Speaking of latte-sippers, we got another pedestrian bridge put into place today:
Spoiler!
This is the East Village traverse, connecting Riverwalk on the east end of Fort Calgary across the Elbow to the Inglewood pathway.
Spoiler!
And this is why the peace bridge was (not necessarily money well spent, but) a good investment.
That thing is hideous.
But I like the fact Calgary is getting pedestrian only bridges. It's never fun to cross a bridge as a pedestrian on a sidewalk 3 ft. wide with either cars doing 70 on one side, or a nice big drop on the other.
I think I've mentioned this before, but it always bears repeating when talking about the a Peace Bridge.
Any bridge at that location, with the restrictions in place regarding height and span without supports in the water (design requirement) was going to cost something similar to the quoted cost.
So waste of money, no, not really.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
The Following User Says Thank You to kermitology For This Useful Post:
And this is why the peace bridge was (not necessarily money well spent, but) a good investment.
That thing is hideous.
But I like the fact Calgary is getting pedestrian only bridges. It's never fun to cross a bridge as a pedestrian on a sidewalk 3 ft. wide with either cars doing 70 on one side, or a nice big drop on the other.
I actually quite like the traverse. Wide, simple in its design, and with some space in the middle to stop and watch the river(s).
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
If you keep using the terms like I've hightlighted, your arguments become no better than SebC's - aggressive statements based on blind, albeit sincere, beliefs.
Free-for-all isn't accurate enough and a bit misleading but today's process does lack coordination/organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
If anything, it is the inner-city infill developments that have not to-date been paying enough based on their impact on existing infrastructure (it is being reviewed; see our earlier exchange with Bunk on this topic in another thread; I don't want to repeat everything).
I don't think this is an excuse but simply another important issue that needs to be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
so that we can discuss it further.
It's a complicated and comprehensive subject, that discussion will have to take place in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
I immediately think of all barely used inner-city school sites and the amount of land they occupy. Why not consolidate some of the schools, re-designate the remainder to the high density use and then sell all of the remaining land at a public auction for intensification?
As the City would like to repopulate the inner-city, it would be unwise to completely re-purpose the schools. However, the sites could be better utilized. For instance: the excess land could be sold off, the buildings could host temporary uses, or the land could be privately redeveloped to include market real estate and a more efficiently built school (i.e. occupying less land, a more urban design and adaptable).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Just imagine the delay imposed by the addition of the legal review process. It is there now by the way, but it is hardly used for that reason and also for the reason of applicants not wanting to create enemies at the administration and political levels.
I like using the legal system because it creates precedents. Obviously this isn't going to be possible or feasible in every case but this can also work in the developers' favour. The length and costs that makes it appear unfeasible for developers can also act as a deterrent for political grandstanding in some cases.
Nevertheless, the courts shouldn't be the only way to prevent acceptable developments from not being granted permission. Proactive measures like avoiding the need to go before Council and reactive measures like an appropriate appeal process are needed as well.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
That will help my bike ride to work in the spring, summer, and fall.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Good discussion point, and I certainly hope the symptoms aren't there. I like to think that Detroit and Calgary are far too different to compare, especially since one industry (ours) is commodity-based and shows no signs of slowing down as oil is central to many many products and services around the world. Detroit's was a manufacturing base that was impacted by other factors in American public and private sectors and was a product of its time.
According to Stats Can, in 2006 the Oil and Gas industry sector accounted for 6% of employment in the Calgary Region.
Other industries would be affected by Oil and Gas' collapse, but hardly Detroit. There's also the fact that the tax base can't leave Calgary and really go anywhere but Calgary. There's also a lack of race riots to cause a MASSIVE fleeing of the tax base. It's an odd comparison.
Good discussion point, and I certainly hope the symptoms aren't there. I like to think that Detroit and Calgary are far too different to compare, especially since one industry (ours) is commodity-based and shows no signs of slowing down as oil is central to many many products and services around the world. Detroit's was a manufacturing base that was impacted by other factors in American public and private sectors and was a product of its time.
What do you guys think?
While our economy is commodity-based virtually any long-term projection would have that commodity going into decline. So I don't think that particular difference between Calgary and Detroit is particularly important. What are important is the nature of our skills, and the nature of the expected shift in the economy.
When Detroit's car industry collapsed, they were well positioned to manufacture other things. But the problem was that manufacturing as a whole was in decline in North America. So their skills weren't really transferable.
In contrast, Calgary's economy is built on engineering and business acumen. If oilsands plants lose value, we can apply our skills to other things. Where we'd be in trouble is if all engineering starts getting outsourced to places like India, but a decline of oil and gas, while painful, would not lead to a Detroit-style collapse.
The construction industry, in particular, would suffer. The design-based economy can design things for other places, but construction workers and skilled tradesmen are only needed where things are getting built. Those guys would probably have to change careers or leave the region.
According to Stats Can, in 2006 the Oil and Gas industry sector accounted for 6% of employment in the Calgary Region.
Other industries would be affected by Oil and Gas' collapse, but hardly Detroit. There's also the fact that the tax base can't leave Calgary and really go anywhere but Calgary. There's also a lack of race riots to cause a MASSIVE fleeing of the tax base. It's an odd comparison.
lmao how can they actually come up with those stats? Do those stats include contractors who make up a large part of the oil and gas industry? Does it include retail workers, hairstylists, chefs, and the entire construction industry which survive to cater to those who work in the oil and gas industry? It's a domino effect. If the oil and gas industry slows down it's like a house of cards where other industries that are built up around that keystone start shutting down all the way down to your Wal-Mart greeter. Calgary is a boom-bust oil and gas town and if that industry goes down it will be exactly like Detroit. There is a reason renting in this city is so huge. People don't move to Calgary to live, they move here to work and load up on cash. If the cash dries up they're gone which is another blow to the left-over consumer based industries that will get hit
lmao how can they actually come up with those stats? Do those stats include contractors who make up a large part of the oil and gas industry? Does it include retail workers, hairstylists, chefs, and the entire construction industry which survive to cater to those who work in the oil and gas industry? It's a domino effect. If the oil and gas industry slows down it's like a house of cards where other industries that are built up around that keystone start shutting down all the way down to your Wal-Mart greeter. Calgary is a boom-bust oil and gas town and if that industry goes down it will be exactly like Detroit. There is a reason renting in this city is so huge. People don't move to Calgary to live, they move here to work and load up on cash. If the cash dries up they're gone which is another blow to the left-over consumer based industries that will get hit
Well then I guess we're ####ed, we might as well quit.
Throughout the chief’s nine years in Calgary, the city has always been racing to build enough new fire halls to serve new fringe communities — and grow its budget rapidly to fully staff those new facilities.
According to a long-standing Calgary Fire benchmark, the first engine should arrive to an emergency call within seven minutes. Last year, that only happened 66 per cent of the time.
The farther communities are from a fire hall, the longer it takes to reach those homes. And as the city must build more far-flung stations for several small, fledgling populations, costs keep rising — more than $230 million for Calgary Fire last year and rising rapidly.
“Growth, and especially non-contiguous growth — growth that doesn’t touch up against existing services — is very expensive to provide services to,” Burrell told reporters at Calgary Fire headquarters.
The chief praised the city’s growth management strategy, the controversial plan that urges the city to limit development of new suburbs rather than the traditional pattern of new communities sprouting up on almost every undeveloped edge of Calgary. Developers have warned those controls are too limiting, but are also looking for ways to shoulder the city’s startup costs for growth so that city tax pressures and debt ceilings aren’t impediments.
While that industry is taking more responsibility for the costs of new fire halls and other infrastructure, the cost of staffing those new fire halls isn’t covered by enough new property taxpayers in those developing areas, Coun. Druh Farrell said.
She recalled a chart Burrell showed them, that fire calls can cost taxpayers $400 in some areas, but ran $6,000 each in Valley Ridge on the city’s far west end.
“That’s the killer,” she said. “It’s those areas that don’t have the density and don’t have the tax base.”
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
One thing I have never understood is why the city has not issued fire extinguishers to all citizens, much like they do blue/green recycling carts. I'm guessing it's probably too expensive of a venture. Perhaps volunteer firefighters in these fringe communities? It's such a hard question to answer.
One thing I have never understood is why the city has not issued fire extinguishers to all citizens, much like they do blue/green recycling carts. I'm guessing it's probably too expensive of a venture. Perhaps volunteer firefighters in these fringe communities? It's such a hard question to answer.
I'm surprised that a mandatory fire suppression system is not required in new builds especially when homes are built within a few feet of each other and from materials that readily and rapidly combust. If I were building a new home a sprinkler system would be a must have for me.
I'm surprised that a mandatory fire suppression system is not required in new builds especially when homes are built within a few feet of each other and from materials that readily and rapidly combust. If I were building a new home a sprinkler system would be a must have for me.
Hasn't the building code been changed to required a different material/sheeting to be used on houses that are built within a certain distance, I am think those zero lot line ones you see, where there is 4 ft between houses.
There used to be regular sheeting under the siding, but I thought that had changed?
Anyone Building Code gurus?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
