UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Those conclusions would also likely lead to greater infrastructure that are already needed such as a train to the mountains and to Edmonton, as well as regional rail eventually.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Patrick.1980
Active Member
Fair enough, earlier in the discussion it felt like people were being blamed or judged for driving. I do accept that traffic sucks, and while I do complain about it while I'm in the car driving, I do accept it for what it is. I'm all for the city making driving more expensive and would have no problem paying. It would be win-win situation for everyone, including people who drive.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
I was judging and blaming, because people were bitching about having to wait longer while sitting in their climate controlled boxes. That was all I was blaming/judging for, because I don't put up with that nonsense, especially since it was in response to the very slightest bit of pedestrian prioritization... in our downtown freaking core. I stand by my assertions fully, though I suppose I could have worded it better.
Meikkhaell
Active Member
Indeed you could've. No reason to insult, berate, and blame other people, especially for circumstances largely out of their control. How many live in Ogden? 9000? Don't pretend all 1.3M+ of us Calgarians can afford to live right beside a c-train station or within walking distance to the downtown core. Just as there's nothing wrong with complaining about a lack of transport or pedestrian efficiency, there should in turn be nothing wrong with complaining about a lack of road efficiency too. Everyone should be welcome to have, and share, their opinions on this site. We all come from different walks of life with different goals, different plans, and a different hand of cards that we are dealt.
As many others have said, we absolutely should put more work into improving public transport and pedestrian. But that's not what the majority of people rely on. It's the same with the Oil and Gas debate right now. Everyone's mostly in general agreeance that we eventually need to ditch O&G and switch to renewables, but we're currently so dependent on oil and gas that it's not going to be an easy transition, and in the meantime we still need to work on making O&G more efficient too.
Whatever though, I think everyone's established their opinions on this topic. We've got some other gorgeous new proposals we could talk about instead. Let's move on if we can.
As many others have said, we absolutely should put more work into improving public transport and pedestrian. But that's not what the majority of people rely on. It's the same with the Oil and Gas debate right now. Everyone's mostly in general agreeance that we eventually need to ditch O&G and switch to renewables, but we're currently so dependent on oil and gas that it's not going to be an easy transition, and in the meantime we still need to work on making O&G more efficient too.
Whatever though, I think everyone's established their opinions on this topic. We've got some other gorgeous new proposals we could talk about instead. Let's move on if we can.
Just build it
Active Member
I think all people should have the right to complain about their transportation situation, whether it be cars, trains, buses, or cycle tracks. It's either that or nobody should have the right to complain, one or the other. Tax payers contribute to all modes of transportation. It's up to the various levels of government to decide the direction of the spending and charging for. If transit is more efficient - which I'm sure we all agree on - then the government can start moving things in that direction, and I believe they are.
Anyhow, yeah, lots of good proposals and urban development in the city. Even in a slumping economy, all of Calgary's inner city destination type neighborhoods are all thriving. The Green Line is coming, lots of good urban development going on in this city.
Anyhow, yeah, lots of good proposals and urban development in the city. Even in a slumping economy, all of Calgary's inner city destination type neighborhoods are all thriving. The Green Line is coming, lots of good urban development going on in this city.
Another great picture showing the developing Beltline/Core
www.reddit.com
Full Size image https://i.redd.it/14yycxisla231.jpg
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Full Size image https://i.redd.it/14yycxisla231.jpg
retrofiturbanism
Active Member
Beautiful shot. Taken from the Royal I take it? Love how you can see Faith47's Courgar Mural so clearly in the picture.
PS- 8th street needs some street trees.
Yep, apparently from the 32nd floor.
Some trees along 8th street for sure, and some love in general, given how busy a corridor it is. Nice to see the change at the podium of Emerald Stone. I saw it the other day in person, and it looks so much better than it did when it had the mirrored glass.
Some trees along 8th street for sure, and some love in general, given how busy a corridor it is. Nice to see the change at the podium of Emerald Stone. I saw it the other day in person, and it looks so much better than it did when it had the mirrored glass.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Seems like one of the writers at the Herald doesn't like the ASI proposal for 17th and 14St. It's starting to really bug me how people keep saying high rise developments in the inner city are out of place. We NEED the middle density between downtown and the SFH that makes up most of the rest of the city. Anyone good with words want to write a rebuttal to it?
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...ave-shows-city-council-has-no-vision-or-sense
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...ave-shows-city-council-has-no-vision-or-sense
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Well.. trying to not go on a tirade of my own but that particular writer isn't known for the fair and balanced perspective. Despite the author, the title got me optimistic because I would have bet money it was about the lacklustre 17th Avenue utility and rehabilitation work that has arguably a "lack of vision" for 17th Ave SW. I (unsuprisingly) was disappointed.
If the main intent of this article (spoiler alert: it isn't) is to complain about this development being "built on a human scale" - a valid concern and opinion, especially on a main street - you'd want to spend more than a sentence on it. Maybe mention the relationship between density and vibrancy, the need to reduce car-dependency on walking high-streets to make them more sustainable and attractive. 17th Avenue has both problems now - a lack of local density and a prioritization of car-throughput over local, human scale street design that would make it a better destination. A writer with that aim could critique the city on narrow sidewalks, poor quality public realm, dumb parking requirement rules, lack of street trees, building set-back and maximum height rules (and yes main street tax challenges). But that's not what this article was about. It really was just one of the daily anti-City Hall rants put out by the Herald.
Also curious is the owner of Moti Mahal who is complaining because .... they might get 600 more local customers? They aren't even impacted by the shadow as they are south of the site. That is a strange opinion.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Yeah the whole thing was just a chance to bitch about Nenshi and company I think, especially given the author. This development is the perfect scale for the area lol.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I would agree its the perfect site for density, but scale is far more debatable. I think most would agree density is necessary for urban vibrancy, but less clear-cut is what form is best to support density. I am happy with a few towers here - but that's also because I know that it's probably the only form that will get me another 600 residents in the area, the real requirement I am after to support vibrancy. If it were an option, I would prefer all of Upper Mount Royal be upzoned to mid-rise instead, which would get me even more people in the area to support vibrancy. Towers seem to struggle with creating successful and comfortable public realms for a variety of reasons (shadows, wind, compromises in design etc.) But the density that towers provide is excellent so it's a trade-off. As it seems unlikely I'll see a mid-rise rezoning of all of Upper Mount Royal, I can live with some towers.
IMO, I think the debate on what form is appropriate for main streets hasn't really ever been articulated or argued consistently in Calgary - largely due to our lack of historic, human-scaled streets to look back to and defend against the big, bad developers as is the case in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver with their far larger sample size to point to for good main streets. All these cities had lots of fights for decades on preserving and managing change of their key streets, we don't have that history. We have already compromised our best streets so much during the car-crazed 20th century it's hard for the regular public to critique or have an opinion for our against a particular type of form (other than I hate everything that changes my neighbourhood).
Our local newsies aren't even trying to enlighten the public with articles like this unfortunately. I think it will take the trigger of someone trying to build a 30 storey structure blocking the sun on the Ship and Anchor patio before regular Calgarians start appreciating the difference and trade offs with different forms and densities
UrbanRED
Active Member
Yikes, Corbella, I'd say the dumbest person in Alberta but we've got some seriously low-IQ people in this province.
Her opinions should not be considered by anyone with an education. The number of fake facts she spews in the garbage she calls an opinion column is atrocious.
I don't read or pay much attention to Corbella, especially when it comes to urban development stuff. It seems like no matter what or where someone tries to develop something of any scale there is automatic opposition by some people, claiming it to be out of place..
Patrick.1980
Active Member
Towers help, and it's okay to have some clusters here and there. The photo actually shows a really good mix of density with high-rises/mid-rises/low-rises which is probably why I love that part of the Beltline. That kind of mixed density is great when there are high streets or good corridors nearby.
To your opponent, yes, lots of low and mid rises would be great. I think Bankview, Mission, Sunnyside etc is like the perfect type of density, and would love to see that everywhere. We still have some older grid style neighborhoods where we can slowly increase the density until they become a Sunnyside type neighborhood.
To your opponent, yes, lots of low and mid rises would be great. I think Bankview, Mission, Sunnyside etc is like the perfect type of density, and would love to see that everywhere. We still have some older grid style neighborhoods where we can slowly increase the density until they become a Sunnyside type neighborhood.