[Always_Biking]

Welcome to the forum Cosmosus, as you can see most people here probably support the project. Concerns maybe with the aesthetics, but they support the project in general. It's nice to have opposing opinions, so your input is appreciated.

I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of car ownership and traffic. Virtually all of the renters will be students at UofC or SAIT. Most will have no use to drive as it will be easier to take the train or walk to either of those facilities. There are less parking stalls than units, so expect many students to go without a car.
Traffic affect is negligible. Less than 328 cars will add to traffic at 16th ave and Crowchild which are already used by thousands of cars. Banff Trail may see a slight increase, but it doesn't affects residents in that neighborhood.

"Opponents of the project have expressed concerns about increased vehicular traffic, but given the transportation choices of students, who are heavy transit users, the development isn't expected to exacerbate congestion in the area. The building will also replace a motel, whose customers typically arrive by vehicle."

Come - replacing a 30 unit motel with a 328 unit building - sorry the developer and city counsel are living in bizzaro world if you think that everyone who lives in this 28 story building will not have at least 1 of not 2 cars - or average at least 1 per unit.......traffic nightmare!

 

[JustDandy]

Welcome to the forum Cosmosus, as you can see most people here probably support the project. Concerns maybe with the aesthetics, but they support the project in general. It's nice to have opposing opinions, so your input is appreciated.

I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of car ownership and traffic. Virtually all of the renters will be students at UofC or SAIT. Most will have no use to drive as it will be easier to take the train or walk to either of those facilities. There are less parking stalls than units, so expect many students to go without a car.
Traffic affect is negligible. Less than 328 cars will add to traffic at 16th ave and Crowchild which are already used by thousands of cars. Banff Trail may see a slight increase, but it doesn't affects residents in that neighborhood.

Actually the project shall help facilitate stronger traffic flow in the area.. An increase of density as proposed is enough to force the City to create the onramp from 16th W to Crowchild Trail N. This will help reduce traffic as major concerns of area residents is the increase traffic along 19th st N and 24th ave W. This is why there has been fairly limited opposition to the proposal, along with the fact it confirms to the Banff Trail Station Area Plan verbatim.

 

[Always_Biking]

Actually the project shall help facilitate stronger traffic flow in the area.. An increase of density as proposed is enough to force the City to create the onramp from 16th W to Crowchild Trail N. This will help reduce traffic as major concerns of area residents is the increase traffic along 19th st N and 24th ave W. This is why there has been fairly limited opposition to the proposal, along with the fact it confirms to the Banff Trail Station Area Plan verbatim.

Excellent. I didn't know the city was looking into an on-ramp from 16th to Crowchild. This is good news.

 

[darwink]

Excellent. I didn't know the city was looking into an on-ramp from 16th to Crowchild. This is good news.

It is in the medium term crowchild trail plan.

 

[JustDandy]

It is in the medium term crowchild trail plan.

Its actually now funded and will be triggered by approval of this project, This was confirmed by transportation department about 1 month ago. Should this project not move forward, then it would remain in the medium term crowchild trail plan.

 

[BKha]

An off ramp from 16th to Crowchild makes so much sense. I hope this project gets approved, if it helps get it done sooner.

 

[CBBarnett]

Its actually now funded and will be triggered by approval of this project, This was confirmed by transportation department about 1 month ago. Should this project not move forward, then it would remain in the medium term crowchild trail plan.

I would love if all our infrastructure was as easily triggered as road capacity and preserving all car movements (e.g. as traffic volumes increases the street scape needs to be upgraded to continue to make it bearable for pedestrians by requiring street trees and wider sidewalks).

 

[Cosmosus1]

My opinion is based on experience. I had a car when I went to university - needed to get to hockey rinks, friends houses who are not on the LTR route, skiing, visiting family in Red Deer, driving to work, camping, etc.. University kids are more active now a days, have a lot of toys and likely drive to their parents for dinner at least once a week. I believe it is naïve to think that less than 75% (250) of residents will not have at least one car, and possibly two or more per residence assuming considering roommates.

For the article to infer that there will be less cars when a 28 story building replaces a 30-unit motel (that likely has 10 room rentals per night) is certainly misleading. I agree that pedestrian and bike paths need to be improved in conjunction with any redevelopment in the Motel Village area but plopping a 28 story building in the location without a full redevelopment plan and strategy will only lead to issues/concerns/congestion for future residents. The Builder does not care - the more units and the more stories by more profit - quality of life and community is of no concern.

 

[Cosmosus1]

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportatio...wchild-trail-study/Crowchild-Trail-Study.aspx

The redevelopment of 16th/Crowchild is part of the short-term plan approved by the city. See link

 

[JustDandy]

For the article to infer that there will be less cars when a 28 story building replaces a 30-unit motel (that likely has 10 room rentals per night) is certainly misleading. I agree that pedestrian and bike paths need to be improved in conjunction with any redevelopment in the Motel Village area but plopping a 28 story building in the location without a full redevelopment plan and strategy will only lead to issues/concerns/congestion for future residents. The Builder does not care - the more units and the more stories by more profit - quality of life and community is of no concern.

You mean like this one:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/arp-asp/arp/banff-trail-station-arp.pdf

 

[jdixon]

My opinion is based on experience. I had a car when I went to university - needed to get to hockey rinks, friends houses who are not on the LTR route, skiing, visiting family in Red Deer, driving to work, camping, etc.. University kids are more active now a days, have a lot of toys and likely drive to their parents for dinner at least once a week. I believe it is naïve to think that less than 75% (250) of residents will not have at least one car, and possibly two or more per residence assuming considering roommates.

For the article to infer that there will be less cars when a 28 story building replaces a 30-unit motel (that likely has 10 room rentals per night) is certainly misleading. I agree that pedestrian and bike paths need to be improved in conjunction with any redevelopment in the Motel Village area but plopping a 28 story building in the location without a full redevelopment plan and strategy will only lead to issues/concerns/congestion for future residents. The Builder does not care - the more units and the more stories by more profit - quality of life and community is of no concern.

I recently finished university and never drove. I'd say half my friends drove, but they lived much further than a 15 minute walk to campus like the people renting here will. The people who lived in the Banff Trail area NEVER drove to school. Of course there will be traffic in the evenings for activities that you mention, but I don't think additional traffic in the afternoon or evening will contribute much to congestion. The roads are well below capacity at those times.

 

[Surrealplaces]

You mean like this one:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/arp-asp/arp/banff-trail-station-arp.pdf

That plan has been out for a while too, I remember seeing the concept drawings a few years back. The Max FAR with bonusing for that parcel is 6.0 so 28 floors is easily within what the city has laid out in the ARP.

 

[Cosmosus1]

Thanks JustDandy. Looks like a comprehensive concept for redevelopment has been on the table since October 2011. What happened to this initiative? Does not appear anything has been implemented during the past 6 years. Not sure if the community was asked for input and if so what were the priorities? While a 28 story is within Max FAR guidelines.......reality is the City Counselor and the developer will not actually live in the location - their focus is maximum size to ensure the economies of scale allow for maximum profit. It is being done all around the city - just questioning the reasoning for this project and how it fits into a reasonably thought through project which has been through extensive consultation.....

I recently finished university and never drove. I'd say half my friends drove, but they lived much further than a 15 minute walk to campus like the people renting here will. The people who lived in the Banff Trail area NEVER drove to school. Of course there will be traffic in the evenings for activities that you mention, but I don't think additional traffic in the afternoon or evening will contribute much to congestion. The roads are well below capacity at those times.

Thanks Jdixon. I certainly am not contending that everyone will have cars, just that most will have cars. Rather than making broad assumptions (as I am doing) and pointing to individual experiences (like yours) it would be great to get the facts though conducting studies/surveys. I good example would be to conduct a study of the residence University City complexes in the Brentwood mall area - who lives there, how many have vehicles, is parking adequate, how has the flow of both traffic and pedestrians been impacted and how can we improve on this development experience? Then the proper size of the building and the proper parking and road development (and pedestrian walks) can be adequately analyzed. On a separate note, I just rented a house in Briar Hill to 3 males attending SAIT - 2 of the 3had vehicles - they were within 500 yards of the university. I am just saying that the City does not appear to have the community and the long term impact of high density (mega high density in this case) in mind.

 

[JustDandy]

That plan has been out for a while too, I remember seeing the concept drawings a few years back. The Max FAR with bonusing for that parcel is 6.0 so 28 floors is easily within what the city has laid out in the ARP.

my rough calculations( I don't want to bother going to official, I am aware the site narrows to the north by about 10m) is a 75m X 95m site which allows for about 76500 sq ft site. At 6.0 FAR they would have upto about 460,000 sq ft of buildable space to be within the plan at max density. How you slice up that buildable space depends on set back requirements and high restrictions etc.

 

[JustDandy]

Thanks JustDandy. Looks like a comprehensive concept for redevelopment has been on the table since October 2011. What happened to this initiative? Does not appear anything has been implemented during the past 6 years. Not sure if the community was asked for input and if so what were the priorities? While a 28 story is within Max FAR guidelines.......reality is
Thanks Jdixon. I certainly am not contending that everyone will have cars, just that most will have cars. Rather than making broad assumptions (as I am doing) and pointing to individual experiences (like yours) it would be great to get the facts though conducting studies/surveys. I good example would be to conduct a study of the residence University City complexes in the Brentwood mall area - who lives there, how many have vehicles, is parking adequate, how has the flow of both traffic and pedestrians been impacted and how can we improve on this development experience? Then the proper size of the building and the proper parking and road development (and pedestrian walks) can be adequately analyzed. On a separate note, I just rented a house in Briar Hill to 3 males attending SAIT - 2 of the 3had vehicles - they were within 500 yards of the university. I am just saying that the City does not appear to have the community and the long term impact of high density (mega high density in this case) in mind.

no worries, it for some reason is a difficult plan to find on the city website( no surprise) . From my understanding the community was asked for input, most of that input was regarding the city funding for the Crowchild trail improvements and pedestrian improvements. BTCA from what I have heard is more interested in making sure there is added benefit to their community via increased pedestrian infrastructure and better traffic flow to limit those choosing to go north on 19th st to 24th ave to access crowchild north.

As for the plan itself, this looks to be really the first proposal in accordance with it. I believe the City doesn't have the funds to implement all these measures in the plan on the front end, but rather develop them along with proposals. Thus the onramp was tied to development in this area of a threshold amount.

I think we can all agree from a pedestrian stand point, Motel Village is not very accommodating at all. Therefore the benefits strongly outweight the negatives for the majority of the community.