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 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

The thing the City of Calgary doesn't seem to understand is that not every road solely has the purpose of moving a high volume of personal vehicles through it. Sure that might be true with an arterial, like Deerfoot by the airport, but that is certainly not true for streets that run through the middle of the urban center.

The point of urban streets is to encourage activation and interaction, vehicle traffic should be more difficult - because that inherently encourages all other modes of interaction. There's a reason Stephen Avenue is one of the most coveted retail locations in the city and no one walks along 9the Ave unless they have to.

What's important is how much of our streets we dedicate to moving traffic, right now it's far too much, and our relative vibrancy reflects that. The entire topic makes me furious, because Calgary has so much energy and potential that's being wasted. We could have such an amazing and vibrant urban center if only we chose to, instead we only have a handful of streets worth walking down, where even those are mostly taken up by things that don't contribute to better communities.
 
Colinfill said:
I really wish someone at the City reads this forum. @CBBarnett - Your post literally captures everything wrong with 17th Ave and Tompkins Park 👏
Click to expand...
Thanks! It's a blessing and curse - once you start noticing the nuances in our city's pedestrian infrastructure (or lack thereof), you can't stop. It'll drive you to madness.

I have been to all major cities in Canada and - and I don't use absolutes often - but without a doubt Calgary's urban main streets have:
  • The most signal control boxes per intersection, on average - literally try googling streetview any intersection in an urban location in any other Canadian major city and prove me wrong!
  • The widest/thickest signal poles placed farthest from the curb (e.g. just to shave off a few more centimetres of usable pedestrian space on already narrow sidewalks)
  • The most leftover construction signage, on average (although Montreal tries to competes here hard)
  • The most advanced green turn lanes, on average (e.g. cars go first to turn, pedestrian have to wait)
  • The longest average signal times, on average (e.g. green-waves, high speed cars everywhere)
  • The most pedestrian "beg" buttons in high-traffic pedestrian areas, on average (e.g. push a button to cross a road)
  • The most inconsistent signal sequencing, on average (e.g. the cars get a green, the pedestrians don't or it's shorter - but next corner it's totally different etc.)
  • The least consistent street furniture lines, on average (e.g. trees, hydrants and poles don't line up, signs are placed haphazardly - all forcing pedestrians and wheelchairs around randomly)
We talk lots on arterials, highways, car-orientation in a macro-sense - but there's also something deeply flawed here about the "small stuff" about how our sidewalks and urban streets are allocated. It's this tricky small stuff that seems to be immune to oversight, immune to engagement feedback, immune to awareness. We would make such a difference by getting all this small boring stuff right. Best of all, we don't have to wait for a flashy full street rebuild project every 4 decades- it's just boring maintenance and upgrade programs that should handle this.

Lastly - I complain because I care. This city is great and has great momentum and does so many great things. But every city has pipes, competing road uses and diverse complicated stakeholder considerations on mixed-use urban, pedestrian streets. No one run into the level of randomness of implementation of this small physical infrastructure/street furniture as Calgary.

My only conclusion I can come up with is that pedestrians are not considered a "stakeholder" in a equal and legitimate sense, even where they outnumber other road users. It's not like I am not asking for Deerfoot to get a usable sidewalk, I am asking for 17th Avenue to get one.
 
CBBarnett said:
The sidewalks are pretty rough shape for large portion as the temporary fills have slumped and the parts that haven't been touched yet are 6 years worse for wear with missing bricks etc. It's makes no sense to drag this out further. Pave them already!

Apologies - this triggered a rant:
In my opinion - this whole 17th Ave project is a perfect case study on urban priorities, and how Calgary gets it wrong for pedestrians, especially when making trade-offs. IIRC, the source of 17 Ave public realm woes was that the whole 17th Ave project was first dreamed up from a utility requirement to update the old pipe network, and only had the public realm and transportation elements bolted on after public awareness raised concerns to what was happening. 95% of the money, and 95% of the priority went beneath the ground. It shows.

Further, the stuff added above the ground offers marginal benefit/or is actually a detriment to pedestrians (apart from new pavement which is endlessly delayed). This is why the newer Main Streets are light-years better for public realm than this 17 Ave project - the approach is clearly from the user of the street perspective, not driven bluntly by inflexible utility needs that some how failed to talk to anyone who walks during the engagement work.

Here's the examples of all the things the 17 Ave "improvements" did on just one small, but critically important, intersection at 8 Street and 17th Ave. This intersection has one of the highest traffic pedestrian volumes in the city:
  1. A random new signal control box taking up sidewalk space right where it's at it's narrowest already. No idea why it's needed (see point 5).
  2. New pointless, decorative poles cluttering the intersection, again taking up sidewalk space in an congested sidewalk area. Curious on how this many poles impact safety and visibility of pedestrians for drivers considered how many crossings are made here daily. How did these make it into the design priority but the sidewalk width didn't?
  3. Weird, non-standard cut into the curb to allow for a sewer grate to create tripping hazard right at the intersection and takes up yet more space in the narrowest sidewalk section. There's no alignment rationale of the pipes on why this would exist here (we literally ripped up the road to move the pipes) + you could easily do the standard design with a flush curb if you tried.
  4. Unpaved dirt patch that will be resolved during completion in 2023 (hopefully!)
  5. Yet more signal control boxes - since this picture, a *third* giant signal control box was added in Tompkins part for that wonky 16th Ave & 8th Street signal project (which has questionable value but that is another story).
2021 / 2022:
View attachment 387321

Here's the 2012 pre-upgrade version - flush curb, fewer and smaller control boxes, no random poles:
View attachment 387331

On signal control box madness - I added my own photo for a close up recently, as I can't for the life of me contemplate the thought process behind these things. Here's the close up of our curious signal box fetish at Tompkins Park - quite a view we created for those benches on an otherwise great urban corner. Camera height is about 6 feet so you can gauge the size:
View attachment 387332
View attachment 387333

My questions about signal control boxes here:
  1. why they are needed at all with all our modern tech of 2022
  2. why you need now 4 of them within 20m of each other
  3. why they are so big and getting bigger (see #1 and the 2012 picture)
  4. why must they be placed directly in the pedestrian path of the busiest intersection on 17th Avenue.
I totally get the challenge of competing project priorities, but surely the pedestrians should have more wins than this on a street this important? I mean come on - these boxes aren't even the same size or in a straight line! We literally just plopped them down randomly, almost as if we wanted to make pedestrians go around. Perhaps I have more OCD than a roads engineer, but this is an absolutely ridiculous way to treat our "main" Main Street lol !
Click to expand...
Great post @CBBarnett
 
This is a preposterous hypothesis from Fantasyland in the same vein as burying/rerouting the downtown CP tracks, but I enjoy exploring/fiddling around with old rail ROWs. I don't think it would be that crazy to reroute the CP tracks that go SB out of Calgary (mostly parallel to red line):

There is a siding about 1500m south of the main splits in Inglewood (the siding runs from about 36 Ave to 25 Ave), but from that point south I'm pretty sure it is just a single track all the way to Okotoks ( a bit of double track around De Winton). After leaving Okotoks the tracks run ESE until about Blackie (Eltham), where it starts to turn more SE for a while. There is a spur line NE from Eltham up to Mossleigh (Aspen Crossing train tours area).

The EB tracks out of Calgary also run ESE until Carseland, where they wander a bit to stay north of the Bow River. Mossleigh to Carseland is about 17km as the crow flies and are connected by HWY 24 including a bridge over Bow River. There are several plausible routes to connect the lines around here, though it would of course require a bridge over the Bow River. Then Blackie to Okotoks (and High River) would become a spur line, freeing up that entire ROW from Okotoks to the 36 Ave SE Siding. I know dick-all about CP operations, but from my Google Maps armchair it doesn't seem like it would pose a significant problem (not really any added distance and CP's operations yards seem to be along this EB egress line anyways).


Some ideas this would permit:
1. Passenger rail from Okotoks to Somerset Station
2. MUP parallel to the above
3. Within the city, a MUP corridor to the east of the Red Line, which is currently severely lacking in that regard
a. helping the 'last mile' for that line
b. removes undesirable freight (not sure how much that is hindering potential developments?)
c. if you pull back and look at the wider pathway network, there is great N-S along Bow River and it's pretty good along the western city limits, with a gaping hole down the middle (and lots of disconnected bike lanes/MUPs)
d. where the CP line and red line currently split (42 Ave SE) this MUP corridor would follow the red line and then Spiller Rd to connect with the Elbow River Pathway system

Essentially down this stretch you're making this MUP corridor and the Red Line the 'front-door' of SB Macleod redevelopment, with Macleod Tr almost serving as more of a back laneway (ie. best of both worlds)

I think there are actually a few other abandoned rail-lines in the Manchester/Highfield area - like the tracks that cross Blackfoot Tr near46th/Manhattan Rd. You could use these to connect a lot of the Barley Belt, and achieving an E-W connection from Stanley Park to 39 Ave Station and winding over to connect with the Bow River Pathway near Refinery Park, facilitated by a pedestrian bridge as part of the Green Line over the Bow.

I know they've slapped a MUP down along Heritage Dr (better than nothing, but it doesn't look like a particularly appealing or efficient way to move E-W), but I could see potential to make a much better E-W corridor along a 94 Ave alignment (which is generally over 1250 meters south of Heritage, anyways):
1. From Glenmore Landing, the pedestrian overpass essentially dumps you onto 90 Ave SW. right on 12 St, left on Hub Ave, right on Hanover Rd which turns into 94 Ave after if crosses Elbow Dr.
2. It's a little messy from the Red Line to east of Macleod Tr, but totally doable and in an area that would be ripe for redevelopment.
3. From Macleod it's fairly straightforward until nearly Blackfoot Tr, where you'd slide a few blocks south and use the existing Southland Dr MUP to cross Blackfoot+Deerfoot and connect to the Bow River path system

I'm sure this reads like one big bike path fantasy, but in my mind I'm just sketching a skeleton of enhanced connections to help transform that 10 mile parking lot into something more desirable for many different kinds of development. Even with the CP tracks in place it seems like it would be possible to build this kid of corridor, but while I'm dreaming big we might as well kill the occasional freight train!

TLDR: forget about making Macleod Tr appealing...instead make the Red Line corridor more appealing.
 
livewirecalgary.com

Calgary's Peace Bridge turns 10 years old - LiveWire Calgary

Former city councillor Druh Farrell said Calgary’s Peace Bridge “was unabashedly beautiful.” It’s also been called a “Calatravesty,” or “Farrell’s Folly,” or even “a bridge to nowhere.” (Doesn’t that last one sound familiar?) Fourteen years ago, in a 7-6 vote split on city council, construction...
livewirecalgary.com livewirecalgary.com

What a great addition it has been.
 
artvandelay said:
idewalk construction on 17th has been delayed again until 2023. I und
Click to expand...
CBBarnett said:
The sidewalks are pretty rough shape for large portion as the temporary fills have slumped and the parts that haven't been touched yet are 6 years worse for wear with missing bricks etc. It's makes no sense to drag this out further. Pave them already!

Apologies - this triggered a rant:
In my opinion - this whole 17th Ave project is a perfect case study on urban priorities, and how Calgary gets it wrong for pedestrians, especially when making trade-offs. IIRC, the source of 17 Ave public realm woes was that the whole 17th Ave project was first dreamed up from a utility requirement to update the old pipe network, and only had the public realm and transportation elements bolted on after public awareness raised concerns to what was happening. 95% of the money, and 95% of the priority went beneath the ground. It shows.

Further, the stuff added above the ground offers marginal benefit/or is actually a detriment to pedestrians (apart from new pavement which is endlessly delayed). This is why the newer Main Streets are light-years better for public realm than this 17 Ave project - the approach is clearly from the user of the street perspective, not driven bluntly by inflexible utility needs that some how failed to talk to anyone who walks during the engagement work.

Here's the examples of all the things the 17 Ave "improvements" did on just one small, but critically important, intersection at 8 Street and 17th Ave. This intersection has one of the highest traffic pedestrian volumes in the city:
  1. A random new signal control box taking up sidewalk space right where it's at it's narrowest already. No idea why it's needed (see point 5).
  2. New pointless, decorative poles cluttering the intersection, again taking up sidewalk space in an congested sidewalk area. Curious on how this many poles impact safety and visibility of pedestrians for drivers considered how many crossings are made here daily. How did these make it into the design priority but the sidewalk width didn't?
  3. Weird, non-standard cut into the curb to allow for a sewer grate to create tripping hazard right at the intersection and takes up yet more space in the narrowest sidewalk section. There's no alignment rationale of the pipes on why this would exist here (we literally ripped up the road to move the pipes) + you could easily do the standard design with a flush curb if you tried.
  4. Unpaved dirt patch that will be resolved during completion in 2023 (hopefully!)
  5. Yet more signal control boxes - since this picture, a *third* giant signal control box was added in Tompkins part for that wonky 16th Ave & 8th Street signal project (which has questionable value but that is another story).
2021 / 2022:
View attachment 387321

Here's the 2012 pre-upgrade version - flush curb, fewer and smaller control boxes, no random poles:
View attachment 387331

On signal control box madness - I added my own photo for a close up recently, as I can't for the life of me contemplate the thought process behind these things. Here's the close up of our curious signal box fetish at Tompkins Park - quite a view we created for those benches on an otherwise great urban corner. Camera height is about 6 feet so you can gauge the size:
View attachment 387332
View attachment 387333

My questions about signal control boxes here:
  1. why they are needed at all with all our modern tech of 2022
  2. why you need now 4 of them within 20m of each other
  3. why they are so big and getting bigger (see #1 and the 2012 picture)
  4. why must they be placed directly in the pedestrian path of the busiest intersection on 17th Avenue.
I totally get the challenge of competing project priorities, but surely the pedestrians should have more wins than this on a street this important? I mean come on - these boxes aren't even the same size or in a straight line! We literally just plopped them down randomly, almost as if we wanted to make pedestrians go around. Perhaps I have more OCD than a roads engineer, but this is an absolutely ridiculous way to treat our "main" Main Street lol !
Click to expand...
This is so triggering!
 
So the city wants to get people to live downtown... Maybe time to get into Baugruppen.

"Baugruppen, (German, lit. building groups) or self-developed urban co-housing, offer an appealing and more affordable alternative for those wishing to live in cities – near friends, family, and jobs."

"The elimination of developer profit and marketing costs can result in significant savings – from ten to twenty percent – over market-rate housing."

www.larchlab.com

baugruppen - larch lab

Better Living Through Baugruppen:a new approach to affordable urban living Housing prices in the US are completely out of balance. Affordable housing is difficult to attain in entire metropolitan areas. There are few options for middle class households, and even fewer for working class...
www.larchlab.com www.larchlab.com

Probably quite difficult for this to happen organically, so maybe some help (mostly administrative) from the city and other levels of government could get this off the ground? Places I think this could work is city owned property like the parking lots at C-Train stations. It would be difficult to compete with developers when buying up land for a project like this so city owned property is the easiest place to start.
 
I think we've had co-op housing in Calgary before. Not sure how well it's worked though. A friend of mine in Victoria is living in co-op housing and it's working great for him. Maybe it works better when the market gets out of control?
 
I fail to see why government should subsidized a different form of ownership over another. If my condo board agrees to legally transform itself into a co-op, could we get a huge subsidized loan and all not have to have mortgages and realize our equity while retaining tenure? While still being able to sell our co-op right? Sign me up.

Does ownership structure matter for prices? Or does supply matter? Put me 100% on the supply side.
 
Calgcouver said:
This is the only one i am aware of and i toured it in my undergrad: https://prairieskycohousing.wordpress.com/
Click to expand...
That is co-housing - I believe the ownership structure is strata.

Calgary has a bunch of Co-Ops. Mostly townhomes. http://www.sacha-coop.ca/directory.html

Co-Ops in Calgary operate more like non-profit apartment management companies controlled by residents. Doesn't mean they have to. Many elsewhere have large share purchase prices, which you need to do to have the right to occupy a unit.
 
darwink said:
I fail to see why government should subsidized a different form of ownership over another. If my condo board agrees to legally transform itself into a co-op, could we get a huge subsidized loan and all not have to have mortgages and realize our equity while retaining tenure? While still being able to sell our co-op right? Sign me up.

Does ownership structure matter for prices? Or does supply matter? Put me 100% on the supply side.
Click to expand...
I think it could be a bit of a spectrum from subsidizing vs. facilitating. Gov'ts do both all the time to pursue greater objectives.

Is it really a problem if a city decides that selling a parcel at 85% of FMV (and perhaps other favourable terms) might be better than selling it at 100% to someone who wants to build a gas station or strip club or let it sit as a parking lot for a few decades?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top