Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[MichaelS]

I have nothing against low density housing necessarily. Its that we choose to move so far away from the core city, expect the same level of services without remotely paying the proportional increased tax burden created, and then complain about fiscal responsibility. If you want services, live closer to them or pay for them.

It has now become worse than that. The inner city is now lacking the same level of service, or is far below, that which exists in the suburbs, despite paying a tax premium. So as a result, those of us that have been choosing to live in the inner city just end up saying f*ck it, and move out to the suburbs, where the better rec facilities and schools are, and therefore better neighbourhoods to raise a family.

 

[Surrealplaces]

It has now become worse than that. The inner city is now lacking the same level of service, or is far below, that which exists in the suburbs, despite paying a tax premium. So as a result, those of us that have been choosing to live in the inner city just end up saying f*ck it, and move out to the suburbs, where the better rec facilities and schools are, and therefore better neighbourhoods to raise a family.

This is very true. One of the downsides of taxes based on property value is that it's unfair. People in the inner city pay higher taxes, but get less from the city. There are still people who complain about the Peace Bridge being built.

 

[adamyyc]

It has now become worse than that. The inner city is now lacking the same level of service, or is far below, that which exists in the suburbs, despite paying a tax premium. So as a result, those of us that have been choosing to live in the inner city just end up saying f*ck it, and move out to the suburbs, where the better rec facilities and schools are, and therefore better neighbourhoods to raise a family.

I had this same conversation with a candidate for Ward 8 who knocked on my door the other day. Inner city neighbourhoods pays a disproportionate amount of tax, and continue to undergo densification (a good thing), leading to further increased tax base, and yet does not receive the same level of services that far flung suburban neighbourhoods do.

 

[gsunnyg]

I think it's about time there's a small progressive tax slapped onto homes depending on the year the community was formed. Maybe something like a range from 0-10%. Someone living in an older community would maybe even be entitled to have their mil rate reduced depending on the extra revenue collected from newer communities. It wouldn't be much but a great incentive. Plus, I have a home in the suburbs but I wouldn't mind paying a $100-200 extra on top of my mil rate if it means that $100-200 goes back to inner-city communities. What we have right now is a compounding spiraling down of our older communities. There's almost 0 incentive to live in the inner city other than skipping some traffic and nightlife for the youngsters.

 

[FCC1982]

Foothill/McMahon Stadium concept plan

New foothills/McMahon Stadium area concept.....sign me up!

Thanks for posting this, looks like a good plan to me.
The only component that concerns me is “Crowchild Trail Reimagined” (Phase 5). Talking about reduced lane widths and speed limit, multiple accesses, “urban boulevard”, and on it goes. No thanks! This is not what Crowchild is or should become. Stick to the Crowchild medium & long term plans to complete it as an expressway, part of the city’s skeletal road network.
You can still do all the good things proposed for the McMahon Stadium / Foothills Athletic Park lands without making the boneheaded decision to try and turn Crowchild into an urban boulevard for this segment.
End rant.

 

[zagox]

I think it's about time there's a small progressive tax slapped onto homes depending on the year the community was formed. Maybe something like a range from 0-10%. Someone living in an older community would maybe even be entitled to have their mil rate reduced depending on the extra revenue collected from newer communities. It wouldn't be much but a great incentive. Plus, I have a home in the suburbs but I wouldn't mind paying a $100-200 extra on top of my mil rate if it means that $100-200 goes back to inner-city communities. What we have right now is a compounding spiraling down of our older communities. There's almost 0 incentive to live in the inner city other than skipping some traffic and nightlife for the youngsters.

I think there’s plenty of investment and incentive to live in the “inner inner city” ie Sunnyside, Hillhurst, Inglewood, Bridgeland, Mission, etc. those areas have seen a lot of public investment and are very attractive. Where I see the gap is in the 50s/60s neighborhoods like Acadia and Glendale. Those areas need densification and reinvestment but they aren’t getting it. Of course, the current residents oppose densification so maybe they deserve 50 year old services, but those are the neighborhoods with price points that could compete with the suburban fringe if they were reimagined.

 

[Tarsus]

This is very true. One of the downsides of taxes based on property value is that it's unfair. People in the inner city pay higher taxes, but get less from the city. There are still people who complain about the Peace Bridge being built.

This is maybe the downside of Calgary’s unicity model. The ratio of suburban build is very high compared to urban build, and it makes it hard for an elected council to change the tax structure. A proposal to increase taxes for less dense areas and decrease for inner city areas makes total sense but is a difficult proposition political wise.

 

[MissingMiddle]

Foothill/McMahon Stadium concept plan

Thanks for posting this, looks like a good plan to me.
The only component that concerns me is “Crowchild Trail Reimagined” (Phase 5). Talking about reduced lane widths and speed limit, multiple accesses, “urban boulevard”, and on it goes. No thanks! This is not what Crowchild is or should become. Stick to the Crowchild medium & long term plans to complete it as an expressway, part of the cities skeletal road network.
You can still do all the good things proposed for the McMahon Stadium / Foothills Athletic Park lands without making the boneheaded decision to try and turn Crowchild into an urban boulevard for this segment.
End rant.

I disagree, this is a textbook example of induced demand.

 

[FCC1982]

There is plenty of demand on Crowchild already - especially this stretch that reduces to 2 lanes just south of 16th Ave.

 

[CBBarnett]

The McMahon plan looks pretty good.

There is plenty of demand on Crowchild already - especially this stretch that reduces to 2 lanes just south of 16th Ave.

It's outlined clearer than I have seen in a plan about the trade-offs of car and commuters v. city, residents and development.

Crowchild future state widens right-of-way from 40m to 80-150m and takes 10 acres of the 88 acre stadium site (about 11%). Putting aside that it's less appealing to live/visit/be next to a 150m wide vs. a 40m freeway from things like sound, pollution and traffic, there's some pretty clear trade-offs. For example, the future pedestrian bridge to the LRT is now required to be 75% longer and more costly. The widening is only needed to accommodate drivers from new housing 15 kilometres further away at the end of Crowchild. In about as clearly as we have ever done, we are reducing the developable area of this McMahon site by 10 acres to allow development elsewhere in far less sustainable locations.

I doubt many are against a few tweaks and adjustments to Crowchild to make it smoother and more consistent lanes through the area. But the ultimate corridor plan is antithetical to what this TOD is trying to achieve or developing a sustainable major city in general. If I can add a metaphor, this TOD plan looks about as tasty of a meal I have seen, however the cooks clearly were forced to use all the ingredients, including including a major 10-acre dose of poison. Might still be good but wow - it would have been so much easier to have made a meal without it.

Overall this is a great plan though. The connections into University to the north, the addition of housing and a interior road network to break the whole mega-block up a bit is a nice touch. Would be great to see this happen one day.

 

[darwink]

Big investment. Not sure it will ever happen. Not sure if maybe close to a billion bucks is being spent (by a crude guesstimating) if I’d really plan on McMahon being set in stone footprint wise.

 

[Calgcouver]

The McMahon plan looks pretty good.


It's outlined clearer than I have seen in a plan about the trade-offs of car and commuters v. city, residents and development.

Crowchild future state widens right-of-way from 40m to 80-150m and takes 10 acres of the 88 acre stadium site (about 11%). Putting aside that it's less appealing to live/visit/be next to a 150m wide vs. a 40m freeway from things like sound, pollution and traffic, there's some pretty clear trade-offs. For example, the future pedestrian bridge to the LRT is now required to be 75% longer and more costly. The widening is only needed to accommodate drivers from new housing 15 kilometres further away at the end of Crowchild. In about as clearly as we have ever done, we are reducing the developable area of this McMahon site by 10 acres to allow development elsewhere in far less sustainable locations.

I doubt many are against a few tweaks and adjustments to Crowchild to make it smoother and more consistent lanes through the area. But the ultimate corridor plan is antithetical to what this TOD is trying to achieve or developing a sustainable major city in general. If I can add a metaphor, this TOD plan looks about as tasty of a meal I have seen, however the cooks clearly were forced to use all the ingredients, including including a major 10-acre dose of poison. Might still be good but wow - it would have been so much easier to have made a meal without it.


View attachment 318292

Overall this is a great plan though. The connections into University to the north, the addition of housing and a interior road network to break the whole mega-block up a bit is a nice touch. Would be great to see this happen one day.

I'm genuinely appalled that this Crowchild expansion is still on the books and is one of the 'key ingredients' for this TOD. How the hell in the 21st century does the City thinks it is acceptable to do this kind of road widening in a highly transit supportive location like this.

Having lived just east of Crowchild on 24th Ave and gone to the U of C the expanse that is crossing Crowchild on 24 Avenue is already enormous. They have a considerable amount of good urbanism happening east on 24th Avenue as well, finally. And now they want to double the distance you have to travel across Crowchild? This will feel like crossing Stoney Trail to get to the University. Transportation Engineers have way too much power and pull at the City of Calgary. These people are planning roads like it is Houston in 1975.

 

[JonnyCanuck]

Well the new design means the end of Foothills Stadium and the chance for a return of semi-pro baseball (not that there ever really was a chance).
I will say, the reason those mixed use sites are successful in other cities is because of a baseball team in some of them, and the frequency of games. Difficult to see how 8-9 CFL football games plus some other amateur sporting events, would keep a dedicated entertainment district humming here. Additional residential development on site will help I guess.

 

[The Familia]

The fieldhouse alone would keep that area buzzing almost everyday of the year. Too bad baseball is dead in this city. A new stadium like in Okotoks would be perfect for this location next door to McMahon.

 

[CBBarnett]

I'm genuinely appalled that this Crowchild expansion is still on the books and is one of the 'key ingredients' for this TOD. How the hell in the 21st century does the City thinks it is acceptable to do this kind of road widening in a highly transit supportive location like this.

Having lived just east of Crowchild on 24th Ave and gone to the U of C the expanse that is crossing Crowchild on 24 Avenue is already enormous. They have a considerable amount of good urbanism happening east on 24th Avenue as well, finally. And now they want to double the distance you have to travel across Crowchild? This will feel like crossing Stoney Trail to get to the University. Transportation Engineers have way too much power and pull at the City of Calgary. These people are planning roads like it is Houston in 1975.

An observation from this and other transportation project plans lately, they seem to be really obsessed with preventing weaving-based collisions and having everything that prevents weave-based collisions make it through to the final plans. Like this thing:

I assume like 10 or 20 years ago the design manuals identified this as a main concern for all freeways and that has filtered down into every plan recently. Seems to take up a bunch of extra land and adds a bridge structure to give a weave-free treatment. Combine with long-standing trends of offering car-access on every single possible point, this design has a 100% chance of killing/injuring more pedestrians overall with a bunch more collision points and generally encouraging higher speeds everywhere nearby.

What's wrong with a tight, consistent 6-lane urban freeway? Why must cars be able to have all-direction, high-speed wide curve turning access to everything all the time? Is it a crime to stop a car with a land-saving traffic signal on University Drive? Pedestrians and TOD potential are the big trade-offs for these things.