News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.2K     0 

AJX said:
Replace the auto lane in the middle by turning it into a bike lane. Same idea as the Peace Bridge.
Click to expand...
I would say keep Stephen Ave as shared space for people on foot and people on bikes, but add an protected east-west route on 9th, 6th or 5th Avenue.
 
UrbanWarrior said:
I didn't say that it was specific to Calgary. I said "I wonder why Calgary, specifically, is seeing such a large rental construction boom." Meaning, well exactly what I said, that I'm wondering specifically why it's happening in Calgary, disregarding the rest of the rental boom. As it is extremely apparent here, while it isn't in other Canadian cities.

Judging by the minuscule level of construction in all of Ontario's cities except for Toronto and sorta London, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that Calgary has the highest level of rental UC per capita. The vast majority of buildings UC in London, Ottawa, Vaughan, and Mississauga are condos, as with Toronto. Though Toronto has had well over 100 buildings over 35 meters UC at any given time over the last decade, so they might beat us out even in level of rental UC relative to size.
Click to expand...

Last time. Calgary is seeing a rental boom because pretty much everyone in North America is seeing a rental boom. It isn't extraordinary. Calgary isn't an lesser for the rental boom not being extraordinary either. The money and developers are large internationals. They don't limited themselves to one city or another.

Growth in per capita tend to favour smaller centres and Calgary is one of the biggest in the nation. London and the rest of Southern Ontario actually build many more rental apartments than condo apartments. Toronto is a beast. Might isn't even on the table.. It's how many times have they doubled Calgary's output relative to population.

35 metres is a very exclusive club. Maybe 1% of all structures built reach that height. There could be a sizable rental boom you're overlooking because it doesn't include towers.
 
AJX said:
Replace the auto lane in the middle by turning it into a bike lane. Same idea as the Peace Bridge.
Click to expand...
Except there are always people in the middle of the Peace Bridge as well (usually taking a million group pictures or selfies), a downside of it being a landmark I guess. My beef is that Stephen Ave is too busy to get anywhere at a reasonable speed on a bike, and to me that's the whole point of riding a bik. If you want a nice leisurely bike ride, then it's fine, if you want to commute it's frustrating as hell, especially when going by the Dome / Oil towers in the morning and evening as there is a near constant stream of people crossing into or out of Bankers Hall completely oblivious to bicycles.
 
Mountain Man said:
Except there are always people in the middle of the Peace Bridge as well (usually taking a million group pictures or selfies), a downside of it being a landmark I guess. My beef is that Stephen Ave is too busy to get anywhere at a reasonable speed on a bike, and to me that's the whole point of riding a bik. If you want a nice leisurely bike ride, then it's fine, if you want to commute it's frustrating as hell, especially when going by the Dome / Oil towers in the morning and evening as there is a near constant stream of people crossing into or out of Bankers Hall completely oblivious to bicycles.
Click to expand...

Stephen Avenue is fine for bikes + pedestrians. What is missing is a commuter bike route that moves east-west. 9th, 6th, 4th, or 5th Avenues are the correct answer for these, a one-way couplet would work. The bonus is these avenues are all 4 -6 lanes wide and are largely only busy 3 hours a day, plenty of extra capacity. Plus you get the light timing too as the city has so far proven to be unwilling to inconvenience drivers through better light timing for pedestrians and bicycles on popular pedestrian / bicycle routes. These would give commuter cyclists all the perks that downtown drivers get of high-speed, green wave timing.

But there were reasons Stephen Avenue was selected for the network over these other routes, with one reason being that it's better for low-speed, casual cyclists. Another reason is that Stephen has more destinations. Both are good reasons.

However, by far the most definitive reason was that the roads and transit departments as well as political opinions of Council couldn't fathom a world where bikes ride on any other avenue. Even now, with some 30-40K fewer downtown jobs and less traffic all around (except bikes and pedestrians) it would point to revisiting this question, as 9th, 6th, 5th and 4th are more over-built for car traffic then ever. There is capacity to spare, which should take the wind out of the sails of the groups/people opposed to another avenue. However, this line of thinking is also naive; it vastly under-estimate how car and peak-hour focused our planning, transportation and political cultures are here.

In an ideal world - one which I am optimistic may come sooner rather than later - Stephen Ave and other avenues will have bicycle infrastructure. We also would prioritize pedestrians, bikes and transit over everything else in the core (especially considering those three groups combined are the majority of inner city commuters). Car trailing green turns vs. leading green turns, shorter signal timing to minimize pedestrian waits and reduce car speeds, wider sidewalks and bump outs, bike lanes and cycle tracks, BRT lanes and so on. All the solutions have been invented already, they just need the political and cultural will to implement them, which is far harder to align.
 
Last edited:
CBBarnett said:
Stephen Avenue is fine for bikes + pedestrians. What is missing is a commuter bike route that moves east-west. 9th, 6th, 4th, or 5th Avenues are the correct answer for these, a one-way couplet would work. The bonus is these avenues are all 4 -6 lanes wide and are largely only busy 3 hours a day, plenty of extra capacity. Plus you get the light timing too as the city has so far proven to be unwilling to inconvenience drivers through better light timing for pedestrians and bicycles on popular pedestrian / bicycle routes. These would give commuter cyclists all the perks that downtown drivers get of high-speed, green wave timing.

But there were reasons Stephen Avenue was selected for the network over these other routes, with one reason being that it's better for low-speed, casual cyclists. Another reason is that Stephen has more destinations. Both are good reasons.

However, by far the most definitive reason was that the roads and transit departments as well as political opinions of Council couldn't fathom a world where bikes ride on any other avenue. Even now, with some 30-40K fewer downtown jobs and less traffic all around (except bikes and pedestrians) it would point to revisiting this question, as 9th, 6th, 5th and 4th are more over-built for car traffic then ever. There is capacity to spare, which should take the wind out of the sails of the groups/people opposed to another avenue. However, this line of thinking is also naive; it vastly under-estimate how car and peak-hour focused our planning, transportation and political cultures are here.

In an ideal world - one which I am optimistic may come sooner rather than later - Stephen Ave and other avenues will have bicycle infrastructure. We also would prioritize pedestrians, bikes and transit over everything else in the core (especially considering those three groups combined are the majority of inner city commuters). Car trailing green turns vs. leading green turns, shorter signal timing to minimize pedestrian waits and reduce car speeds, wider sidewalks and bump outs, bike lanes and cycle tracks, BRT lanes and so on. All the solutions have been invented already, they just need the political and cultural will to implement them, which is far harder to align.
Click to expand...
Your first 2 sentences sum up my opinion perfectly. For the commuter streets, I only think we need 1 east - west for bikes in the Beltline and 1 in the Core (as well as the river path), we don't need one every couple streets at all.
 
Mountain Man said:
Your first 2 sentences sum up my opinion perfectly. For the commuter streets, I only think we need 1 east - west for bikes in the Beltline and 1 in the Core (as well as the river path), we don't need one every couple streets at all.
Click to expand...
What I was referring to is a single-direction track on one couplet in the same direction as vehicle traffic. Lots of the cycle design firms and best-practice guidebooks support uni-directional lanes in busy areas with existing one-way roads, claiming to reduce conflicts (cars hitting people becasue they aren't used to things approaching from the other direction) and prevents the going "upstream" efficiency problem where you hit every red light because the signal timing is against you (see 12th Avenue westbound for a local example). Mind you, from what I have seen, the evidence seems kind of mixed whether they are safer or not, and a cycletrack design must work in its local context so another design or bi-direction might be appropriate once evaluated. I would think a 6th and 5th Avenue couplet would work well (ignoring political uproar of course).
 
CBBarnett said:
What I was referring to is a single-direction track on one couplet in the same direction as vehicle traffic. Lots of the cycle design firms and best-practice guidebooks support uni-directional lanes in busy areas with existing one-way roads, claiming to reduce conflicts (cars hitting people becasue they aren't used to things approaching from the other direction) and prevents the going "upstream" efficiency problem where you hit every red light because the signal timing is against you (see 12th Avenue westbound for a local example). Mind you, from what I have seen, the evidence seems kind of mixed whether they are safer or not, and a cycletrack design must work in its local context so another design or bi-direction might be appropriate once evaluated. I would think a 6th and 5th Avenue couplet would work well (ignoring political uproar of course).
Click to expand...
I used the cycle track on 12th for a year after it opened (office moved so now I take the river pathway) and going against traffic took slightly longer, but it was still quite an efficient way to commute. I think a 2 way cycle track on a 1 way street is perfectly fine.
 
Mountain Man said:
Except there are always people in the middle of the Peace Bridge as well (usually taking a million group pictures or selfies), a downside of it being a landmark I guess. My beef is that Stephen Ave is too busy to get anywhere at a reasonable speed on a bike, and to me that's the whole point of riding a bik. If you want a nice leisurely bike ride, then it's fine, if you want to commute it's frustrating as hell, especially when going by the Dome / Oil towers in the morning and evening as there is a near constant stream of people crossing into or out of Bankers Hall completely oblivious to bicycles.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I think Stephen Ave should be considered a lost cause for bike usage, there are far too many people on it, and so many of those people are lollygagging along, tourists, people window shopping etc.. Upgrade Stephen ave, but keep the usage similar to what it is now. I like @CBBarnett 's idea of a higher speed bike lane on 5th or 6th.
 
CMLC just released their business plan for 2018. In that they stated they were not expecting three of their current residential developer partners .... Embassy Bosa /Fram & Slokker / Knighstbridge to move forward with their remaining East Village projects in 2018.
That means Arris, Vibe and Velo are all on hold.
 
JonnyCanuck said:
CMLC just released their business plan for 2018. In that they stated they were not expecting three of their current residential developer partners .... Embassy Bosa /Fram & Slokker / Knighstbridge to move forward with their remaining East Village projects in 2018.
That means Arris, Vibe and Velo are all on hold.
Click to expand...

A little bit depressing, but at the very least, M2 is expected to start in Q2 2018 and the Corner Block (restaurant near the drop-in centre) should be starting as well.

Fram & Slokker is also looking to sell parcel 3/parcel 4 of their block, so CMLC will begin marketing for a new developer partner in Q1 2018. They've also secured a new development partner for block K (large empty block in the centre of East Village), which they should announce in the second half of 2018.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top