Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Bunk]

The funny thing with the definition of Calgary's 'inner city' is that many of them are really the inner suburbs developed in the 50s and 60s, when density was actually at its lowest. However, by virtue of their location and more grid iron road patterns they tend to have better (and easier to function) transit service, access to amenities and proximity to employment. They are also much easier to infill (and are being).

The first sort of pre-WW2 ring of communities around the core such as Mission, Cliff Bungalow, Erlton, Ramsay, Inglewood, Bridgeland, Crescent Heights, Hillhurst/Sunnyside, Sunalta, Bankview, South Calgary, Lower Mount Royal is more what I would categorize as inner city because of their high housing mix, relatively higher densities, walkable main streets and so forth.

To me Killarney/Richmond or a 50s/60s neighbourhood like Banff Trail often spoken of as 'inner city' would be inner suburbs.

An interesting study in intensification is West Hillhurst:

Look at how it was first developed with incredibly low density: This is 1948 - you could even consider it perhaps Calgary's first real suburb (West Hillhurst is a only few good golf drives from the downtown core)


This is the same community today. You can see actually how much it has filled in and intensified gradually with enabling policies (R2 zoning) 25ft lots - where 1 house/lot became 2.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Once again what difference does it make if it is a busy street or a quiet one? It is OUR responsibility to ensure our children are taught how to cross ANY street safely.

I know I was taught that, and so were all my friends growing up.

I'm raising a child in the Beltline, you better believe I'm going to make sure they know how to properly deal with crossing the street.

You're exactly right in teaching the kids how to cross the street.

That said, 100x less cars can be nothing but a good thing.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Rerun

This bridge project is seen by a lot of taxpayers to be extravagent over-the-top spending. Build a bridge sure... just don't pay 22 million to build one so you can have some fancy pants architects name on it when something just as nice could have been built for 18 million by employing a different architectural firm.

I guess the ultimate test of this will be when the 2nd bridge goes to competition for the design.

[octothorp]

I'm just throwing numbers out here for the sake of debate (so please correct me if you have better numbers), but lets say this 22 million is roughly 6 million more than a bare-bones bridge; isn't the vast majority of that difference going to be taken up by the more complicated construction and material costs, money that will go right back into the local economy? Is the steel going to be fabricated locally? Ditto the glass work? It's not like all of this extra spending is just going into Calatrava's pocket.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Muta

Just to add, nik... hundreds of millions of people in thousands of cities around the world raise their kids in the inner-city. Calgary sprawl problem is an exception; not the rule, and is very much a different phenomenon than most of the rest of the world's model. It is truly unfortunate that some people find the concept of 'raising kids in the inner city' scary or unappealing.

That's just the Calgary way of life and the result of the rural background of many people who have moved here.

Unfortunate? I guess that is too bad. That's the way it is.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You're exactly right in teaching the kids how to cross the street.

That said, 100x less cars can be nothing but a good thing.

It might be a good thing, but then again it may have the opposite effect.

At least on a busy road the cars will probably be travelling at a slower speed, and in the inner-city we can also assume most drivers are more aware of pedestrians crossing at almost every intersection.

Now a low traffic residential road on the other hand, more people put the hammer down and drive a little faster and may not be as aware of pedestrians trying to cross.

So perhaps we are looking at not only educating our kids, but much stronger education of our drivers as well?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by calculoso

That's just the Calgary way of life and the result of the rural background of many people who have moved here.

Unfortunate? I guess that is too bad. That's the way it is.

If you look back far enough at any city you could have applied the same logic. As the city grows and matures things start to change, this is just the beginnings of that.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by SebC

Ha! The initial cost is lower because it's subsidized and the standard of living / way of life is good because it's subsidized.

As has been mentioned several times, subsidized how? The initial installation is (at least partially) paid for by the developers, is it not? Its pretty obvious taht they get their money from the new home sales.

So the operating of garbage removal is such a huge subsidy, especially for those who live closer to the dumps than those downtown?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by calculoso

That's just the Calgary way of life and the result of the rural background of many people who have moved here.

Yup.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Unfortunate? I guess that is too bad. That's the way it is.

...In Calgary, yep. Truly unfortunate.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Knalus

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.

You can't evaluate a downtown based the magnitude of its skyline. In the context of this discussion, anyways, what matters is at street level.

Most of the building you see in Calgary are commercial office towers that are empty by six every night. Vancouver's downtown is a nicer place to live than Calgary's in a lot of ways because many of their buildings, although they are shorter, are residential. Population density supports restaurants, parks, shopping, bars and clubs, entertainment etc. World class cities, world class destinations all have great downtowns. To achieve that, Calgary needs population density and beautification downtown.

Calgary will never be a huge tourist destination in itself by virtue of geography and (lack of) history, but it can become a nicer city for the people living here. The condo boom downtown is increasing the inner city population, and this bridge and the new music centre are the sort of things that make a difference at street level. To me at least, that's something to celebrate.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

If you look back far enough at any city you could have applied the same logic. As the city grows and matures things start to change, this is just the beginnings of that.

Exactly. From my geography and urban planning studies, it seems to be that a city 'matures' into a new stage of growth when it starts building up, rather than out. Urban centres/nodes are further developed (especially along main transportation lines), which results in increased focus on sustainable transportation methods, better socially integrated neighbourhoods and a lively, vibrant human presence amongst these areas. And not surprisingly, crime rates will go down in these visibly busy areas, if only due to increased human presence.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Folks downtown also have a free ride corridor. So hypothetically some downtowners may never pay for the train. Those b@stards.

Regardless it boils down to the fact people have different mentalities. I have no desire to live downtown or ride a bike to work. Instead I'll live halfway between the burbs and downtown and drive everywhere.

Do you think you'll still want to do that when gas prices here reach what they are in Europe now?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calculoso

As has been mentioned several times, subsidized how? The initial installation is (at least partially) paid for by the developers, is it not? Its pretty obvious taht they get their money from the new home sales.

So the operating of garbage removal is such a huge subsidy, especially for those who live closer to the dumps than those downtown?

Key word in bold, where does the rest come from?

Your garbage collectors need stop at your house, and your neighbors house. My garbage goes down a chute a long with my neighbors and the people above and below me into a single container for them to pick up, so you really think your garbage removal is cheaper? Also, you get recycling pick-up, I don't. Figure that one out.

What about the new interchanges, the new LRT stations that service your new communities, does the developer pay for those? New busses, new parks, new libraries, new rec centres, new fire stations, new police stations?

The inner city pays higher taxes, does their money go back into the inner city? If not, where else could it possibly be going?

If you still don't think suburban living gets subsidized in Calgary, I'd like to see your reasoning. If not, let's have the rest of this discussion on the basis that it is.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by SebC

You can't evaluate a downtown based the magnitude of its skyline. In the context of this discussion, anyways, what matters is at street level.

Most of the building you see in Calgary are commercial office towers that are empty by six every night. Vancouver's downtown is a nicer place to live than Calgary's in a lot of ways because many of their buildings, although they are shorter, are residential. Population density supports restaurants, parks, shopping, bars and clubs, entertainment etc. World class cities, world class destinations all have great downtowns. To achieve that, Calgary needs population density and beautification downtown.

Calgary will never be a huge tourist destination in itself by virtue of geography and (lack of) history, but it can become a nicer city for the people living here. The condo boom downtown is increasing the inner city population, and this bridge and the new music centre are the sort of things that make a difference at street level. To me at least, that's something to celebrate.

I would argue that there is no city in the world where there is a tonne of off business hours activity in the 'commerce' (skyscrapper canyon) areas of downtowns.

Stephen Ave, 17th, Mission in Calgary
St Catherines, St Lawrence, Crescent in Montreal
Byward Market Ottawa...

and so on. The areas where people tend to play are more in the lo/mid-rise multi-use districts. Places where there are nice things. Like bridges.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Do you think you'll still want to do that when gas prices here reach what they are in Europe now?

Europeans pay higher prices due to increased taxation to cover infrastructure and phony environmental intiatives. I'll still drive everywhere regardless. Besides whats to say we'll be driving gasoline vehicles forever.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by SebC

You can't evaluate a downtown based the magnitude of its skyline. In the context of this discussion, anyways, what matters is at street level.

Most of the building you see in Calgary are commercial office towers that are empty by six every night. Vancouver's downtown is a nicer place to live than Calgary's in a lot of ways because many of their buildings, although they are shorter, are residential. Population density supports restaurants, parks, shopping, bars and clubs, entertainment etc. World class cities, world class destinations all have great downtowns. To achieve that, Calgary needs population density and beautification downtown.

Calgary will never be a huge tourist destination in itself by virtue of geography and (lack of) history, but it can become a nicer city for the people living here. The condo boom downtown is increasing the inner city population, and this bridge and the new music centre are the sort of things that make a difference at street level. To me at least, that's something to celebrate.

Yeah, my discussion of the skyline was in regards to the discussion of buildings "going as high as the eye can see", or something like that.

You do have a point, one that I agree with completely, about dead after 6pm. What I have noticed, tho, is that many other cities out there are also dead after 6pm. Tampa is a perfect example of that - it's deader than dead, it's a ghost town. After the second game in the finals, I went to a bar near the arena downtown for some drinks, stayed a few hours, then walked across the downtown to the hotel. I saw 2 people in that 15 min walk - it was dead. I guarantee I would have seen more livliness in Calgary than I would have there. Tampa is the perfect example of a suburb-based city. It's a horrible place to visit, unless you stay at the beach.


I agree what you are saying about Vancouver's downtown in some ways being a nicer place to be (depending on the neighbourhood), but at the same time, our downtown during office hours is one of the most vibrant, pedestrian, nicest downtowns I've been to. My issue isn't that it couldn't be better - my issue is that this city is one without a "big city" feel. It does have it, more than many cities I've been to.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Do you think you'll still want to do that when gas prices here reach what they are in Europe now?

Is that a comment on peak oil or a comment on government taxing the crap out of gas to European type levels?

Even so what about hybrids? What about electric cars? What about Hydrogen powered cars?

Since we're talking about Plan It and it's vision spanning decades, such advances in technology cannot be written off as 'too far off in the future.'

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So, what you're saying is that the capacity of the existing sewer pipes and such don't need to be upgraded to support higher density? Seems totally counter-intuitive. Packing more people into the same space means more sewer waste going through the same pipes, which most certainly means digging up and upgrading.

Sanitary sewer pipe sizes (the largest ones close to the end point) are going to determined by the number of people that are serviced by them, not how far away those people are from the water treatment plant. People will use the same amount of water wherever they live. However, with a spread out city, you need to build far more smaller lines out to each new community, that's where the costs add up.

Storm sewers is completely different. It makes no difference how many people are serviced by them, what matters is only the area serviced by them. The city has been building storm ponds like mad the last decade or so, even in more established areas. New communities pretty much have to be built around them (as in they have to be the first things drawn into the community plan). Why the need for so many storm ponds? Because it's virtually impossible to build large enough pipes that could handle the volume if all the stormwater from the entire city flowed directly into the river. The pipes would literally be wider than the streets they would be built under.

Water supply pipes would be similar to the sanitary sewer pipes, size would be determined by the number of people only, its the distribution network that is much larger when the city is more spread out.

As with all utilities, the cost of putting them in isn't really the size of the pipe/wire, it the length of the excavation you have to dig to put them in that makes the biggest cost difference. The equipment/labour cost is more of a factor then the material cost.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by SebC

Key word in bold, where does the rest come from?

It could be fully paid for by the developer for all I know.

Originally Posted by SebC

Your garbage collectors need stop at your house, and your neighbors house. My garbage goes down a chute a long with my neighbors and the people above and below me into a single container for them to pick up, so you really think your garbage removal is cheaper? Also, you get recycling pick-up, I don't. Figure that one out.

I also get the privilege of paying for the recycling, even if I don't use it. Last week, we had a grand total of 20 pieces of paper to recycle. Hardly worth it, so we didn't even put the tub out by the street.

Originally Posted by SebC

What about the new interchanges, the new LRT stations that service your new communities, does the developer pay for those? New busses, new parks, new libraries, new rec centres, new fire stations, new police stations?

New buses with absolutely no service? I'd say we're getting what we pay for. Those in the inner city should pay higher fees because they get more service!!

Originally Posted by SebC

The inner city pays higher taxes, does their money go back into the inner city? If not, where else could it possibly be going?

Still don't think suburban living gets subsidized?

Nope. They're paying for the service that they get, regardless of how crappy it is. They're paying taxes for services long before the services get built.

As with most things, it all evens out.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I would argue that there is no city in the world where there is a tonne of off business hours activity in the 'commerce' (skyscrapper canyon) areas of downtowns.

Stephen Ave, 17th, Mission in Calgary
St Catherines, St Lawrence, Crescent in Montreal
Byward Market Ottawa...

and so on. The areas where people tend to play are more in the lo/mid-rise multi-use districts. Places where there are nice things. Like bridges.

Yes, people in Calgary confuse "downtown" with "central business district" ALL business districts are dead after work hours - Manhattan, London, Toronto - it doesn't matter.

It's always the mixed use doughnut immediately around the CBD that is usually the most vibrant. Calgary does have some very vibrant areas around the core, but certainly the overall vitality of the overall "downtown" needs to be improved. This will happen with more residents, cultural facilities, improved retail strips and so forth. Once areas like Eau Claire, East Village and Beltline reach their potential, no one will complain about a 'dead' downtown anymore.

Keep in mind that Calgary is only a city of a million - the same population that greater Vancouver was in 1971. Vancouver's downtown didn't really start urbanizing until the early 90s after expo 86. by the time it had a population well over 1.5 million. Calgary is sort of at that same stage that Vancouver was in the early 90s. Lots of condo development and just at the cusp of having that critical mass as a city to get large amounts of urban development downtown. Calgary's downtown is also far more business oriented than Vancouver's. I really do believe that with the very aggressive development plans that are in place in districts like Eau Claire, Beltline and East Village that Calgary's downtown will have a similar amount of urbanity and vitality that Vancouver's has now. As it stands our downtown is way, way ahead of where Vancouver's was when they had the population we have now.

The Caveat to that though is that Calgary needs to make very intential investments to make downtown living much more attractive - this means new parks, rejuvinated streetscapes, more cultural, commercial and recreational amenities, and yes, things like new pedestrian bridges to connect the downtown with its surroundings better.