Albertasaurus
Active Member
Yup. DP2024-01631. Urb, I believe you are correct re: developer.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Pleasantly surprised to see something proposed for 13th Ave and Centre Street. This is probably the single location in Calgary that most feels like an American inner-city. Every corner is an empty lot surrounded by fencing. Some of the fences even have barbed wire. It's an incredibly hostile, off-putting intersection.
adamyyc
Active Member
Shots of the partially completed mural, the patio space, and Elizabeth Square under development.
I really hope LDG has more in the pipeline (selfishly I hope it’s in Marda Loop) because they do really thoughtful work. Everything from scale, colour, materials, lighting, etc. seems well thought out.
Last edited:
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Such an awesome development of something so simple yet practically non-existing in new development - small format, pedestrian-centric retail.
I've said this before, but now that we have townhomes and incremental housing infill largely figured out, it's time to spend the same energy to figure out how to create thousands of these kinds of small-scale, local-focused retail and shopping places. Some of our inner city infill neighbourhoods are creeping up on the population density that actually can support these kinds of places.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
This reminds me of the kind of development that made Toronto's Yorkville neighbourhood such an attractive place in the 1970s/80s. Small scale, mixed-use infills that take advantage of existing architecture rather than knocking it all down and starting from scratch. To some extent, Calgary's Kensington neighbourhood has some of this as well, but it's greatly hampered by the fact that 10 and 14 streets are such car sewers.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
It's instructive that most of our best infill/incremental intensification did not happen right on main streets that maintain a dominate role for vehicle movements.
34th Ave in Marda Loop, 1st Avenue NE in Bridgeland, 1st Street SW, even mini-main streets like 19th Street NW all share the same features - relatively narrow and less connected than more major corridors nearby. They have traffic, but it's modest and limited to mostly local circulations rather than serving a declared commuter route - which almost all streets have been dedicated as such.
Essentially, we have slowly been proving that to create a economically productive, successful street that's attractive for human-scale development investment, the pre-requisite is that car mobility can't be the main priority.
The next step is to apply this learning to commuter streets, but have this win the argument over "business as usual" mobility/car sewer needs. Looking at you 17th Avenue SW.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I've noticed this in a major way when it comes to 33 and 34. By making them both one way it has taken the issues of 33 and brought them to 34. When the main streets work is done, 34 will be the better (for everything but cars) avenue.
Last edited:
10 St, a "car sewer". The term has officially lost all meaning.
It has sidewalks, curbs, parking at the curb, no/very few parking lots fronting the street, bus service, parks, lighting, benches, garbage cans, crosswalks, and (controversial opinion), it's not only possible to walk safely, but it's actually pleasant!
It has sidewalks, curbs, parking at the curb, no/very few parking lots fronting the street, bus service, parks, lighting, benches, garbage cans, crosswalks, and (controversial opinion), it's not only possible to walk safely, but it's actually pleasant!
CBBarnett
Senior Member
A lot really depends on how the street is designed, not the number of directions of travel. I don't mind 33/34th construction one-ways very much as I am finding both streets easier to cross as a pedestrian (apart from insanely long cycle timing to accommodate real and imaginary vehicle flows during construction). But I don't think I'd go as far to say they should be permanent.
One thing the city should look closer on is using 1-ways again. We always get distracted by the over-sized 5-lane, major one-way car sewers downtown in one-way debates, but I am more interested in using one-ways for all secondary and local streets.
Having a one-way grid can help break up flows and cut-through traffic. If done right, this means many more streets don't really have any non-local traffic at all, or if they do, only from one direction. This opens up a ton of interesting possibilities where less space is needed for two-way traffic while making traffic more predictable. Converting to one-ways in more areas is likely a faster and cheaper way to get traffic calming in neighbourhoods than waiting around for street upgrades (which will inevitably be watered down because of the "requirement" to keep extra road width available so traffic can flow in all directions, everywhere, all the time).
Got me thinking more broadly - I think Calgary has always seemed reluctant to truly design roads for their local needs, resulting in high design speeds applied broadly, even in local streets that have zero needs for speed. Meanwhile we have this weird arterial design thing, which is functionally a highway but with street lights (Sarcee Trail, John Laurie, Shaganappi etc.) Both of these characteristics are unusual in Canadian cities outside Alberta. All bigger cities have much narrower and slower local streets, while largely not having an arterial classification designed like ours (e.g. 80km/h, limited access but with signals).
The tension of this design traditions plays out in our main street projects, resulting in sometimes strange design that are clearly a compromise between the old way of thinking and prioritizing local needs and walkable retail districts in design. Marda Loop and 33/34 are a big test of this - can we really design a street to support local activity that is also a (minor) commuter route? Of course we can - but we have to realize to be successful it really can't be a compromise; we have to actually prioritize the walkable, local retail street over the commuter.
Last edited:
14th street 100%. I don't find 10th street that bad, other than peak hours when it does a fair bit of commute traffic, but even then it's much better than the typical car sewer like 14th or Macleod etc.. The one thing that helps stop 10th from becoming more of a car sewer is that is super slow getting through there at rush hour. It never feels too rushed.
O-tac
Active Member
Seton Market Street u/c from South Health Campus.
trtcttc
Active Member
The reality is that most people in Calgary own cars, so we do need to allow cars to get around freely. I don’t think drivers inherently want to drive on a super busy street, and you don’t see people taking 19th St to go from 16 Ave to Memorial even though they can. The challenge with Marda Loop is there are very few commuter route in that area, so it’s hard to divert the traffic.
I’d caution on just designing street for urban living without considering cars. You see this in older city centres like Toronto and Montreal. People will still own cars and by having roads all be extremely narrow with very few crosstown options, you just get terrible congestion that’d I’d argue is even more unpleasant for pedestrians and other road users.
darwink
Senior Member
Crowchild? Glenmore? Spent hundreds of millions making those free flow.
Not many people going from Killarney to Britannia.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I think the word “freely” is doing a lot of work here. How free? Crowchild is free-flow about a block away. All of Calgary's main streets feature cars, many/most nice retail and shopping streets in Toronto and Montreal also allow cars. What is less common in Montreal and Toronto is how often the car commuter is prioritized over local needs in these shopping districts. Calgary does this all the time.
This is too binary - it's not all or nothing. What it should be is a legitimate sliding scale, where in shopping districts and main streets pedestrians and local businesses are actually prioritized over commuter traffic.
This doesn't mean "ban cars", it means if the trade-off is between a wide curve to allow for cars to turn at speed and a narrow curve to slow cars and give more space for pedestrians, do that. It means allowing crossing pedestrians to go first and avoid advanced-left turns that delay pedestrians. It means lanes can be narrowed to give more room to sidewalks, even if this means cars will have to be a bit slower. That kind of thing.
Here's a few 34th Ave equivalents in Toronto. The all are just off of a "main street" in the way Calgary thinks about them, but they themselves don't connect much to the larger grid, just like 34th. Notice the cars are allowed, but the need to commute is really not the focus - narrow, one-way, low curbs, stop signs. Nothing is designed for speed here and that's okay, it's not important. That's what the Crowchild Trail's of the world are for.
Baldwin Street (near U or T):
Yorkville
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
Chill out, tiger. There are five (5) whole blocks of street in Calgary that do not have cars on them for less than half of the day, and even they were designed with substantial consideration for cars.
We have never once designed a street by figuring out how wide the cycling/wheeling facilities should be, how wide the sidewalks should be, how much space we want for trees and benches and furniture, and then seeing whether or not we can cram in a car lane or two and/or parking in the remaining space, and if not, oh well.