nextCITY - Page 2

Fuzz · #21 Posted **Feb 6, 2015, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Functional study??? I thought the only thing this route required was the purchase of buses, signs and road paint.

Nothing involving Calgary Transit can happen faster than a 3 year timespan. It's in their charter.

Full Mountain · #22 Posted **Feb 6, 2015, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Functional study??? I thought the only thing this route required was the purchase of buses, signs and road paint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Nothing involving Calgary Transit can happen faster than a 3 year timespan. It's in their charter.

Lol, I believe the study is to determine where queue jumps are needed, stops should be placed, etc.

dazzlingdave88 · #23 Posted **Feb 6, 2015, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

I got someone else to present, I had yabbered the most during so I thought I'd let someone else have a chance. I was at the back table in SW corner (a west of 4th table), which section did you get (east or west)?

East of 4th....The President of Winston Height's CA was at my table.... he seemed like a really nice progressive guy. Had some great ideas.

Spring2008 · #24 Posted **May 9, 2015, 5:47 PM**

Another main streets session for 17th ave today from 2 - 4pm at western Canada high school. I like how the scope is Macleod all the way to 37 ST.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/PD/Pages/M...spx#mainst-top

*Stardust* · #25 Posted **May 10, 2015, 1:14 AM**

I'm surprised that there isn't a mainstreet workshop for 1st Street S.E from 17th ave to China Town.

Spring2008 · #26 Posted **May 11, 2015, 11:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

I'm surprised that there isn't a mainstreet workshop for 1st Street S.E from 17th ave to China Town.

I'm not sure why, but the main streets initiative doesn't cover anything within the City Centre. Think they should have.

Spring2008 · #27 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 12:08 AM**

Just discovered this new site, it's pretty awesome:

http://www.smartergrowth.ca/development

sim · #28 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 5:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Just discovered this new site, it's pretty awesome:

http://www.smartergrowth.ca/development

Nicely put together site, slightly dubious entity.

christmas · #29 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 3:06 AM**

So I heard they are factoring in the NEXT project for the potential bid for 2026 Calgary Olympics. Do you guys think it will be possible? Take a vote on the idea by the way!

http://calgarybuzz.com/2016/01/calga...-olympics-bid/

People.talking · #30 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by christmas

So I heard they are factoring in the NEXT project for the potential bid for 2026 Calgary Olympics. Do you guys think it will be possible? Take a vote on the idea by the way!

http://calgarybuzz.com/2016/01/calga...-olympics-bid/

would like to see the olympic games, but probably not going to happen

christmas · #31 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 3:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by People.talking

would like to see the olympic games, but probably not going to happen

Maybe the city does. The Olympic committee is looking for "safe bets" after what happened in Sochi.

People.talking · #32 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 3:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by christmas

Maybe the city does. The Olympic committee is looking for "safe bets" after what happened in Sochi.

we would save a lot of money on construction considering that we already have stuff built from the 88' games

Fuzz · #33 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 3:45 AM**

Unfortunately most of it is sub par for modern games. The ski jumps won't work, the oval is to small for spectators, we have no downhill facility etc.

I remember something about the Flames wanting to try to link this with a bid to get support and money, I think that was a few years ago, so not a new idea.

RyLucky · #34 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 10:38 AM**

Will Calgary get another Winter Olympics? One day, probably.

Is there a political will to put together a serious bid? Hmmm... I think Calgarians are too skeptical (ie. realistic) to spend millions of dollars on projects in the name of getting the Olympics again. As soon as there is talk of a bid, you can bet that we'll be told (mainly by profiting parties) that we need a new stadium, an LRT line, huge upgrades to COP and the Oval, an Olympic Village in West Village, improved airport transit, an overhaul of Nakiska...

Don't get me wrong; many of these things would be good for our city, but it's all a matter of timing and ensuring that the infrastructure improvements are viable and affordable in the long term. The benefits have to be to the city and its citizens, not only Flames owners and condo developers. I'm not sure the enthusiasm for this investment will be there in time for 2026, but maybe in the 2030s or 2040s. Calgary is getting more eyes on it all the time. I'm not certain the Olympics will do as much for us now as they did in '88. If we could host it in 2026 with only modest improvements to our existing infrastructure (higher ski-jump, Nakiska makeover, bobsled makeover, improvements to transit that we need anyway, an urban athlete's village that revitalizes a neighbourhood, modest improvement to training facilities - basically everything except a city-funded, billion-dollar, 19000person stadium with improved concession and box seats), I'd be all for it.

It's hard to separate any olympic bid from the stadium question. I'd say, we're not ready, but maybe in a few decades.

Fuzz · #35 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 1:45 PM**

The problem with Nakiska is it isn't high enough for a downhill. Even with the 1988 setup going to the top, it was barely good enough, and they wouldn't do it again. The parks are pretty dead set against having it there. So where do you do it? Build a new hill?

milomilo · #36 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 2:00 PM**

Because I have zero clue about the rules; what's wrong with using Sunshine or Louise?

Fuzz · #37 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 2:01 PM**

In the parks, and they have no interest in having that many people and an Olympic size event.

MichaelS · #38 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 2:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

In the parks, and they have no interest in having that many people and an Olympic size event.

We are discouraging people from using our national parks now? (serious question, in regards to this scenario).

googspecial · #39 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 2:40 PM**

Building a new hill would be incredibly expensive I imagine - but could be good long-term. You could have all those groups of people who take up whole runs on the other hills training at one facility instead. Get them out of the way so that people who go to Nakiska/Sunishine/Louise etc won't get in their way. Might be better to have permanently set up equipment on a separate hill for racing and the other events.

Fuzz · #40 Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 2:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelS

We are discouraging people from using our national parks now? (serious question, in regards to this scenario).

I think they see it as damaging to the parks. The mandate isn't to encourage use, its for protection. The ski hills have kind of an unwritten rule on how many people the parks want to have as a maximum, which is why they limit development and number of lifts/capacities. So with the crowds, buses, infrastructure, traffic etc that would go with an Olympic event, they see it as a threat to their protection mandate. Had someone proposed Sunshine or Lake Louise today, they would never get permission. I think originally for '88 they wanted it at Lake Louise(as that is where the world cups are) but it was shot down, so Nakiska was built.