If the measuring tool in Google Maps is accurate it's more like 110m and 60m. That's just compared to the closest point of the South Tower. For the North Tower is more like 100m closer.
Using a sound attenuation calculator, and assuming the tent is at around 90dB, I get around a 5dB difference which makes the closer venue around 50% louder.
There was also a building (Cowboy's) blocking the sound when it was in the parking lot. That has to make a huge difference.
My gf used to live in the Guardian. Understand that residents in this building, realize they live in an urban environment.
That said, traffic, both human and vehicle was diverting south towards the Stampede etc previously. Now the new tent will be in the residents direct transportation corridor (11ave/12ave). More congestion, and more noise.
Nimbyism. If you buy residential property right next to Cowboys / the Stampede grounds, surely you should have been aware that there may be.... noise. And that there will continue to always be noise in that area. As Wormius mentioned, they should have known what they were getting in to.
Weren't the towers also built before Cowboys moved there?
Nope, I think Cowboys was already in the casino in 2008 when I moved into Arriva. At that time the Guardian towers were still going to be twin 42 storey Arriva buildings, then Torode imploded while it was under construction. Hon picked up it after that and turned it into the Guardian towers.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
Good catch, they were just NE of Arriva on the other corner of 11th avenue and 4th street. I know residents facing that way weren't happy with them, but it was a bar (forget the name) back when the building was in pre-sales. Totally on the buyer to know what they were dealing with.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
My gf used to live in the Guardian. Understand that residents in this building, realize they live in an urban environment.
That said, traffic, both human and vehicle was diverting south towards the Stampede etc previously. Now the new tent will be in the residents direct transportation corridor (11ave/12ave). More congestion, and more noise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Nimbyism. If you buy residential property right next to Cowboys / the Stampede grounds, surely you should have been aware that there may be.... noise. And that there will continue to always be noise in that area. As Wormius mentioned, they should have known what they were getting in to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Weren't the towers also built before Cowboys moved there?
The owners at Arriva and Guardian have a restrictive covenant on their land title that states that they shall not challenge, protest or interfere with the Calgary Exhibition uses, developments and activities, future or existing (2005 at the time) on the Stampede lands.
This effectively formalizes the notion that "you bought right next to the Stampede, there's going to be noises, smells, lights, etc. It's not going away, live with it."
Being that this development is not on the Stampede lands, it doesn't fall under this restrictive covenant. The Cowboys tent location falls outside of what was originally formally signed up for. For what it's worth.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
I do remember reading that covenant when I purchased in Arriva, didn't bother me. Like I said it was great to be so close, and friends could drop off mini-donuts and deep fried oreos for me without me going to the grounds.
Well... that pretty much went as expected. I just wish the other councilors wouldn’t respond to Farkas. It seems like they get goaded into responding to his silliness and making them all look as ridiculous.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Why is council voting down asking the Province to look into something that reduces cyclist injuries at negligible cost, and how is this a real quote that the Sun would print?
Quote:
“I’m sort of voting yes just to anticipate the look on Jason Kenney’s face when we ask him to look at this. I just think it’s funny more than anything else,” said Farkas at Monday’s meeting.
Why is council voting down asking the Province to something that reduces cyclist injuries at negligible cost, and how is this a real quote that the Sun would print?
Does this guy have a mental disability or something? I can't believe he would say something like that to the media. Either you take your job seriously or you don't.
Is Farkas basically calling Kenney a lazy fatass? Like, "Can you imagine that guy on a bike?"
I don't understand the opposition to the Idaho stop. What's the downside?
The downside is as a driver on the road I expect a person on a bike to follow the same rules as I do. Or don't be on the road!
Most drivers on the road don't even know the rules and laws they need to follow driving a vehicle. Now they are expected to know special rules for cyclists?
To be honest though, in my area almost every driver treats a stop sign as a yield sign. Some don't even bother to slow down. Giving cyclists the right to treat a stop sign as a yield sign defeats the purpose of the stop sign.
The other day in my area a 4 way intersection had four flashing redlights! Want to see chaos? Some people thought it was ok to fly thru the intersection because it was not a solid red light! Others thought the flashing redlight meant you need to stop and never move ever again.
I am glad the province is now testing new drivers again. No longer can private companies give licenses out like candy for profit.
The downside is as a driver on the road I expect a person on a bike to follow the same rules as I do. Or don't be on the road!
Most drivers on the road don't even know the rules and laws they need to follow driving a vehicle. Now they are expected to know special rules for cyclists?
To be honest though, in my area almost every driver treats a stop sign as a yield sign. Some don't even bother to slow down. Giving cyclists the right to treat a stop sign as a yield sign defeats the purpose of the stop sign.
The other day in my area a 4 way intersection had four flashing redlights! Want to see chaos? Some people thought it was ok to fly thru the intersection because it was not a solid red light! Others thought the flashing redlight meant you need to stop and never move ever again.
I am glad the province is now testing new drivers again. No longer can private companies give licenses out like candy for profit.
Is this a joke post? You're really that adamant that cyclists follow the same rules as cars? A cyclist would have to be going 50kph and hit a senior right in the chest to kill him. A car can kill someone just by rolling through a stop and not seeing a short person or someone who tripped on their shoelace.
Also, it's more efficient to let the cyclist breeze through when they're approaching a stop with a bit of a lead on you, the vehicle. It's only a couple of seconds, but that all adds up when you do a lot of driving.
Calgary City Council is getting embarrassing. I cannot understand how this was voted down. Bunch of stick-up-ass old farts that need to be elected out ASAP.
I can't find the actual article (might be a paid university journal), but a 2010 UC Berkeley called “The Idaho Stop Law and the Severity of Bicycles Crashes: A Comparative Study" found a 14% reduction in collisions following the introduction of Idaho Stop laws.
