HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Buildings & Architecture, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 2:00 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolfire View Post
Yes, I agree, but Freeweed wants to think they don't plan.
No, I think they just plan extremely poorly and for the extreme short term. These are things that seemed obvious when I first looked at the neighbourhoods when they were 1/4 built. Seriously, the entrance to Tuscany alone is so bleeding obvious what should have been done - and that's just a single example.

Quote:
I think he's just bitter because he lives in that area.
No, these just happen to be the neighbourhoods I'm most familiar with, because I spend most of my time around them. There are plenty of similar examples around the city that I've heard of, I just don't have as much direct experience.

The intersection I get stuck at most often (Royal Birch Blvd/CHB) is already backed up on a regular basis. It's been rebuilt TWICE since I moved there 4 years ago, and it's finally dawned on our city planners that it needs a complete overhaul yet again due to the new commercial/industrial complex to the north. Which has been on the books for many years now. Unfortunately there isn't really enough available land to build a proper interchange/intersection there now, because things were allowed to be built too close to it. Poor planning, plain and simple - and the expense/hassle of a THIRD(!) rebuild of that single intersection is just icing on the cake. I won't even get into the stupidity of having bus stops immediately after major turns on this intersection, which helps back it up even more.

This is why new areas in this city cost so damned much. We keep re-doing major infrastructure pieces in a very short period of time (hi Crowchild @ Stoney, under construction for 5 years running), because no one plans for more than the immediate needs. A few things, like the TUC, were accounted for decades ago - but even then, proper interchange alignment was never fully planned. Tuscany is all the evidence you need to realize that someone was asleep at the wheel when they let that neighbourhood be built.

This would be like building water and sewer lines for 1/5th the capacity of the eventual built neighbourhood, then ripping them out every few years and replacing as the neighbourhood grows. Oh, and having to route them all over the place because no one thought to retain proper utility ROWs. Sheer lunacy.

I'm not advocating the city master plan everything down to the last curb here. But it's a pretty simple matter to grid out the major roadways around a new neighbourhood, decide on access points, and build according to the eventual built number of homes. Even if those homes might take a decade to build.

That being said, we're learning. The NW ring road has all future connections laid out (and earthworks done, even). It should be a pretty straightforward matter of hooking up new roads as needed. The other legs are planned even better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 7:45 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
That being said, we're learning. The NW ring road has all future connections laid out (and earthworks done, even). It should be a pretty straightforward matter of hooking up new roads as needed. The other legs are planned even better.
Don't worry, developers will come along and say that they need their major collector roads at different places than what is allowed for, and then they will be built elsewhere. Leaving the pregrading cost money wasted. It's the Calgary way.

Deerfoot/22x was pre-graded for the future interchange - pregrading that is now being removed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 9:09 PM
Oliver Klozov Oliver Klozov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed View Post
....
Deerfoot/22x was pre-graded for the future interchange - pregrading that is now being removed.
And you're blaming that on developers?

I would think that the original design was for a very different set of circumstances -

- most particularly, it was before the Deerfoot extension was even contemplated, let alone planned and built as the new Hwy 2.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 9:39 PM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klozov View Post
And you're blaming that on developers?

I would think that the original design was for a very different set of circumstances -

- most particularly, it was before the Deerfoot extension was even contemplated, let alone planned and built as the new Hwy 2.
He's talking the pre-grading they did at the time they did the interchange modifications for the Deerfoot extension. But still, at that time Stoney Trail was a distant thought most likely (that was at least a decade ago if not more)
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 2:21 PM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
I think the City should look into things such as cumulative effects costing, which although complicated, may provide a more rationale way to recouperate costs. Essentially the problem I see is that several developments will go into an area, and all of them will be within the existing road capacity and none of them will trigger an intersection upgrade, and then one other development comes in, triggers the intersection upgrade and then that developer pays for the whole thing. Instead what we should do is look at a development and say, how much infrastructure is it going to require to service this development, assuming that other developments will be in the area and split the marginal cost. I hope that makes sense.
Is what you are describing here similar to Edmonton's Permanent Area Contributions?
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...butions-p.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Buildings & Architecture, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:11 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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