:
It would likely be possible to have park space without remediation. From a risk assessment perspective, there would be minimal exposure (no exposure to ground water, no exposure to soil (assuming it is capped with clean clay fill), and minimal exposure to vapours (well ventilated for short periods of time).

Corktown Common in the Canary District in Toronto is a park build largely on brownfield lands thy were not remediated.

The greatest risk would likely remain to any contractors / utility workers who migh disturb contaminated soil, but that can be addressed through proper planning.
Click to expand...
If a park space is what they go with, how do you go from what it is now to a park without seriously disrupting the soil? I've seen the plans posted for the road redesign, but I just don't know how you get from what it is now to that without soil disruption, I mean look at this place:
West2.PNG
 
Park is optimum imo. 55 acres of urban park. Development is sorta a chicken and egg--need money to do something, no money, land sales will generate money, land sales need high level of remediation, density will provide best source of money.

1660848845754.png

Contamination is mostly under a couple meters of soil.
1660849046730.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top