HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #361  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2012, 9:23 PM
Tropics Tropics is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed View Post
If boring such a tunnel under the river is too difficult, they will do something different. The point is that $300M per km is enough to cover the cost. If boring would cost more than that, they won't bore.
Of course. Which is why I said that they will go with a bridge if this is done at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #362  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2012, 9:26 PM
Tropics Tropics is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed View Post
Ah, yes, I understand now. Yes, they will have to have some kind of a bridge over that ravine.
How cool would it be to have an old school/heritage looking trestle bridge built for the LRT there for the ravine... that would be awesome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #363  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 5:48 AM
Bassic Lab Bassic Lab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
I have not changed my position. Capacity is the number of train movements supported by a given length of track in a given time. Lines for transit purposes are colored bars on maps and names on signs. When the costs are in the billions of dollars you can't just lay down track where it might be convenient to.



That is the wonderful thing about interlining, the capacity of the track can be allocated based on need. The great thing about technology is the headways provided for on modern grade separated track are ridiculous. It is criminal negligence to plan a modern grade separated line without provisions for interlining because the track capacity is so great. To argue that interlining diminishes potential capacity you first have to argue that a route has any probability of being impeded by track capacity in the modern grade separated environment we speak of. And I don't even want to imagine where headways will be in the future when the only living, breathing C-Train operator is at Heritage Park.



Because 7th Ave will have been grade separated decades earlier to eliminate the surface traffic bottleneck affecting route 202 it won't be a problem.



There is no relative disproportionate benefit in favour of something that can't be built. Arguing about this sort of alignment is like some guys at the airport with a King Air contemplating a fleet of 777's.

1. / 2. You still have to be able to built it in the first place.
3. That is a whole other war in and of itself that is unlikely to be successful unless a virulent plague kills off the population of Centre Street North of 16th ave.
4. Grade separation is a marvelous and inevitable thing even if no North Central LRT is ever built.

In a future Calgary there will be many competing transportation priorities. Building a single LRT line for the price of two to serve the backwater that is most of Centre Street is going to be completely unsalable.
We've been over most of this before and I don't think either one of us really sees much of a point in treading the same water over again but I'm curious about something you wrote here. It is the part about most of Centre Street being a backwater in the future. So I'd like to know what you think the area is going to look like in 20, 50, 100 years?

I think that whatever happens regarding the NCLRT, be it Centre Street Subway, some kind of Nose Creek alignment, or nothing, there will be redevelopment and gentrification of the area bound by the Bow River, Deerfoot, Beddington Trail, and 14 St. At the bare minimum, with a Nose Creek alignment or no NCLRT, I would assume that much of the existing housing stock will be redeveloped with infill homes, those 50' lots that close to downtown will be devoured (the area isn't Mount Royal or Elbow Park, it will not be preserved, and it isn't Forest Lawn (or most anything east of Deerfoot) wealth isn't afraid to enter it), and low rise condos will continue to slowly be built in areas close to transit. I just don't think that the majority of the area will become a backwater. Without a higher level of transit it will probably all slowly look more like Hillhurst and Crescent Heights do today.

With a Centre Street Subway, I would expect a great deal more construction over the whole area. The slow natural growth and gentrification related redevelopment would be accelerated by the presence of faster, higher capacity, transit (not to mention the improvement in traffic capacity with the reduction in busses on Centre Street; there are definitely enough to affect traffic flow today, let alone in twenty years when a NCLRT might be realistically built). Furthermore, I could see a major secondary business district develop around the intersection of Centre Street and 16 Ave N. Over the coming decades, Downtown and the Beltline will become essentially built out but demand will still exist for inner city office space. The intersection of rapid transit lines following both Centre Street and 16 Ave N would provide enough transportation capacity for a major employment node despite constrained roads throughout the inner city. The only other option I can see involves more and more intense office development in the industrial areas to the South East of Downtown but the problem there is that only the SE LRT will service those areas. Either way, we can only fit so much office space and so many condos in Downtown/The Beltline and when they are full new ones will have to go somewhere. That somewhere will need to have rapid transit because the roads are already full.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #364  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2012, 9:13 PM
outoftheice outoftheice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 911
The one issue that seems apparent in these discussions is the disconnect that we have in this city between transit planning and city planning.

For instance, there are those that discount a Centre Street option based on the fact that they are of the belief that large scale intensification will not happen along the corridor and therefore will not justify the expense of an LRT line. However if we take a look at the Calgary Municipal Development Plan http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Docum...pment-plan.pdf and the associated maps http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Docum...s/mdp-maps.pdf we can see that Centre Street has been designated an Urban Corridor. That means that the City and its planning department have deemed it a priority to bring increased density along Centre Street over the next 30 years. So the battle against the NIMBY's along Centre Street is on its way as the City starts to drive changes to ensure Calgary's growth follows the MDP. I agree with others on this forum that think that there will be opposition to seeing Centre Street south of McKnight Blvd turned into a corridor with mid-rise buildings and mixed use developments. This is why I think the City needs to seriously consider an underground Centre Street LRT as its first option. People may be opposed to increased density along Centre Street but if you tell them they will be getting an LRT line that is a ten minute walk from their door-step to help support this density, I think you would see a lot less opposition. The Calgary MDP was designed to maximize the savings to City tax-payers by maximizing existing growth opportunities and limiting sprawl. Since the City planners have decided that Centre Street is a critical component to the plan, I would argue that some of the extra expense of the Centre Street LRT will be partially re-couped with the savings gained from realizing the goals of the MDP.

For those that support the Nose Creek corridor, I'm curious on their thoughts about the fact that the Calgary Regional Partnership is planning a commuter rail service to Airdrie along Nose Creek as shown on page 52 of this pdf: http://www.calgaryregion.ca/crp/media/60495/rpt-regional%20transit%20plan%20-%20final%20report%20-%20dec-09[1].pdf . So even if we were to believe that the Nose Creek Valley will one day make a great spot for redevelopment (I do not), wouldn't the fact that there will be a commuter rail line built mere metres away from a Nose Creek LRT be a bit of over-kill?? Why not just add a few stations to the commuter rail line and service the whole corridor? I recognize that commuter rail is even further in the future than the NC LRT, however if we are going to spend billions of dollars on 2 rail lines, I think that we should at least build those rail lines in two seperate locations to get the most for our money.

I think that when you start looking at the NC LRT from more than just a transit prospective and start incorporating existing City and Regional planning policies, Nose Creek can be rather soundly rejected and Centre Street becomes the ideal option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #365  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2012, 10:04 PM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Just because it is designated in a plan, doesn't mean it is going to happen (Crowfoot Village was planned to be a high density urban village, same with Shawnessey). And if we want to talk about cost savings and getting better bang for the buck, we shouldn't be trying to intensify Centre Street (something that would require billions of dollars of infrastructure to accommodate the density). We should be sticking every bit of density we can around the already dozens of existing LRT stations.

I don't think it is as simple as up-zoning an area and watch the density role in. If it was, the city could simply do that with so many existing LRT stations, and we would be able to fit way more growth than Centre Street could hold, without the need to put in a multiple billion dollar new line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #366  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2012, 10:46 PM
outoftheice outoftheice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 911


I agree with you. Crowfoot Village and Shawnessy were planning disasters as there were no mechanisms in place to ensure that what was envisioned in the Calgary Go Plan actually came to pass. As a result, we have TOD opportunities at the City's extremities that have been completely wasted. I would like to think that the City has learned from their mistakes and we will see better results from the Municipal Development plan.

I also agree that we should also be sticking every bit of density we can around the dozens of existing LRT stations. However I think the majority of the TOD opportunities that surround Calgary's existing LRT stations will be best served by high rise mixed use developments. I will be the first to admit that the majority of people in Calgary do not want to live in those kinds of developments which is why we need to look at other opportunities for intensification and increased density in addition to TOD around our existing LRT stations... Opportunities such as Centre Street

The only point we really differ on is that fact that I believe that up-zoning Centre Street will allow the density to role in... provided there is a catalyst to encourage that kind of development. A catalyst such as an LRT line. I used to live on 12th Ave NW just off Centre Street and the majority of the homes along that strip have been replaced by infill town-homes and 3 and 4 story walk-ups. It is the kind of development that people do not tend to have huge objections to and can be done by smaller scale developers, builders and even individual home-owners/investors. If you can use the LRT line to encourage this sort of development to occur between the bridge and McKnight with the up-zoning to go with it I think we would see this style of development start to roll in. The more town-homes and walk-ups that are built in the area, the more it makes sense to develop mid-rise buildings with retail and commercial along Centre Street to support the increased population.

None of this will happen over-night but I firmly believe that over the next 50 years people will continue moving to this city and there will be a huge demand for developments of all types as we see this City charge towards the 2 million mark. There are lots of opportunities for high-rise developments with-in the city to meet this demand however the only place we are seeing a lot of investment in town-homes and mid-rises is in greenfield developments on the city's fringes. We will be getting a multi-billion dollar new LRT line for the North either way. To me it makes sense to try and leverage the costs of building that line as much as possible to try to encourage and focus investment dollars towards an area of the city that is prime for re-development. As much as the Centre Street LRT will cost more... having this development occur on the City's edge has a cost as well... just accounted for from a different budget. If I remember correctly, the difference between the old status quo and the highest density version of the Calgary MDP was $11 BILLION in costs to the city. That's a lot of property tax increases to make up that difference and an extra Billion dollars towards a Centre Street Subway versus a Nose Creek alignment is just a drop in the bucket in comparison. The difference comes down to whether or not you believe that kind of re-development can happen. I do... but I think a Centre Street LRT is the key component in making it work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #367  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2012, 3:47 AM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
One quibble with your line of thinking. Unless it IS high density mixed use towers, serving the area with LRT is overkill. I totally agree that we will see lots more low-midrise development along the centre street corridor (it is happening already), but feel this type of density is better served by a different, more affordable style of transportation infrastructure. Be it a street car, or just something as simple as separate bus lanes for the routes 3 and 301.

It is similar to Malcolm Tucker's post a little earlier in this thread where he talked about the bedsheet, and placing heavier objects in it. You can create "volume" by placing a few heavy objects in it, to create 2-3 very deep pockets. Or, you can create the same volume with multiple smaller objects, spaced evenly along the corridor.

Due to the spacing distances of LRT stations (an effective LRT line at least), you would need to have the very concentrated densities right around the station (high rise) to make it worth while. I think that would be very difficult to achieve in the Centre Street Corridor (south of Beddington at least).

The low-mid rise density is happening (very glad to see), but can be serviced more affordably with a different type of infrastructure in my opinion. Same outcome, different tool.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #368  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2012, 4:03 AM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191

I'll be honest, I'd rather take a streetcar down Centre (I live near 20th ave) than an LRT That said, we simply need to see what savings the original nose creek plan would give us, to make sure that nose creek LRT + lower volume fancy Centre street transit wouldnt' end up costing more than just putting LRT up Centre.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #369  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2012, 5:32 AM
Bassic Lab Bassic Lab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelS View Post
One quibble with your line of thinking. Unless it IS high density mixed use towers, serving the area with LRT is overkill. I totally agree that we will see lots more low-midrise development along the centre street corridor (it is happening already), but feel this type of density is better served by a different, more affordable style of transportation infrastructure. Be it a street car, or just something as simple as separate bus lanes for the routes 3 and 301.

It is similar to Malcolm Tucker's post a little earlier in this thread where he talked about the bedsheet, and placing heavier objects in it. You can create "volume" by placing a few heavy objects in it, to create 2-3 very deep pockets. Or, you can create the same volume with multiple smaller objects, spaced evenly along the corridor.

Due to the spacing distances of LRT stations (an effective LRT line at least), you would need to have the very concentrated densities right around the station (high rise) to make it worth while. I think that would be very difficult to achieve in the Centre Street Corridor (south of Beddington at least).

The low-mid rise density is happening (very glad to see), but can be serviced more affordably with a different type of infrastructure in my opinion. Same outcome, different tool.
I think you're substantially underestimating the density that is possible with low to mid rise development. Point towers on a short podium can have the same FAR as mid rises. Subways don't service seas of high rises; they typically serve mid rise neighbourhoods on the way to a CBD.

What is the stop spacing for an "effective LRT line"? The Bloor-Danforth Subway has roughly 600 metres between stations. The Canada Line in Vancouver essentially (two stations were skipped but are planned to be built later when the surrounding density is higher) has 800 metres between stations. I tend to think that Bloor-Danforth stations are too close together, but something in the 800-1000 metre range is both rapid and conducive to making the entire corridor transit oriented.

When we start talking about building a streetcar and a Nose Creek LRT we start getting close to the cost of a Centre Street Line. Creating bus lanes the length of Centre Street is a NIMBY battle worse than upzoning.

The only foreseeable difference between Centre Street in 2025 and Cambie in 2005 is that downtown Calgary will have far more jobs than downtown Vancouver did. A Centre Street alignment would see ridership equivalent to other metro lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #370  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2012, 3:02 PM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Maybe spacing of only 800-1000 meters would work, but I just think it would mean far too long of a ride for someone coming in from the northern Hills neighbourhoods. And if the spacing is say more like every 2 kms or so (maybe even a bit more, what is it on our existing lines?), people who live in the medium density Centre Street between the stations would find it too long to walk to one of them and then get on.

I still think that the potential silver bullet for all of these issues is to use an Urban Gondola. You ride a couple of escalators from the Eau Claire subway terminal to get on the gondola station, and catch the next car (only having to wait about 20 seconds). A gondola can effortlessly cross the river and climb the hill, and run along Centre Street without the need to take away lanes of traffic or expropriate large amounts of property. Plus, you can move a lot of people, and is a lot cheaper than building a traditional LRT line.

http://gondolaproject.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #371  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 12:25 AM
Bassic Lab Bassic Lab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelS View Post
Maybe spacing of only 800-1000 meters would work, but I just think it would mean far too long of a ride for someone coming in from the northern Hills neighbourhoods. And if the spacing is say more like every 2 kms or so (maybe even a bit more, what is it on our existing lines?), people who live in the medium density Centre Street between the stations would find it too long to walk to one of them and then get on.

I still think that the potential silver bullet for all of these issues is to use an Urban Gondola. You ride a couple of escalators from the Eau Claire subway terminal to get on the gondola station, and catch the next car (only having to wait about 20 seconds). A gondola can effortlessly cross the river and climb the hill, and run along Centre Street without the need to take away lanes of traffic or expropriate large amounts of property. Plus, you can move a lot of people, and is a lot cheaper than building a traditional LRT line.

http://gondolaproject.com/
Existing station spacing varies greatly. Most of the suburban sections generally have 1600 metre/1 mile station spacing, although the NW line in particular has some much larger gaps. The inner city sections (from Erlton to University for instance) generally have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 800-1000 metre station spacing. The downtown section has ~500 metre station spacing.

As for trip length, it is important to remember that from Eau Claire station to the furthest extent of current development to the north is under 14 kilometres. To the south, it is more like 20 kilometres. Even with 800 metre station spacing south of Beddington, the trip between Stoney Trail and downtown on a Centre Street route should take less than half an hour. That is quite competitive with driving, especially during the rush.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #372  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2012, 1:11 PM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassic Lab View Post
We've been over most of this before and I don't think either one of us really sees much of a point in treading the same water over again but I'm curious about something you wrote here. It is the part about most of Centre Street being a backwater in the future. So I'd like to know what you think the area is going to look like in 20, 50, 100 years?

Calgary Herald

Quote:
I think that whatever happens regarding the NCLRT, be it Centre Street Subway, some kind of Nose Creek alignment, or nothing, there will be redevelopment and gentrification of the area bound by the Bow River, Deerfoot, Beddington Trail, and 14 St. At the bare minimum, with a Nose Creek alignment or no NCLRT, I would assume that much of the existing housing stock will be redeveloped with infill homes, those 50' lots that close to downtown will be devoured (the area isn't Mount Royal or Elbow Park, it will not be preserved, and it isn't Forest Lawn (or most anything east of Deerfoot) wealth isn't afraid to enter it), and low rise condos will continue to slowly be built in areas close to transit. I just don't think that the majority of the area will become a backwater. Without a higher level of transit it will probably all slowly look more like Hillhurst and Crescent Heights do today.
The problem is the very characteristics that make Centre Street seem ideal for intensification also doom any serious proposal to do that in an aggressive way. A bunch of Centre Street facing multi-family is one thing. Turning it into Yonge Street is quite another. And I don't think low-rise multi-family makes it much less of a back-water. I don't see any set of circumstances that would allow the areas that aren't complete discard to significantly change in character.

There was a reason that the post-war "urban renewal" projects flattened entire communities. The original occupants were just too much of a nuisance to the redevelopment goals regardless of their merit. Lawsuits, pandering politicians, protests, vandalism...
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #373  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2012, 1:58 PM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by outoftheice View Post
The one issue that seems apparent in these discussions is the disconnect that we have in this city between transit planning and city planning.

For instance, there are those that discount a Centre Street option based on the fact that they are of the belief that large scale intensification will not happen along the corridor and therefore will not justify the expense of an LRT line. However if we take a look at the Calgary Municipal Development Plan http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Docum...pment-plan.pdf and the associated maps http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Docum...s/mdp-maps.pdf we can see that Centre Street has been designated an Urban Corridor. That means that the City and its planning department have deemed it a priority to bring increased density along Centre Street over the next 30 years. So the battle against the NIMBY's along Centre Street is on its way as the City starts to drive changes to ensure Calgary's growth follows the MDP. I agree with others on this forum that think that there will be opposition to seeing Centre Street south of McKnight Blvd turned into a corridor with mid-rise buildings and mixed use developments. This is why I think the City needs to seriously consider an underground Centre Street LRT as its first option. People may be opposed to increased density along Centre Street but if you tell them they will be getting an LRT line that is a ten minute walk from their door-step to help support this density, I think you would see a lot less opposition. The Calgary MDP was designed to maximize the savings to City tax-payers by maximizing existing growth opportunities and limiting sprawl. Since the City planners have decided that Centre Street is a critical component to the plan, I would argue that some of the extra expense of the Centre Street LRT will be partially re-couped with the savings gained from realizing the goals of the MDP.
Planners can plan whatever they like, Calgary planned not one but two unbuilt east-west freeways. The problem with the type of intensification mentioned in the present Municipal Development Plan is if it were ever to be seriously implemented a straight-ticket of demagogues who make me look like Druh Farrell would be elected to kill it.

If I actually believed there was some plausible outcome in which Centre Street would come to look like Yonge Street I would think a Centre Street LRT is a great idea.

Quote:
For those that support the Nose Creek corridor, I'm curious on their thoughts about the fact that the Calgary Regional Partnership is planning a commuter rail service to Airdrie along Nose Creek as shown on page 52 of this pdf: http://www.calgaryregion.ca/crp/media/60495/rpt-regional%20transit%20plan%20-%20final%20report%20-%20dec-09[1].pdf . So even if we were to believe that the Nose Creek Valley will one day make a great spot for redevelopment (I do not), wouldn't the fact that there will be a commuter rail line built mere metres away from a Nose Creek LRT be a bit of over-kill?? Why not just add a few stations to the commuter rail line and service the whole corridor? I recognize that commuter rail is even further in the future than the NC LRT, however if we are going to spend billions of dollars on 2 rail lines, I think that we should at least build those rail lines in two seperate locations to get the most for our money.

I think that when you start looking at the NC LRT from more than just a transit prospective and start incorporating existing City and Regional planning policies, Nose Creek can be rather soundly rejected and Centre Street becomes the ideal option.
The two are mutually irrelevant to the other, unless one wants to argue for expanding the LRT to Crossfield. The suggestion of a dedicated track within the CPR ROW for commuter rail within the same planning epoch as whatever form the North Central LRT takes is ridiculous. But if a true commuter rail operation can't leverage the CPR sublines in question any new track should be part of the LRT system.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #374  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2012, 8:36 PM
Tropics Tropics is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
Turning it into Yonge Street is quite another.
Centre street is never going to be like Yonge Street. Calgary has roads that are alot closer to being like Yonge Street already. I have walked the whole of Yonge Street and if anything 17th ave is the closest thing Calgary has to it and is going to become more and more so as time goes on. 17th can continue building and increasing densification towards the west past 14th and probably will in time and that will continue to make it more like Yonge.

Centre Street is going to continue to become more and more an extension of Chinatown. It is very asian focused all the way to about 20th ave north now and is getting more and more so. Putting the LRT in would simply make it move even faster into the direction it is already heading, which is a cool direction, but it is not Yonge Street and it never will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #375  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2012, 5:57 PM
polishavenger polishavenger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropics View Post
Centre street is never going to be like Yonge Street. Calgary has roads that are alot closer to being like Yonge Street already. I have walked the whole of Yonge Street and if anything 17th ave is the closest thing Calgary has to it and is going to become more and more so as time goes on. 17th can continue building and increasing densification towards the west past 14th and probably will in time and that will continue to make it more like Yonge.

Not sure why people have the certainty to say "never" especially in a city like Calgary. Given that we are a young city that is currently transitioning in its development philosophy a lot could happen. Im sure many people said the DT core would never be a pedestrian friendly place on the weekends, or that the east village would never amount to anything. Both of these are changing and look like they will come to fruition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #376  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2012, 7:14 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by polishavenger View Post
Not sure why people have the certainty to say "never" especially in a city like Calgary. Given that we are a young city that is currently transitioning in its development philosophy a lot could happen. Im sure many people said the DT core would never be a pedestrian friendly place on the weekends, or that the east village would never amount to anything. Both of these are changing and look like they will come to fruition.
Agreed. I think all areas close to downtown will completely evolve eventually. The land value is just too great. I can easily picture Centre being our own version of Yonge ST in the future. Right now the closent thing we have in Macleod trail (in terms of clusters of buildings trailing to the far south......) but macleod is too wide and freakin ugly......
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #377  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2012, 7:17 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by polishavenger View Post
Not sure why people have the certainty to say "never" especially in a city like Calgary. Given that we are a young city that is currently transitioning in its development philosophy a lot could happen. Im sure many people said the DT core would never be a pedestrian friendly place on the weekends, or that the east village would never amount to anything. Both of these are changing and look like they will come to fruition.
The area around Centre Street can easily become a dense and vibrant mid-rise district. Centre itself can be a commercial corridor with office or residential above, to about 8 stories, while other corridors such as 4th Street, Edmonton Trail and even 20th avenue can serve as midrise (4-5 storey) residential corridors. The rest of the district can be all townhouses. Even that moderate increase in zoning can increase the population by about 2x. It doesn't have to be Yonge street to be a good urban corridor. It would be much more like Cambie than Yonge.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #378  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2014, 10:18 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
There' doesn't seem to be a specific NCLRT thread so I thought I'd post this here:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...hybrid/371986/

Austin Wants to Build a Light Rail-Streetcar Hybrid
Austin Urban Rail couples the best part of streetcar and light-rail transit to connect urban and suburban commuters.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:10 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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