HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1621  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 9:26 AM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
I think 17th would benefit most from having all the many gaps filled in.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1622  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 2:04 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Doing a pilot project where street parking is removed and one lane becomes an extended sidewalk protected by large but moveable planters would be a good test for a weekend or two. If traffic doesn't come to a standstill and retail traffic doesn't drop, you could even offer patio space if made semi permanent (Friday 6 pm till monday 6 am perhaps) The pilot could even use simple m-barriers to save some cash.
If you tried to eliminate parking on 17th, people and businesses would freak out and the surrounding streets would become even more congested. I think 17th is fine the way it is, and I agree that more of the retail space needs to fill in before we try anything.

The biggest appeal of Stephen Ave is the lack of cars, but they still allow them after 6PM.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1623  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 2:06 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
New market open in Casel http://www.market17.ca/
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1624  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 3:08 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
If you tried to eliminate parking on 17th, people and businesses would freak out and the surrounding streets would become even more congested. I think 17th is fine the way it is, and I agree that more of the retail space needs to fill in before we try anything.

The biggest appeal of Stephen Ave is the lack of cars, but they still allow them after 6PM.
There is a crazy amount of parking around 17th, just parking that people don't notice. Mount Royal Village has essentially 3 levels of public parking that is virtually empty for most of the day and night. I imagine the building where classic Jacks is located is the same. Many parking lots in the area are in fact empty after office hours, which is when demand for parking on 17th goes up. I think removing one lane, or just parts of a lane, for more public space and patios would be a great move. San Francisco did just this and it works incredibly well. Check it out: http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1625  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 3:15 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
A pilot project like Malcolm suggested would be a good idea, I could just see a lot of opposition initially.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1626  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 3:36 PM
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Doing a pilot project where street parking is removed and one lane becomes an extended sidewalk protected by large but moveable planters would be a good test for a weekend or two. If traffic doesn't come to a standstill and retail traffic doesn't drop, you could even offer patio space if made semi permanent (Friday 6 pm till monday 6 am perhaps) The pilot could even use simple m-barriers to save some cash.
I could see extending the side walks by removing the parking lane on the north side. Then keep 1 lane of parking on the south side, and then do a lane reversal to keep 2 lanes going in the direction of rush hour traffic, and 1 lane against.

3 through lanes (reversible), 1 parking lane and larger side walks. If it became successful and there were calls for more pedestrian accommodation, then extend the sidewalk on the south side into the remaining parking lane, and maintain a 3 lane, no-parking road?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1627  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 3:43 PM
bigcanuck bigcanuck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
I could see extending the side walks by removing the parking lane on the north side. Then keep 1 lane of parking on the south side, and then do a lane reversal to keep 2 lanes going in the direction of rush hour traffic, and 1 lane against.

3 through lanes (reversible), 1 parking lane and larger side walks. If it became successful and there were calls for more pedestrian accommodation, then extend the sidewalk on the south side into the remaining parking lane, and maintain a 3 lane, no-parking road?
The problem with lane reversal (or even removal of one lane) is that most intersections do not have designated left turn lanes. If traffic in one direction is down to one lane, movement grinds to a stop. A solution to the above would be to restrict left turns during designated hours but these signs always seem to go unnoticed by a select few drivers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1628  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 3:51 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
No lane reversal on 17th, that would signal that the street is for commuting, not shopping / entertainment IMO. I think that street should be discouraged as a commuter street if at all possible, 11th works much better in that regard anyway.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1629  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 4:17 PM
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
No lane reversal on 17th, that would signal that the street is for commuting, not shopping / entertainment IMO. I think that street should be discouraged as a commuter street if at all possible, 11th works much better in that regard anyway.
I disagree. Just because lane reversals are currently used on commuter roads, that does not mean they should be used for that exclusively. It's a potential tool to maintain usefulness to peak time road users, while at the same time allowing the street to re-purpose part of itself for other uses. It's about striking a balance.

People will naturally use the most appropriate road. If 11th works much better, then it will naturally be utilised more. Unless you are proposing a significant reduction in the usefulness of 17th (Making it a 1 lane road, or closing links to roads such as McLeod or Crowchild for instance), it will continue to be a well-used road for car traffic unless better alternatives present themselves.

Saying that, I was looking for a balance between road and foot traffic. If there is a case to be made to severely cripple car access to the road, then I could get behind that too. I can't see it happening, so I was offering a balance, but might be interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcanuck View Post
The problem with lane reversal (or even removal of one lane) is that most intersections do not have designated left turn lanes. If traffic in one direction is down to one lane, movement grinds to a stop. A solution to the above would be to restrict left turns during designated hours but these signs always seem to go unnoticed by a select few drivers.
I agree, but with better notice, I think it could be mitigated (large painted no-turn signs on the outside lanes, better enforcement etc).

I guess this is part of the same question. How far do we tip the scales to favour one mode of transportation over another? On a road like 17th, do we favour cars (as we kind of do), do we totally favour pedestrians (like an Stephen Ave style road) or do we try to get the balance in the middle? (Or any degree in between?) Is the improved access for pedestrians at the detriment of car access worth it? I think so, for certain roads.

I can think of dozens of roads that have totally eliminated pedestrian traffic for the benifit of the road user (all expressways, freeways etc) but I can think of only one that does the opposite (Stephen Ave). I think a well-rounded city should have certain roads made available to the benefit of pedestrians only, and 17th would be at the top of the list.

Last edited by 5seconds; Sep 27, 2011 at 4:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1630  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 4:41 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
If you tried to eliminate parking on 17th, people and businesses would freak out and the surrounding streets would become even more congested. I think 17th is fine the way it is, and I agree that more of the retail space needs to fill in before we try anything.

The biggest appeal of Stephen Ave is the lack of cars, but they still allow them after 6PM.
That's the thing, the time of day we're all excited that Stephen ave is busy, is once cars are allowed in anyway.
The thing with Stephen Ave, or any turn of the century relatively unadulterated retail street, is a high number of establishments per block. 17th ave could have twice as many retail bays within it's existing length if all the gaps between buildings were filled in.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1631  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 5:24 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Like I said, I think a lane reversal will encourage people to commute using 17th and will deter people who are going there to make use of all the street has to offer. Once you get past about 14th Street, then it becomes a thoroughfare again.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1632  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 5:26 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
That's the thing, the time of day we're all excited that Stephen ave is busy, is once cars are allowed in anyway.
The thing with Stephen Ave, or any turn of the century relatively unadulterated retail street, is a high number of establishments per block. 17th ave could have twice as many retail bays within it's existing length if all the gaps between buildings were filled in.
I think Stephen Ave could be as successful if they banned cars at all times. 17th definitely has more room for retail though.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1633  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 5:38 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Patios could certainly be bigger with cars banned all the time, since they could extend right to the 'curb'
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1634  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 5:53 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
I think Stephen Ave could be as successful if they banned cars at all times. 17th definitely has more room for retail though.
I'm not sure, maybe for a while, but the teaser parking and drive by capacity is a powerful pshycological effect I think. To bring new people down, it helps provide a bit of an incentive, a nudge.

Since it failed in the past as totally pedestrian, unless the current situation is failing in a different way (safety, pedestrian capacity ), why try to change it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1635  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 5:54 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
Patios could certainly be bigger with cars banned all the time, since they could extend right to the 'curb'
I think the size of most patios is fine, if they want to expand them, then use he roof.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1636  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 5:56 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
I think the size of most patios is fine, if they want to expand them, then use he roof.
Have a rooftop sidewalk where you can patio hop without ever coming back to earth
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1637  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 6:00 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
I think the size of most patios is fine, if they want to expand them, then use he roof.
Several problems with that. First, most buildings on 17th are built to property line or close enough to it, so patios are small, if not impossible. Second, most buildings built on 17th were not built to structurally support weight on the roof. The roof has to be able to hold all the people that will be on it, plus furniture etc, while the storey underneath is on fire. Building a rooftop patio involves a considerable amount of structural engineering, and a lot of money (beams and joists may have to be replaced etc etc).

Putting them on the street keeps activity on the street and makes the sidewalk also more inviting and safe.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1638  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 6:15 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Several problems with that. First, most buildings on 17th are built to property line or close enough to it, so patios are small, if not impossible. Second, most buildings built on 17th were not built to structurally support weight on the roof. The roof has to be able to hold all the people that will be on it, plus furniture etc, while the storey underneath is on fire. Building a rooftop patio involves a considerable amount of structural engineering, and a lot of money (beams and joists may have to be replaced etc etc).
I realize all that is required to have a patio on the roof, I just like roof top patios.

Quote:
Putting them on the street keeps activity on the street and makes the sidewalk also more inviting and safe.
Sort of. If you try and walk by the patio at the ship or Melrose, there are a lot of people standing in the way smoking or talking to the people on the patio, and some can get hostile when you ask them to move so you can get by. I get your point though, it definitely adds to the vibrancy and feel of the street.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1639  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 6:47 PM
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
Like I said, I think a lane reversal will encourage people to commute using 17th and will deter people who are going there to make use of all the street has to offer. Once you get past about 14th Street, then it becomes a thoroughfare again.
All a lane reversal (in my scenario) would do is maintain 2 lanes in the direction of rush hour traffic. It would not add an additional lane as most reversals do. It would mitigate the worst effects (hopefully) of closing a lane. I doubt that maintaining the status quo would encourage anything...?

And wider sidewalks would encourage "making use of all the street has to offer", not deter it, no?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1640  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2011, 7:08 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
All a lane reversal (in my scenario) would do is maintain 2 lanes in the direction of rush hour traffic. It would not add an additional lane as most reversals do. It would mitigate the worst effects (hopefully) of closing a lane. I doubt that maintaining the status quo would encourage anything...?
Agree to disagree I guess.

Quote:
And wider sidewalks would encourage "making use of all the street has to offer", not deter it, no?
Absolutely! narrow sidewalks are one of my pet peeves about this city.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:50 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.