Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I think curvilinear is fine if it has pedestrian cut-throughs.

Oh, this is a bare minimum requirement. I'd say Calgary is doing a barely passable job here, at least in the newer areas. It could certainly be better. I've lived in curvilinear with hardly any and yeah, it's a mess. All you can do is walk in great big looping circles.

Part of the problem, at least in the NW, is the natural ravines, retention ponds, and other geographic features which make it harder to design straight through walking paths. Walking is definitely an afterthought in many cases. Plus extra thought needs to be put into large land parcels, whether they're for schools or (especially) large multi-family mega-blocks. I've seen more than a few which you can't just walk through - fences, berms, etc. Not sure why this is, maybe there's a perception that residents don't want pedestrian traffic cutting through their "personal space".

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Riise

Wouldn't curvilinear streets be just as ironic then? Although they tried to slow down traffic in order to provide a better and safer environment for pedestrians, they reduced connectivity and made walking impractical.

In the case of no cut throughs, I'd say even more ironic (or at least, closer to the classic definition of irony). It's reduced some areas to the point where you can only really walk on your own private block.

One of my favourite things to hear from people is folks getting lost while going for a walk in their own neighbourhood. This should never be possible unless you're a complete idiot.

[DizzyEdge]

Curvilinear with cut throughs or grid with restricted access into the neighbourhood, ie one way or cul-de-sac'd ends of the grid where it hits a throughfare, with perhaps one traffic calmed route through the area, think Crescent Heights and the 4th st/12 ave cut through.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Curvilinear with cut throughs or grid with restricted access into the neighbourhood, ie one way or cul-de-sac'd ends of the grid where it hits a throughfare, with perhaps one traffic calmed route through the area, think Crescent Heights and the 4th st/12 ave cut through.

In addition to restricting access, you could also simply discourage the use of those intersections through design (e.g. narrowing of the carriageway, traffic calming, and/or lowering ballasts) and policy (e.g. no left turns and/or full right-of-way for traffic on the main road). The route I take when I go for my runs takes me along a major road in South London, London Road, and TfL uses a variety of these measures to discourage traffic from using minor intersections as junctions.

I think there are other examples in Calgary as well that are similar to the intersection you mention.

[kw5150]

I am amazed at the quality of life in the inner city of Calgary. We only have 1 million people but usually it feels much larger. By the way, it is not just bars and nightclubs down here! There are also hundred of restaurants and shops all within walking distance and getting more diverse every day.

I am never really worried about saving 20 cents on my bread or milk because I save much more on other things. Upkeep (not just gas) is very expensive on an automobile. Because of all of the savings I get from lining inner city, I am able to contribute more to my savings, pay off my mortgage faster, go on vacation, keep my professional wardrobe up to date and blah blah blah.

Anyway, I really cant afford a house right now. I always thought I would want a house and yard, but after being in a condo in the inner city, there is just SO MUCH MORE to see and do.

I also like living in concrete.......noisy neighbors...... what are those? I cant hear a thing from any of them besides the odd party. And hot water radiant heat is the best...... talk about cozy living.

I am truly surprised with the beltline area and condo living in general.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by TallDrinkofWater

It's funny - on one hand, the side thats for urban dev, argues for a street grid - but on the other hand comes in and starts arguing for "traffic calming" where such neighborhoods exist.

Originally Posted by Riise

Wouldn't curvilinear streets be just as ironic then? Although they tried to slow down traffic in order to provide a better and safer environment for pedestrians, they reduced connectivity and made walking impractical. Neither curvilinear nor grid-iron streets are perfect ideas on their own and need to be part of a multi-step solution. In the case of the former, there needs to be cut-through paths as Dizzy mentioned. In the case of the later, the streets need to be calmed and there needs to be a restriction on how many intersections with main roads will be junctions.

Riise answered it perfectly. The grid is good. It makes connectivity easy for pedestrians. What it needs to properly do is integrate local and arterial roads with pedestrian sidewalks within the same grid pattern. Barcelona's E'ixample district and Diagonal Avenue is a great example of this. It is a perfect square grid, but incorporates arterials streets by widening the ROW to give a few centre lanes in each direction for the arterial traffic with parallel access roads (one ways) separated by medians. I believe they eliminate the number of local roads intersecting with the arterial by having right in, right out only intersections with the parallel access road (but not the arterial) for most local roads and only full intersections for a few. That way all local traffic stays on the access roads, and the arterial is made more free flow. Pedestrian access is barely limited. Most commercial development occurs on these parallel access roads. That way residential areas are buffered from traffic, but do not lose pedestrian connectivity, and commercial uses benefit from being on major traffic roads.

[TallDrinkofWater]

Originally Posted by fusili

Riise answered it perfectly. The grid is good. It makes connectivity easy for pedestrians. What it needs to properly do is integrate local and arterial roads with pedestrian sidewalks within the same grid pattern. Barcelona's E'ixample district and Diagonal Avenue is a great example of this. It is a perfect square grid, but incorporates arterials streets by widening the ROW to give a few centre lanes in each direction for the arterial traffic with parallel access roads (one ways) separated by medians. I believe they eliminate the number of local roads intersecting with the arterial by having right in, right out only intersections with the parallel access road (but not the arterial) for most local roads and only full intersections for a few. That way all local traffic stays on the access roads, and the arterial is made more free flow. Pedestrian access is barely limited. Most commercial development occurs on these parallel access roads. That way residential areas are buffered from traffic, but do not lose pedestrian connectivity, and commercial uses benefit from being on major traffic roads.

My comment wasn't directed towards pedestrians. The idea is that roads are too congested and that grid network neighborhoods allow for alternative routes for drivers - something preached by urbanists. But then those same people believe that they must constrict vehicles with traffic calming.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by TallDrinkofWater

My comment wasn't directed towards pedestrians. The idea is that roads are too congested and that grid network neighborhoods allow for alternative routes for drivers - something preached by urbanists. But then those same people believe that they must constrict vehicles with traffic calming.

I'm actually fine with drivers cutting through, I live right beside an intersection and many people take the shortcut down my street when it's congested. What I dislike is when due to annoyance at the congestion they race down the street at about 60, with cars lining both sides of the street so it's not a wide area.

[elconsulto]

My family (4 people) absolutely hates everything about living in suburbia, however our budget is little over 400,000...is there any way we could find a comfortable place inner city? My parents aren't especially drooling over the prospect of living in an apartment...perhaps an infill or a condo? What do we need to know? What are condo fees like in the city, and will they be negated by what we save in gas? we live a while north of nose hill.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by elconsulto

My family (4 people) absolutely hates everything about living in suburbia, however our budget is little over 400,000...is there any way we could find a comfortable place inner city? My parents aren't especially drooling over the prospect of living in an apartment...perhaps an infill or a condo? What do we need to know? What are condo fees like in the city, and will they be negated by what we save in gas? we live a while north of nose hill.

Why do you keep driving to downtown? We have an excellent public transit system for work commutes, and there's plenty of retail where you live. I just wonder how someone could be burning hundreds of dollars a month (minimum condo fees, if you're not aware) unless you're driving multiple vehicles into downtown every day.

It's a bit of a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that your condo fees will almost certainly be more than your gasoline bill every month.

[elconsulto]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Why do you keep driving to downtown? We have an excellent public transit system for work commutes, and there's plenty of retail where you live. I just wonder how someone could be burning hundreds of dollars a month (minimum condo fees, if you're not aware) unless you're driving multiple vehicles into downtown every day.

It's a bit of a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that your condo fees will almost certainly be more than your gasoline bill every month.

During rush hour public transit is fine, our daytime service has been neutered though. Getting as far south as Kensington often takes an hour, but yeah, I don't think we're spending an above average amount of money on fuel.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by elconsulto

What are condo fees like in the city, and will they be negated by what we save in gas? we live a while north of nose hill.

Gas might not be enough but the gap will continue to shrink after you include: insurance, vehicle maintenance, and house maintenance.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Why do you keep driving to downtown? We have an excellent public transit system for work commutes, and there's plenty of retail where you live. I just wonder how someone could be burning hundreds of dollars a month (minimum condo fees, if you're not aware) unless you're driving multiple vehicles into downtown every day.

It's a bit of a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that your condo fees will almost certainly be more than your gasoline bill every month.

many condo fees cover heat, water and upkeep though. We have already been through this! And my electric bill is only 40 dollars.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by kw5150

many condo fees cover heat, water and upkeep though. We have already been through this! And my electric bill is only 40 dollars.

I think people are very short sighted on the condo fee issue. They think its just a wasted fee that leaves their wallet never to be seen again, with little to no benefit to them. Do SFH owners think they will never have to replace the boiler, or replace roofing components, and repair cracked driveways? And again time is not considered. How many people honestly cant name things they would rather do than maintain their homes on the weekend? I'll never have to clean out gutters, clear snow, repair windows, replace mechanical systems, maintain the landscapping etc.

I never understood the obsession of having a yard. Most people never use it, and spend 90% of their time maintaining it rather than enjoying it (unless of course you consider weeding, and mowing fun). If you have good parks around, they are infinetely better than a yard (I know, a big if). I live in bridgeland, and just outside my door I have the zoo, campbell hill, the soccer fields and surrounding green space, and not to mention the pathways by the river and hill side.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal choice, and we cant tell other people what they prefer, so my philosophy is if you want the SFH, pay for everything it takes to creat the SFH lifestyle.

[halifaxboyns]

Condo fees can cover a variety of things; depending on the property. If it's a high end property, more often than not the feel usually covers everything from Electricity, water to property taxes and a security and a door man!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

If you have good parks around, they are infinetely better than a yard (I know, a big if).

Great point. I wish that the parks department actually understood that urban parks are our backyards and that is what we use them for. Maybe they could put some money into them?

[suburb]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I think people are very short sighted on the condo fee issue. They think its just a wasted fee that leaves their wallet never to be seen again, with little to no benefit to them. Do SFH owners think they will never have to replace the boiler, or replace roofing components, and repair cracked driveways? And again time is not considered.

I've never lived in a house that is older than 15 years. Had I been in a condo for each of those three houses, I would have contributed many thousands for repairs that would not have been required at all within the period of my stay. I did have one hot water tank go on me once - I paid the $800 and moved on.

[fusili]

That was an amazing post. I am going to take photos of my place and draw a map of nearby amenities too.

But it doesn't matter, because you live where you want to live and I live where I want to live. You would probably never live where I live and the same for me. End of story.

[kw5150]

I think we all need a group hug

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

You would probably never live where I live and the same for me. End of story.

Wow, that post is a real breakthrough around here.