Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by calculoso

All I ever hear is "higher density, here, there, and everywhere".

Originally Posted by calculoso

I combine that with their desires to put high-rise (5+ story) condos, quad-plexes, etc in new developments, and I completely question what you just said.

From the MDP exec summary:

Overall, low‐density residential communities will experience little change, but areas with increased concentration of housing and jobs (see "Activity Centres and Corridors" below) will be served by expanded, high‐frequency transit service. Bringing homes, jobs and amenities closer together will make walking, cycling and transit in these areas more convenient.

Suburban growth with single family homes is expected to continue. Studies show, however, that the demand for single family homes on the edge of the city is likely to slow over time, due primarily to the increasing age and diversity of the population and the changes that naturally occur as cities grow larger. Other types of housing such as town homes and apartments in a variety of locations will be needed to provide people with more choices to meet their changing needs.

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/...ve_summary.pdf

In essence most established suburban residential areas will not really change much. High density development is specifically targeted to nodes and corridors adjacent to LRT infrastructure - usually on the periphery of established low density communities. Brentwood TOD is a good example of this. It's only concentrating growth on the brentwood shopping centre site, single family home areas remain untouched except for the potential for R2 type infill over time (although Brentwood specifically is not zoned like neighbourhoods like Capital Hill or West Hillhurst yet).

There's been a lot of fearmongering about what Plan It REALLY means. The suburban development community is trying to make everyone believe they will be living next to a 30 storey low income housing complex full of crack-whores.

By the way, Hillhurst/Sunnyside also had their own ARP recently amended that will allow TOD type higher density development at the community core. Change is coming there too.

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_775_203_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Living/Communities/Development+Plans+and+Projects/Transit+Oriented+Development+TOD/Hillhurst+Sunnyside+Project/Hillhurst+Sunnyside+Project.htm

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Very helpful comment. Attack the responder instead of the response.
Do you want to start calling me names too?

The original comment warranted the response.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Jeebus Christ. Can you read? This bridge is coming from Provincial money already budgeted for it.

Yes I can read. Where do you think the the province gets its money? From taxpayers thats where.

Originally Posted by Barnes

How do you feel about other public works projects in the City like River Walk or the Science Centre that cost a tonne more money than the bridge?

Those aren't on your radar yet because they haven't made the 'things to complain about so you may sound like you know what you are talking about' section of the Calgary Sun

I'm fine with those if they got the best bang for their buck. I have no problem with the money being spent on necessary projects. My problem is when the city overspends on necessary projects because they have some "grandiose vision" of building something bigger, better, and more wonderful than anything else in Canada. The problem with politicians is they sometimes forget where the money really comes from... John Q Taxpayer.

Originally Posted by Barnes

People complained when the Centre St Bridge was constructed.

They complained about the C-Train when it was being built.

Would we be better off and awash with cash had these project's not gone ahead?

No we wouldn't be but there is no way you can compare the Center St Bridge and the C-train (critical pieces of infrastructure) to this monument to art that the city council wants to call a pedestrian bridge. Build the bridge... fine. Just don't go hog wild by spending lots more money by trying to put lipstick on a pig. In the end, its still a pig. I'd rather pay for the pig without lipstick than with.

[MarchHare]

Hey now, Bunk! What do you think you're doing bringing "facts" into this debate? EVERYONE knows that the City is going to start bulldozing suburban homes and building crack houses in their place as soon as Plan It is fully approved. In fact, the mayor himself will be driving the first bulldozer, and he's going to demolish calculoso's home in a carefully-staged photo op.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Hey now, Bunk! What do you think you're doing bringing "facts" into this debate? EVERYONE knows that the City is going to start bulldozing suburban homes and building crack houses in their place as soon as Plan It is fully approved. In fact, the mayor himself will be driving the first bulldozer, and he's going to demolish calculoso's home in a carefully-staged photo op.

Oh, oh, sorry. Didn't mean to.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Put words in my mouth why don't you.

Sure, my response was half directed at you so I understand your apprehension but will you answer my question as to why you don't go downtown?

Originally Posted by calculoso

I'm not opposed to the bridge. I'm opposed to spending THAT MUCH on the bridge. I'm opposed to it being a work of art rather than a nice looking functional bridge.

I'm just as opposed to the nice fish on the Glenmore/Elbow/Macleod underpass.. What a waste of money.

I'll be just as opposed if something artsy is on the new Stoney bridges too.

Right, and what would you prefer spending the (fairly insignificant) incremental on? Do you also have nice looking, functional sex? Do you wish to squeeze the joy and interest out of everything for everyone else around you? The money "wasted" on the required artwork on that interchange is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to the re-work they are going to need to do on it because it was never designed properly to begin with (but that is a different story).

Originally Posted by calculoso

Good for you.

As someone who is ALSO a born and raised Calgarian, I am also interested in making my city the best it can be. Good transportation around the city is essential.

I do not disagree with this, but what is it you mean by "good transportation".

To me, good transportation does not equal free flowing vehicle traffic at every interesction in the city. It is an incomplete view and does not provide enough flexibility to the citizens of Calgary.

The development arc we are on is heavily weighted towards investment in vehicle based transportation and to me that isn't fair. People practically need 2 - 3 vehicles or more just to get around in Calgary - that's damned expensive. Not to mention dangerous.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Have you stopped to ask them what is so terrible? 90% of the people I talk to complain about the horrible traffic. They complain about the ty roads. They don't complain about a lack of art, a lack of special looking buildings, etc.

Yes, and it usually it comes down to three things: crime, traffic and 'its boring'.

Originally Posted by calculoso

See that's where I completely disagree. Plan It seems to have a mandate to make the city another Toronto or another Vancouver. It, and those running it, doesn't seem to understand that a large portion of people who live here now come from Saskatchewan or other rural areas. They are being forced to move to "the big city" but choose Calgary because it doesn't have the "big city feel". It isn't building upon building stretching as high as the eye can see. It allows those people, who are used to having acres of land available to them, to have a sense of space while giving them none. Do you think that those people would move here to live in a 20 story apartment building? Hell no. They're making a huge sacrifice to move into a 1600 sq ft home with a back yard...and yet they're being crapped on for it. Screw that.

Those of you who want the high-density life can enjoy it... but don't force it on the rest of us. Having lived in downtown Calgary, I've learned that the lifestyle isn't for me. I'm quite happy living, working, shopping in the suburbs and all of the traffic nightmare that comes with it. Judging from the demand, I'm not alone and in by far the majority in this city.

This is the crux of the inner city-suburbia debate in Calgary.

You argue that the inner-city lifestyle is being forced upon you, but in what way is this significantly happening? Do you not see that urban sprawl is the only lifestyle being "forced" in this town?

So much money and resources get put towards building out and out. It makes it difficult and expensive to provide acceptable public services for people.

If there were 20 Garrison Woods in Calgary, maybe moving to a bedroom community 40km away from THE BIG CITY wouldn't be the only option for those coming from a lower income situation. 20 storey condo buildings are not the only option when it comes to high density living.

Someone like myself is promoting BALANCE. The way development is regulated in Calgary makes it very difficult for mixed use development (not just sardine can condos) to occur, but that is changing. It is difficult to have investment made in public transit, but that is changing.

I would not be upset at all if half of this city fell off the map for good. Its not special nor is it required. We do not need to be impacting the environment and our economy in the way that we currently choosing to.

Demand is one thing, but what you're failing to see is that our system doesn't truly allow for a proper selection of supply to be available to the market as it is.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by calculoso

See that's where I completely disagree. Plan It seems to have a mandate to make the city another Toronto or another Vancouver. It, and those running it, doesn't seem to understand that a large portion of people who live here now come from Saskatchewan or other rural areas. They are being forced to move to "the big city" but choose Calgary because it doesn't have the "big city feel". It isn't building upon building stretching as high as the eye can see. It allows those people, who are used to having acres of land available to them, to have a sense of space while giving them none. Do you think that those people would move here to live in a 20 story apartment building? Hell no. They're making a huge sacrifice to move into a 1600 sq ft home with a back yard...and yet they're being crapped on for it. Screw that.

Having done some traveling, I've noticed that one thing about Calgary that stands out is that it is indeed building upon building stretching as high as the eye can see. Ever notice Vancouver's skyline? They barely have one. When I was in Tampa for the 2004 Finals, I noticed that a city 3 times our size had a downtown 1/2 as large or as vibrant as ours. Most downtowns are more like Winnipeg's, filled with undesirables, no one wants to live there.

Sorry, Calgary isn't a city missing a "big city feel". What it could use is a little beauty.


And you're making it sound like a 1600 sq ft home is something we should feel sorry for these poor bums who have to live in them.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Rerun

No we wouldn't be but there is no way you can compare the Center St Bridge and the C-train (critical pieces of infrastructure) to this monument to art that the city council wants to call a pedestrian bridge. Build the bridge... fine. Just don't go hog wild by spending lots more money by trying to put lipstick on a pig. In the end, its still a pig. I'd rather pay for the pig without lipstick than with.

The centre street bridge is exactly like this bridge in that regard. The centre street bridge is also a work of art - one that often gets included in the best views of the city. Why? Because someone nearly 100 years ago thought it would be better to spend a few extra dollars to make the bridge look nice.

If we take your point to its logical end, we'd end up with nothing but cheaply made concrete and wood structures with no windows. Why have windows - they are just an extra expense when they aren't actually required?

I don't think you (or anyone else) actually thinks that way. Everyone wants some degree of beauty in the structures that they see.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

To me, good transportation does not equal free flowing vehicle traffic at every interesction in the city. It is an incomplete view and does not provide enough flexibility to the citizens of Calgary.

The development arc we are on is heavily weighted towards investment in vehicle based transportation and to me that isn't fair. People practically need 2 - 3 vehicles or more just to get around in Calgary - that's damned expensive. Not to mention dangerous.

Broadening the distribution of the modal share vastly increases the capactiy of the overall transporation system. Too heavy investment in one mode pretty much guarantees massive congestion on that one mode. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you plan only for cars, guess what you'll get? lots and lots of cars (congestion). land use planning and transportation need to be thought of much more in tandem. Creating communities where that modal split can be as evenly distributed as possible. That is what I believe Plan It is really about (Integration of Municipal Development Plan - Land Use, with Transporation planning)

In the SE for example, I bet the introduction of the SE LRT line would do far, far more to relieve automobile congestion than will the ring road (which will induce auto demand). Just think of a 4 car C-train full of people (500 or so cars worth of people) not on the road in front of you on Deerfoot.

Sorry, this is straying a little off topic.

[Pastiche]

Somebody is a planner.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Hey now, Bunk! What do you think you're doing bringing "facts" into this debate? EVERYONE knows that the City is going to start bulldozing suburban homes and building crack houses in their place as soon as Plan It is fully approved. In fact, the mayor himself will be driving the first bulldozer, and he's going to demolish calculoso's home in a carefully-staged photo op.

I don't think anyone thinks that existing homes will be demolished, the issue is the affordability of the single-detached home in Calgary in the future. It's not really a lifestyle choice for the masses if you need millions of dollars to purchase a house with a lot.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Somebody is a planner.

Probably, but it doesn't take a planner to figure out that this city is turning into Houston.. and that's a bad thing.

Having spent time in a place like Houston and a place like Munich, you will never convince me that Houston is the type of development planning to follow, whereas Munich absolutely is.

I hate driving in this city. I like driving on the open road, but city driving sucks. So when I can get anywhere I need to in Munich in less time than it takes to drive.. sign me up. Furthermore, when I literally have to drive to the Kinko's beside my hotel in South Houston because there is an 8 foot wall that I can't go over or around (it goes right to the busy road) there is something VERY wrong about that.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Broadening the distribution of the modal share vastly increases the capactiy of the overall transporation system. Too heavy investment in one mode pretty much guarantees massive congestion on that one mode. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you plan only for cars, guess what you'll get? lots and lots of cars (congestion). land use planning and transportation need to be thought of much more in tandem. Creating communities where that modal split can be as evenly distributed as possible. That is what I believe Plan It is really about (Integration of Municipal Development Plan - Land Use, with Transporation planning)

In the SE for example, I bet the introduction of the SE LRT line would do far, far more to relieve automobile congestion than will the ring road (which will induce auto demand). Just think of a 4 car C-train full of people (500 or so cars worth of people) not on the road in front of you on Deerfoot.

Sorry, this is straying a little off topic.

Good example is the Macleod Trail bridge over Fish Creek Park. There is no pedestrian walkway to get easily from Midnapore to the theaters on Canyon Meadows Blvd. When I was living in the area about 4 years ago, there was only three ways that I knew about to walk across the creek. You could go about 40 min out of your way to a pedestrian bridge either to Parkland or on the far side of Macleod trail (Which took me awhile of exploring before I found either), you could risk your life walking along Macleod trail and the offramp onto Canyon Meadows drive (I tried this once, and I seriously don't recomend it), or you could cross the creek along a rickety old Fallen Log (which has since been removed). Seriously, the best choice was the Log. I don't understand the mentality that the default method of transport in this city should be the car, to the exclusion of any other option - you should honestly be able to walk anywhere you need to go. The pedestrian options were so low, that driving became the only option. The traffic became so bad that they had to expand the bridge by a lane. When they were doing that a few years ago, I thought to myself "Great! Now they can put in a proper pedestrian path!".

They didn't. Big suprise.

If I was ever on City council, I know that I would always ask for any infrastructre project, if there was any consideration made for the pedestrian. Too often the answer is No.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bunk

In essence most established suburban residential areas will not really change much.

And how about those that have yet to be established? The plan itself states that it expects the development of single family houses will slow due to 'demand' for townhouses and apartments. Fine, it attributes it to demand, but it still plans for higher density.

In addition, inner city and other existing areas will be re-developed for higher density.

As such, how can the "higher density here, there, everywhere" statement be discounted? It's true!

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Probably, but it doesn't take a planner to figure out that this city is turning into Houston.. and that's a bad thing.

Having spent time in a place like Houston and a place like Munich, you will never convince me that Houston is the type of development planning to follow, whereas Munich absolutely is.

I hate driving in this city. I like driving on the open road, but city driving sucks. So when I can get anywhere I need to in Munich in less time than it takes to drive.. sign me up. Furthermore, when I literally have to drive to the Kinko's beside my hotel in South Houston because there is an 8 foot wall that I can't go over or around (it goes right to the busy road) there is something VERY wrong about that.

You're preaching to the choir brother.

Calgary has heavily overinvested in roads and automobiles. I agree with bunk and have a light background in planning. One key point I learned is that building more roads does NOT relieve congestion. That is a fact. All more roads does is lighten congestion for a couple months to a year to a couple years and then boom, they all get congested again because the city grows and its reliant on cars and then boom you have more cars on the road.

Remember that stupid Go Plan? How it was supposed to be 20 years ahead of traffic demand and they went ahead and built all these roads? Well five years later the city was in gridlock.

I'm sure Bunk can attest.

The way out of it is diverting investment to multi modes. Public transit, mass-transit, cycling and walkable communities. You will never build enough roads to get out of congestion problems.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Somebody is a planner.

Yes, but not with the city, public sector or in Calgary for that matter.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Yes, but not with the city, public sector or in Calgary for that matter.

So in other words, your intersections match up, your merge lanes are consistent and you don't have highway lanes suddenly disappear? Where might I find this panacea?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I felt my statement was pretty objective, being a big supporter of the ring road and of this bridge among.

I didn't mean you. You were very objective. It's those others that make those in the 'burbs as being the second coming of hades himself due to the sprawl, the higher costs, the blah blah blah. Whatever.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The centre street bridge is exactly like this bridge in that regard. The centre street bridge is also a work of art - one that often gets included in the best views of the city. Why? Because someone nearly 100 years ago thought it would be better to spend a few extra dollars to make the bridge look nice.

If we take your point to its logical end, we'd end up with nothing but cheaply made concrete and wood structures with no windows. Why have windows - they are just an extra expense when they aren't actually required?

I don't think you (or anyone else) actually thinks that way. Everyone wants some degree of beauty in the structures that they see.

I certainly agree with what you have said.
However, you don't have to go to Europe to find some pricey avant garde architect to design a pedestrian bridge for you (and pay a premium price for doing it.) I am sure something could have been designed within Canada/USA that would be very attractive looking and at a much lower cost.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So in other words, your intersections match up, your merge lanes are consistent and you don't have highway lanes suddenly disappear? Where might I find this panacea?

I think you're talking civil engineer not planner.