North Hill Development

[Surrealplaces]

That's 100% exactly what I would envision for 20th. I think you might be right about the pushback for 20th. Centre Street would probably be different given that the houses along the street are almost all businesses at the moment.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Ok I understand now

I think 20th would be great for developments like this:


http://pauljohnston.com


http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2014...es-in-the-fan/

Not a huge fan of fake old, but if need be maybe this

http://www.diynetwork.com/home-impro...res/index.html

Maybe, we could bump it up to this, hard to say

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-8894...an-street.html

I think they key is to not make it seem like it's the first step to turning the area into the 2nd Beltline.

I suspect, and perhaps I'll get a better idea tonight, that since the area is sort of the transition zone between innercity and suburbia, that people feel they have the best of both worlds (close to innercity, perks of quiet suburbia). Therefore they probably wouldn't see what density would do for them. Density on 16th or Centre bringing shops and restaurants, sure that brings obviously perks. Twice as many people living on 20th (with perhaps twice as many vehicles requiring parking)? not so obvious benefit for existing residents.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

So back in reality, what we will see is low-medium rise buildings along Centre Street all the way up to 40th Avenue. Some low-medium rise developments in Mount Pleasant along 16th and 17th Avenues and that will be just about it - maybe a smattering of builds on Edmonton Trail. Realistically, there's not going to any multi-story developments along 4th Street NW except possibly in the 24-26th Avenue area and even then, it'll be limited.

Centre Street stands to see the most transformation and it will build out from downtown - even this will be decades to come. As far as Sears, it's just a matter of time before that retail chain is gone and that end of North Hill is redeveloped.

Now with respect to the North Hill, it's going to be difficult to change the mindset of the home owners there - a lot of them are there because they want a single family home close in to downtown and it is one of the most economical areas to get that right now aside from Mayland Heights or Southview.. We used to live/own in Mount Pleasant and now live/own just on the edge of the North Hill area (Highwood) - we only moved away from Mount Pleasant because we saw the changes coming on 16th Avenue and didn't want that busier road to only be a block away from our 17th Avenue home. Even our own community mirrors the mindset of many North Hill homeowners - your own SFH in a close-in community with relatively good access to get to many parts of the city and trust me when I say that people in these communities will push back against denser developments. That said, some of the current developments being built along 17th Avenue in Mount Pleasant are a sign of change - the question is whether or not that type of development will move northward.

Ask any of the 40+ home owners on our 60 year old street and they'll all be against any lot sub-divisions that allow tall, narrow 2 story homes or duplexes. That's not to say it isn't starting to appear in our community but there is a lot of opposition to that style of housing - where it's starting to appear is on less desirable and busier streets and not in the core of the community. If anything, we are seeing older bungalows that are in pretty much original condition getting bulldozed and replaced by larger 2 story homes on a 60' lot and believe it or not, we've also seen some new bungalows built in the past few years - something you won't see in Mount Pleasant.

So yeah, I can support denser communities and I can see the reasoning for it but I'm not ready for it in my back yard yet - my block of bungalows with huge spaces between our homes is not something I'm ready to give up yet. I like having 20 feet between my home and the neighbor on either side - enough for an elderly apple tree. Yupp, almost enough room between homes for an infill - that's almost scary.

Interesting that you have that much space, my place has likely less than the new infills yet the houses on either side on me are both 100+ years old like mine.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Spadina Ave in Toronto? Granted, it has a trolley running down it, however in the future I can see bus only lanes on 16th helping to enhance it.

I am sure there are others, just can't think of any off the top of my head.

The bus only lane thing on 16th Ave has been brought up before - would be a waste of time considering there's really only one real bus route on 16th Ave for the most part and it runs at 38 or 40 minute intervals. Wouldn't work as an HOV lane either as there's just to many places to make right hand turns on or off 16th Ave which negates the purpose of a HOV lane what with so many others getting into and out of that lane - see this on Centre Street all the time (useless HOV lane for the most part).

16th Ave needs buildings on the north side to be set back a bit even if that means they encroach or build right to 17th Ave.. Maybe the city should look at 17th Ave SE as that is a busy road and it feels more pedestrian friendly at the same time.

[gantenbein]

Originally Posted by speedog

The problem is that 16th Ave just isn't a pedestrian friendly environment - even Centre Street is not that great from a pedestrian's viewpoint. Too many vehicles going too fast - Edmonton Trail at the top of the hill is a much more inviting area. 4th Street NW up by McDonalds (23-27 Ave) - that has promise but things like the old Macs across from McDonalds (Korean restaurant) and a lot of other stuff in the area needs to be bulldozed and redone. Garden center on 24th ave - repurpose that land as well.

This is definitely true up to a point. However, I would argue that Centre is actually more pedestrian-friendly than Edmonton Trail, as there are wider sidewalks and parking on both sides of Centre, and, apart from a very short stretch at the very top of the hill, most vehicles actually travel much faster on Edmonton Trail. There are also more frequent crosswalks on Centre, and they are actually respected by vehicles (can't say the same for much of Edmonton Trail).

There is certainly more going on in terms of retail on that stretch of Edmonton Trail, but I think this is despite rather than because of traffic and the pedestrian basics. Whatever's holding Centre back, I don't think it's these factors.

As for 16th, I think a large part of the problem was also the decision (under pressure from Rosedale residents) to abandon any potential for retail along the majority of the south side between Centre and 10th St., and instead to construct a wall, effectively killing that side of the road.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So went to the community consultation thing.
Most if not all people seemed into higher density on Centre and Edmonton Trail (the two corridors discussed). 4 story no problem, although apparently a LUA came in for a 7 story building at 29th ave and Centre that the community thought was perhaps a bit much.
Everyone seemed to want much more retail on Centre and def some more Edmonton Tr, although maybe more of a cluster than the entire length of Edm Tr.
Mixed views on the LRT. At least a few "it should go the nose creek route", with the remainder preferring Edm Trail, but somewhat accepting that it will probably be Centre.

Some of the LRT comments:

- Worries about crime (my opinion, it's already a heavy transit corridor, a different mode won't change anything)

- Worries about people parking to catch the train downtown. Although I thought that might be overblown, I heard from a number of people that suburban residents drop their kids off at daycare(s) in the area and then hop on the bus to make their way downtown. So it appears it is a real issue, but wouldn't necessarily get worse with LRT vs bus. Parking Permit zones might be the way to go if it does

- A lot of people who felt negatively about the LRT on centre, felt that it was going through their community just to serve suburban riders. This was due to there perhaps only being a couple of stops between centre street bridge and 32nd ave. They had a point here. LRT through the area is touted to increase busineses and the like, but will stops 12 blocks apart really make much difference? I believe they would be much more pro-lrt on centre if there were 6 block distances between stops south of 32nd or 40th. (on the latest route map it shows stops at 9th ave -> 16th ave->28th ave->40th ave. So 7/12/12 block gaps, or 700m/1200m/1200m. In comparison Bloor line in Toronto has 600m gaps along Bloor.

- Also worries that a lot of additional retail without parking combined with a lot of permit only zones to deal with park and rides, would leave basically no parking for businesses. Suggested city should buy a few lots off centre for parking. Considering Kensington and Inglewood have dedicated city parking lots along the stretch, I don't think that's a bad idea.

Anyway, far less anti development than I may have feared, multiple times I heard people say they wish the area could be the next Kensington or Inglewood.

IIRC if Edmonton Tr or Centre is selected, there won't be any PnR lots south of 64th for sure, but I think it was Beddington.

Glad to hear that they are open to development, I've heard comments from some about Sunnyside's resistance to development as being an example that we should follow

I only know of one city lot along 10th, the one that is going to be replaced by Lido, is there more?

In a way there are two purposes for the LRT in the NC corridor, one is for those at the north end of the city to get downtown, the other is the movement within the inner-city. In an ideal world you would have 2 lines one up nose creek to serve the communities north of Beddington/96th and a street car type line on Centre or Edmonton Tr.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

The bus only lane thing on 16th Ave has been brought up before - would be a waste of time considering there's really only one real bus route on 16th Ave for the most part and it runs at 38 or 40 minute intervals. Wouldn't work as an HOV lane either as there's just to many places to make right hand turns on or off 16th Ave which negates the purpose of a HOV lane what with so many others getting into and out of that lane - see this on Centre Street all the time (useless HOV lane for the most part).

16th Ave needs buildings on the north side to be set back a bit even if that means they encroach or build right to 17th Ave.. Maybe the city should look at 17th Ave SE as that is a busy road and it feels more pedestrian friendly at the same time.

The Transit lane would go in in conjunction with the implementation of a cross town BRT on 16th, a route that would have significantly higher frequency than the current 19/119 route.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by speedog

The bus only lane thing on 16th Ave has been brought up before - would be a waste of time considering there's really only one real bus route on 16th Ave for the most part and it runs at 38 or 40 minute intervals. Wouldn't work as an HOV lane either as there's just to many places to make right hand turns on or off 16th Ave which negates the purpose of a HOV lane what with so many others getting into and out of that lane - see this on Centre Street all the time (useless HOV lane for the most part).

16th Ave needs buildings on the north side to be set back a bit even if that means they encroach or build right to 17th Ave.. Maybe the city should look at 17th Ave SE as that is a busy road and it feels more pedestrian friendly at the same time.

The ciy plans a 25 km BRT route from NWHUB (U of C, Foothills) to Saddletown for BRT. ~$50 million capital, ~$10 million operating, with a projected ridership of 14 million a year.

In some sections dedicated lanes may make sense, I bet in most places skip lanes at intersections with dedicated signals likely all that is needed.

HOV lanes don't need to be in the curb lane.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Interesting that you have that much space, my place has likely less than the new infills yet the houses on either side on me are both 100+ years old like mine.

Measured it out last night - lots of smaller 1000 square foot 2 or 3 bedroom bungalows from the mid-late 50's and when additions were put on, they either went to the front or back or up. Ours has had additions to the front and back which would've increased the living space by 50% from it's original 1955 layout and yet we still have 20 feet between us and our neighbour's homes on either side. Neighbour to the south has an 8' wide shed in his side yard and I have a full grown apple tree on my side. To the north, I've got 8 feet of grass/sidewalk and the neighbour has a full grown apple tree plus a raised desk in his side yard.

Most of the lots are 60' wide - there's one old guy a block away from us sitting on a 60x150 lot with a 950 square foot 3 bedroom bungalow, his back yard alone is 75+ feet deep.

[Fuzz]

I've got a healthy 65' x 100' 1000sqft bungalow

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The ciy plans a 25 km BRT route from NWHUB (U of C, Foothills) to Saddletown for BRT. ~$50 million capital, ~$10 million operating, with a projected ridership of 14 million a year.

In some sections dedicated lanes may make sense, I bet in most places skip lanes at intersections with dedicated signals likely all that is needed.

HOV lanes don't need to be in the curb lane.

This would be a huge benefit. I think everyone underestimates the number of trips throughout the day that activity centres like SAIT, University and Foothills generate all within a rather small area.

A Whitehorn to U of C route with limited stops and no dumb deviations off of 16th which wastes too much efficiency and time.

Think the 99B-Line in Vancouver. They implemented it as essentially a peak-hour limited stop by very direct route from the nearest sky-train station to UBC. Now it is an all-day, high-frequency, all-door boarding, 100,000 user / day behemoth that's only issue is that it is too popular.

16th Ave shares many similarities. With the right amount of queue jumps and a high enough frequency, it has potential to be mega successful. As well as act as a serious relief capacity to the University student transfer downtown on the LRT, freeing up that capacity for others.

Other than upgrades to the already successful Route 3, this Crosstown could easily be the biggest bang for the buck that Calgary Transit has in the hopper of ideas for Route Ahead.

*** As long as there are no BS deviations to the direct route! Hell, ridership would increase 100% on all routes if routes stopped being so windy and inefficient ***

[speedog]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The ciy plans a 25 km BRT route from NWHUB (U of C, Foothills) to Saddletown for BRT. ~$50 million capital, ~$10 million operating, with a projected ridership of 14 million a year.

In some sections dedicated lanes may make sense, I bet in most places skip lanes at intersections with dedicated signals likely all that is needed.

HOV lanes don't need to be in the curb lane.

The problem is that is where Calgary sticks them and they just don't work well there in most instances - Centre Street and 10th Street NW HOV lanes are just dumb the way they're set up and those are the ones I'm familiar with.

[speedog]

Oops - double post.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I might have agreed, but if a lot like this not even on one of the main drags was able to get a 5 unit building approved, it seems likely the same could get approved on a busier street like 4th St.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?saddr=21...44.18,,0,-3.19

(what's funny is I would actually prefer 5 unit buildings not be there, but on 4th instead)

Honestly I expect the main concern of higher density will be what is always the concern: on street parking.

Yeah, Full Mountain and I have talked development potential in Mount Pleasant a couple times. He is part of the community association, obviously one of the few pushing for higher density, and I am considering joining it. I think the area between 22 and 26 Avenues is zoned for higher density (small multi family), and there is a new 3 storey duplex currently UC off of 4 Street, on 25 Avenue. Also, the area of the neighbourhood at 16th and 17th Avenues is of course zoned for higher density as well, with mid-rises and such.


Also, did anyone notice the fencing around a lot on the corner of (I think) 12 Ave and Centre North? I don't think I had ever seen this one before, and it looks quite nice. The render of it was just hung up on the fence yesterday. Another surface lot on Centre disappearing Also, the building UC at Centre and (I think) 22 Ave ahs resumed construction. Excavation is nearly complete and concrete is being poured.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by speedog

So back to 16th Ave, let's compare apples to apples - is there something in Canada/USA that works well as a pedestrian friendly environment that is comparable in width/traffic volume to 16th Ave?

Probably no examples that also have a continent wide national highway routed through it...

Currently 16th is (nominally at least) performing multiple roles badly. The TCH designation needs to be removed, traffic lanes reduced and a transit line stuck down the middle.

Pedestrians also are forced to wait for far too long to cross. This could be helped by splitting up the crossing separately for each direction - something which is done regularly in other countries but rarely (never?) here.

[gantenbein]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Also, did anyone notice the fencing around a lot on the corner of (I think) 12 Ave and Centre North? I don't think I had ever seen this one before, and it looks quite nice. The render of it was just hung up on the fence yesterday. Another surface lot on Centre disappearing

Posted the following on the first page of this thread; would be very surpised if they move quickly:

I've just noticed a sign up on the empty lot south of Calgary Cycle (east side of Centre at 13th Ave) for a 4-storey, 40-unit development. They're calling it "Centre Green Living" (the rendering shows quite an array of solar panels on the roof). I can't find anything on the interwebs about the development or the developer behind it (Jandl or Jandel if I recall correctly -- there is a modular home builder by the name of Jandel -- let's hope it's not them).

Seems a little fly-by-nightish, but despite the uninspiring design, I'd take almost anything that fills the gaps along Centre.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Probably no examples that also have a continent wide national highway routed through it...

Currently 16th is (nominally at least) performing multiple roles badly. The TCH designation needs to be removed, traffic lanes reduced and a transit line stuck down the middle.

Pedestrians also are forced to wait for far too long to cross. This could be helped by splitting up the crossing separately for each direction - something which is done regularly in other countries but rarely (never?) here.

Probably a higher amount than similar roads of truck and industrial traffic due to the highway designation.

University Ave in Toronto has the two stage crossing, I think it's 6 or 8 lanes wide.

I would think that Broadway (up to 6 lanes wide I think) in Vancouver would be similar in terms of traffic volumes and is a vastly superior pedestrian experience (although not necessarily the best by Vancouver standards)

[milomilo]

Just checked out University Ave in Toronto - that's a good example to aim for.

Melbourne has some excellent examples of how to run transit down the middle of roads and maintain a pleasant atmosphere (of course they have at least one big advantage we don't have in Calgary!).

St Kilda
Fitzroy

Centre fortunately has a large median most of the way - stick transit lanes either side and put the stops in the middle. This would have to be bus initially but I'm sure 20 years down the line it would be packed and ready to be upgraded.

[jsbertram]

I have wondered why the North LRT can't be run on /over /under 4th St, since it is the only major street in the area that doesn't directly connect to downtown.

Leave Centre St and Edmonton Trail as downtown connectors for vehicles, but alter 4th St to be the 'transit corridor' with LRT on it.

Since 4th St eventually connects with Centre St at 72nd Ave, the new LRT will still be able to continue north to Panorama and Coventry Hills.

To get to 4th St & 16th Ave from downtown, you would extend the South LRT line northwards over Prince's Island and Memorial Dr, run east of the Curling Club, and into a tunnel portal. The LRT tunnel would run north under Crescent Rd and Crescent Heights Park, north-westward to 4 St & 12 Ave, then north under 4th St until the tunnel is past 16th Ave. The tunnel would also have sufficient length to allow for a gentle rise in elevation from the southern Sunnyside portal to the northern portal.

North of 16th Ave, the LRT could be run along 4th St in a new median (or elevated / trenched where necessary) for the rest of the way to Huntington Hills and Coventry / Panorama.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Probably no examples that also have a continent wide national highway routed through it...

Currently 16th is (nominally at least) performing multiple roles badly. The TCH designation needs to be removed, traffic lanes reduced and a transit line stuck down the middle.

Pedestrians also are forced to wait for far too long to cross. This could be helped by splitting up the crossing separately for each direction - something which is done regularly in other countries but rarely (never?) here.

The problem with 16th Ave is that it is doing too many tasks - all of them badly.

This has been apparent since the 50's when it was designated as the route for the Trans Canada Highway through Calgary, because within a decade of the TCH route coming through Calgary, there were plans to fix the problems with the road. One proposal I remember from the '70s was to expropriate every property along 16th and 17th Aves from Crowchild to Deerfoot and clear the way so a 'proper freeway' could be built to finally solve the Trans Canada Hwy traffic problems. After 30 years of fighting the community opponents of any upgrades, the 16th Ave widening project that was completed a few years ago was the end result.

There is a blog at calgaryringroad.wordpress.com that has a few pages on the history of the Trans Canada Hwy and how it ended up on 16th Ave instead of further south of downtown.

[speedog]

Does 16th Ave even have a nice section? A place you'd consider spending time as a pedestrian?