That elevated section is going to be terrible. Feel sorry for any businesses on 10th as well as property owners. Beyond that it's going to look ridiculous.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to chedder For This Useful Post:
__________________ MMF is the tough as nails cop that "plays by his own rules". The force keeps suspending him when he crosses the line but he keeps coming back and then cracks a big case.
-JiriHrdina
That elevated section is going to be terrible. Feel sorry for any businesses on 10th as well as property owners. Beyond that it's going to look ridiculous.
But think of all the fresh blank canvas for graffiti tagging!
Is the province on the hook for the risk and cost overruns for their ugly baby?
Unfortunately I don't think that the city had much choice but to accept the UCP alignment, with that federal funding expiring soon.
Is there a chance that the phase from Shepard to the rink gets started, but by the time they start heading into downtown, we have a provincial government in place that will do it properly?
That will, of course, depend on Calgary voters actually deciding to punt the UCP. That's easier said than done. But suppose Nenshi is the next premier... will this be too far along to change, or does the (mostly unchanged) first leg to Shepard buy a bit of time/hope that downtown gets done right?
Is the province on the hook for the risk and cost overruns for their ugly baby?
Unfortunately I don't think that the city had much choice but to accept the UCP alignment, with that federal funding expiring soon.
Is there a chance that the phase from Shepard to the rink gets started, but by the time they start heading into downtown, we have a provincial government in place that will do it properly?
That will, of course, depend on Calgary voters actually deciding to punt the UCP. That's easier said than done. But suppose Nenshi is the next premier... will this be too far along to change, or does the (mostly unchanged) first leg to Shepard buy a bit of time/hope that downtown gets done right?
Not picking on you in particular, and more so is a question for those that are underground or bust.
What is so wrong about elevated that it's not viable to do over elevated? Is underground really worth the additional billion compared to elevated? There has to be some really compelling negatives against elevated aside from "I'm imagining it won't look good" to go with the much more expensive option that functions the same.
To me where overstating what 10th Ave is currently where the alignment is proposed, and making it seem like it's vibrant urban corridor right now when it's not. I think the parking lots and parkades will be fine if this was built.
Last edited by Joborule; 01-29-2025 at 07:58 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
Probably caused by the demolition of them, which was well underway last week and yesterday too.
I haven't been down that way in a while and just read that the demo has been well under way and that part was slated to come down next week. I initially thought it was a hobo fire, but I think more likely demo related.
Yeah, that section fronting the pathway was being torn down yesterday afternoon as I rode by. Something in the debris must have sparked up at some point. As of this morning they were still dousing it with a fire truck, that whole pathway area is going to become sheer ice...
Not picking on you in particular, and more so is a question for those that are underground or bust.
What is so wrong about elevated that it's not viable to do over elevated? Is underground really worth the additional billion compared to elevated? There has to be some really compelling negatives against elevated aside from "I'm imagining it won't look good" to go with the much more expensive option that functions the same.
To me where overstating what 10th Ave is currently where the alignment is proposed, and making it seem like it's vibrant urban corridor right now when it's not. I think the parking lots and parkades will be fine if this was built.
Aesthetics are one thing, but that's only part of it. I don't think that overhead does any favours to the street below - shadowing, traffic, the "pedestrian realm".
The +15 and +30 bridges, and the height needed to clear the CPR tracks, would mean that the platforms will be far above the street. Or if the bridges are demo'd, that obviously impacts the indoor walkability of downtown.
So sure, I said "ugly baby", but I believe that the elevated option is subpar for more than just that.
And I think that most of all, this is just another way that the province is trying to save the city from itself. The province is exerting more power over municipalities and the their ability to make decisions. And the sad irony of it all is that the inaction and delays by the successive UCP governments is a key reason why we're at this point, and then they offer a half-baked solution as a "take it or leave it" to the city. After seemingly being OK with, and guaranteeing the funding for, the underground alignment.
So aside from being cheaper (probably), elevated doesn't really win in any other categories for me.
At this point I think that the city chose the only option available to them, otherwise the federal funding goes down the toilet. So get started on the Shepard to "Grand Central" bit because that has to be done anyway. It won't serve the majority of commuters until it gets into downtown proper, but... here we are.
Not picking on you in particular, and more so is a question for those that are underground or bust.
What is so wrong about elevated that it's not viable to do over elevated? Is underground really worth the additional billion compared to elevated? There has to be some really compelling negatives against elevated aside from "I'm imagining it won't look good" to go with the much more expensive option that functions the same.
To me where overstating what 10th Ave is currently where the alignment is proposed, and making it seem like it's vibrant urban corridor right now when it's not. I think the parking lots and parkades will be fine if this was built.
What is not discussed by the province is the extra costs of the that route. Going elevated will cost money in settlements/ lost assessment value for developers
10th ave has been slowly developing eastward from 8 street SW to 4th street. That trend was expected to continue eastward. Meanwhile there are four existing apartment complexes ( Bromely Sq, Mount Royal House, Centre 1010, and Upten).
Truman homes is in the process of developing an 18 story complex kitty corner to bottle screw bills/ Mt Royal House. I foresee court battles there over lost return on investment.
...and the province expects the City to pay for these expenses
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to para transit fellow For This Useful Post:
Is the province on the hook for the risk and cost overruns for their ugly baby?
Hahahahhahahaha. Nope. City is on the hook for all the risk. Can't wait for taxes to go up to cover cost overruns or businesses along the elevated track inevitably suing.
So get started on the Shepard to "Grand Central" bit because that has to be done anyway. It won't serve the majority of commuters until it gets into downtown proper, but... here we are.
That's always the plan though; it needed to start from the maintenance/storage yard into DT. The crippling question for the GL for the last 6 years is how it actually gets into central DT.
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
Aesthetics are one thing, but that's only part of it. I don't think that overhead does any favours to the street below - shadowing, traffic, the "pedestrian realm".
The +15 and +30 bridges, and the height needed to clear the CPR tracks, would mean that the platforms will be far above the street. Or if the bridges are demo'd, that obviously impacts the indoor walkability of downtown.
So sure, I said "ugly baby", but I believe that the elevated option is subpar for more than just that.
And I think that most of all, this is just another way that the province is trying to save the city from itself. The province is exerting more power over municipalities and the their ability to make decisions. And the sad irony of it all is that the inaction and delays by the successive UCP governments is a key reason why we're at this point, and then they offer a half-baked solution as a "take it or leave it" to the city. After seemingly being OK with, and guaranteeing the funding for, the underground alignment.
So aside from being cheaper (probably), elevated doesn't really win in any other categories for me.
At this point I think that the city chose the only option available to them, otherwise the federal funding goes down the toilet. So get started on the Shepard to "Grand Central" bit because that has to be done anyway. It won't serve the majority of commuters until it gets into downtown proper, but... here we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow
What is not discussed by the province is the extra costs of the that route. Going elevated will cost money in settlements/ lost assessment value for developers
10th ave has been slowly developing eastward from 8 street SW to 4th street. That trend was expected to continue eastward. Meanwhile there are four existing apartment complexes ( Bromely Sq, Mount Royal House, Centre 1010, and Upten).
Truman homes is in the process of developing an 18 story complex kitty corner to bottle screw bills/ Mt Royal House. I foresee court battles there over lost return on investment.
...and the province expects the City to pay for these expenses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torture
Hahahahhahahaha. Nope. City is on the hook for all the risk. Can't wait for taxes to go up to cover cost overruns or businesses along the elevated track inevitably suing.
Torture and para transit bring up an important point about possible cons of this, do the landowners actually have a case? Can they prove that having the LRT line be elevated instead of underground damage their property value that they have to be compensated for? What makes this different from the 7th ave transit mall where train runs at grade? Or in Sunnyside where the train ROW runs along homes backyards? (Big reason why it was delayed back in the 80s) Or business in Sunalta where there are high rises being built despite the guideway being there for over a decade?
I have serious doubts that the court of law would actually side with landowners about this. Unless these landowners have claim over air rights, what is there argument about an elevated line damaging their property value aside from perception?
I guess that I have a much more optimistic belief in how the elevated line could look through proposed corridor, and am of the belief that it'll actually "elevated" the areas potential of bringing about more life to the streets than what's present with thoughtful design that takes the concerns into consideration to compliment and address them.
For example, I can't see how the 7th Ave Station wouldn't be integrated into The Core +30; it would be stupid to not do so. The mall would benefit from have the station directly in the station. Also the elevated line provides a station for the Beltline from day one as well, improving transit connections for the area, whereas with the cost of the latest underground proposal deferred the station; likely to never be built due to extremely high costs, low projected ridership ratio.
It sucks for Truman's new building there that they've started construction before this switch up. But is it the end of the world? Having a train station literally right in front of the building should be a fair trade off. And the nearby business/residence by there should gain from it as well. Overall, the alignment provides better transit service for the area, and if designed right it could actually become a cool Calgary feature that would be featured in lots of photops. And it's not like Calgary is the first city nor the last to build an elevated train through their urban centre. Plus, technology has improved that it won't necessarily be as loud as the L Train in Chicago.
In the end, I feel a lot more confident about the elevated route costing significantly less than the underground route before construction, and faith the cost overruns would be less/more controlled as well. Essentially, Plan A failed, and now the city been told that they have to do Plan B, which many on council are bitter about.
It's more challenging to build below than it is above. From my understanding, tunnelling for the route is more complicated than initially imagined, which is why along with that and general costs for these things all over escalating, the project would likely have cost overruns occur during the construction. If we're giving grief over the province about not contributing to in shared risk costs of the elevated alignment, would we be expecting them to do the same for the underground option even though it wouldn't be their responsibility in that case either? This is the city's project, not the provinces. The way they've gone about it was typical UCP fashion, but ultimately the city is on it's own when it comes to keeping the costs in check.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
Have we considered cutting costs by just installing an incredibly long zipline?
People could just use carabiners to secure their briefcases to their person.
Sure, when its cold outside that is going to present some problems of it's own but just imagine the Stampede Revenue!! This thing would pay for itself in no time flat!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Aesthetics are one thing, but that's only part of it. I don't think that overhead does any favours to the street below - shadowing, traffic, the "pedestrian realm".
The +15 and +30 bridges, and the height needed to clear the CPR tracks, would mean that the platforms will be far above the street. Or if the bridges are demo'd, that obviously impacts the indoor walkability of downtown.
So sure, I said "ugly baby", but I believe that the elevated option is subpar for more than just that.
And I think that most of all, this is just another way that the province is trying to save the city from itself. The province is exerting more power over municipalities and the their ability to make decisions. And the sad irony of it all is that the inaction and delays by the successive UCP governments is a key reason why we're at this point, and then they offer a half-baked solution as a "take it or leave it" to the city. After seemingly being OK with, and guaranteeing the funding for, the underground alignment.
So aside from being cheaper (probably), elevated doesn't really win in any other categories for me.
At this point I think that the city chose the only option available to them, otherwise the federal funding goes down the toilet. So get started on the Shepard to "Grand Central" bit because that has to be done anyway. It won't serve the majority of commuters until it gets into downtown proper, but... here we are.
Elevated actually wins for me before even considering costs. It's a better user experience. And IMO it is actually less harmful to the public realm where it really matters. (And then of course it's cheaper with cheaper OPEX)
A big thing overlooked in the city's plan is that grade-change transitions have the most detrimental impact to the public realm and create dead zones. There is a chicken/egg thing where a lot of these dead zones don't seem so bad, because they are tucked up against a car-sewer-stroad like Macleod or 16th or Bow Tr or Memorial...but those were mostly self-fulfilled prophecies.
Transition to underground is arguably better than to elevated (red line along Macleod Tr, or Hounsfield Hts to go under 16th), but fewer transition zones is best of all. (lots of examples of elevated transition zones: Bow River crossings, Blue line @ Millenium Park, red line up the hill to SAIT, etc)
Some sort of transition is inevitable near Olympic Way. Elevated is mitigated by being right beside the heavy rail tracks (a hostile barrier in themselves), but the tunnel would have seen it on 11 Ave (unclear exactly where since they changed 4 St station to surface level).
But then in Eau Claire we would have had a double whammy going from underground to elevated, whereas a continuous elevated option is actually a lot less disruptive. Going to surface along Centre St would also likely mean transition zones near 16th.
So on the whole I'm not convinced the tunnelled alignment is significantly less disruptive to the public realm - especially where it should matter to us the most. But none of it is the end of the world either way. We just need better ways to move people.
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
The homeless and drug situation in the downtown core is beyond out of control. I'm not sitting here pretending to know the answers but something has to give.
__________________ MMF is the tough as nails cop that "plays by his own rules". The force keeps suspending him when he crosses the line but he keeps coming back and then cracks a big case.
-JiriHrdina
