Sidewalks of Calgary

[J-D]

This one is my (least) favorite.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.04834...cq-tw2oFdQ!2e0

You get rental cars parked between the road and the building, incredibly uneven surfaces and a mix of concrete/asphalt, a tree, fire hydrant, a utility pole and a street light. Constantly cars flying out of the Telus parkade with 4 feet between the "sidewalk" and the parkade exit.

[93JC]

Hahahaha, oh goodness, cars parked on the sidewalk... Clue no. 1 you're near Chinatown.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by 93JC

Ugh, this is why people were calling you the anti-suburbia (the member). If you weren't being so inflammatory, hyperbolic and ignorant there wouldn't have been an issue.

That street wasn't "fully ceded to commuter traffic" and "designed with no local context". The local context changed. When the building on the east side of the street, the Lewis Stationary building, was built in 1910 there was no sidewalk. And the street itself was still just dirt.

The local context at the time was light industrial; warehouses. In fact there was a rail spur line running down what is now the alley in order to facilitate moving all of the goods that passed through those warehouses. The Lewis Stationary building was originally Ashdown Hardware's wholesale warehouse. The Impark lot at the corner of 2nd St and 10th Ave, across the alley, was International Harvester's warehouse. When that street was paved it was still warehouses. The street had to accommodate truck and farm implement traffic, so the street is extra wide.

This wasn't a "screw-up from generations past", it's a remnant of the area's history. You can thank me for the history lesson later.

In MasterG's defence, it's not untrue that many inner city streets as they currently exist (which as you pointed out, were designed long after the buildings) were designed primarily for auto-commuters. I'm sure it wasn't a malicious act against pedestrians or inner city dwellers; it was just trying to safely incorporate a new technology: automobiles.

Today, we have learned that the way things are is not necessarily the best way they can be. We've changed our streets over the years to reflect the contemporary needs: first to allow pedestrian, horse, and rail traffic; then incorporating cargo trucks and cars; and now as population and congestion increases, and as our sociological understanding of cities improves, we place a greater emphasis on pedestrians, cyclists, and inclusion. Certainly, a dangerously narrow sidewalk is not a historical remnant worth saving.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by 93JC

Ca. 1915:

Yo! Where can we get that bad-ass eagle!?

[DizzyEdge]

I was wondering the same thing.. wonder if it's in someone's garage somewhere. That and the topless amazon warrior women statue from the Memorial park library.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

In MasterG's defence, it's not untrue that many inner city streets as they currently exist (which as you pointed out, were designed long after the buildings) were designed primarily for auto-commuters. I'm sure it wasn't a malicious act against pedestrians or inner city dwellers; it was just trying to safely incorporate a new technology: automobiles.

Today, we have learned that the way things are is not necessarily the best way they can be. We've changed our streets over the years to reflect the contemporary needs: first to allow pedestrian, horse, and rail traffic; then incorporating cargo trucks and cars; and now as population and congestion increases, and as our sociological understanding of cities improves, we place a greater emphasis on pedestrians, cyclists, and inclusion.

Diversionary and irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with why that stretch of 2nd St is the way it is.

Certainly, a dangerously narrow sidewalk is not a historical remnant worth saving.

Yes, I agree, given the context of today that sidewalk should be widened.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Yo! Where can we get that bad-ass eagle!?

Find the right antiques auction. I'm sure it'll set you back a few thousand bucks.

[DizzyEdge]

http://www.wmstrcommunityforum.com/f...cases-at-wmstr

[DizzyEdge]

1962 colour photo

http://cdm280501.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref...1coll7/id/1867

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by 93JC

Diversionary and irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with why that stretch of 2nd St is the way it is.



Yes, I agree, given the context of today that sidewalk should be widened.

No offence, but talking about why it is the way it is, though interesting, is the irrelevant part.

Dizzy, I can't believe you found that so quickly. This is why I love the internet.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

No offence, but talking about why it is the way it is, though interesting, is the irrelevant part.

Have you ever wondered why people say "no offence" before saying something offensive?

This:

This is a street that is designed with no local context, it was fully ceded to commuter traffic even though it has minimal amounts of it. While there are plenty of examples of how my neighbourhood sacrifices local and resident interests for those living in the distant burbs, this street itself did so completely without the burbs ever requiring or demanding it to be sacrificed.

... is patently false, therefore irrelevant. I'm sure it's relevant to your interests and the opinion espoused fits very well with the rhetoric you're a fan of, but it's not relevant to 2nd Street SW between 10th and 11th Avenues in Calgary, Alberta.

[RyLucky]

ok, NOW it's diversionary and irrelevant.

Enough bickering. Do we all agree 2nd St sucks?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

In MasterG's defence, it's not untrue that many inner city streets as they currently exist (which as you pointed out, were designed long after the buildings) were designed primarily for auto-commuters. I'm sure it wasn't a malicious act against pedestrians or inner city dwellers; it was just trying to safely incorporate a new technology: automobiles.

This is the point I was trying to make - rather poorly by some individual's standards - but hey, it is the internet. You get what you pay for. Unless you are with Shaw and then you only get 25 days a month of what you pay for.

There is no conspiracy or "f-you" plan to screw over pedestrians. The collective decisions of many people doing what they thought was right (road engineers, planners etc.) led to a non-optimal outcome for our current needs. That is the reality of planning for anything, eventually your plan and standards are obsolete or no longer reflect reality. I think 2nd Street is a particularly good example of that.

This was always bound to happen as bureaucracy tends to lags behind economic and social realities of a particularly area. Demographics change far faster than the road standards do. Devoting this street as it has been to more space to cars is the result of that bureaucracy and system that promoted auto capacity over all else.

My specific complaint about how that street works in the current context is that not only is it not sufficient for pedestrians, it is not efficient for anyone. So much road space is wasted.

There have been some great posts on the history of this street and why it is the way it is. But that isn't what I was talking about (keep those posts coming though, because it is interesting). What I was trying to say was describing what this street is, not where it came from, and what specific issues need to be addressed here in the future. I never said stop everything and fix 2nd Street right now. However, by raising awareness of these sub-optimal outcomes the City and Roads Department has created, there is a better chance that updated policies can correct some of the structural injustices and imbalances against pedestrians that have been the norm for 50 years.

That - from my understanding - is the whole point of the Pedestrian Strategy, to give a voice to pedestrians typically not significantly considered in roads projects and provide guidelines so that future projects don't end up so inequitable and inaccessible by pedestrians. This is a move I applaud and will help make roads more equitable and safe in the future.

[speedog]

So to set the record straight for 2nd Street SW (south half) between 10th and 11th Avenues, the east sidewalk is approximately 52 inches wide which equates to about 1.32 meters. Just happened to be in the area after donating platelets and thought I'd check it out and just so everyone knows, I do believe it could use improving as it feels much narrower than it really is. That noted, the west sidewalk is considerably wider probably closer to 1.8 meters - never the less, I'd encourage those that travel that area on a frequent basis to contact their CA and/or councillor to express their concerns. Will it be fixed tomorrow, nope but making the CA and/or councillor aware is a great first step.

[Jimby]

Perhaps the City has wanted to improve the sidewalk on 2nd St and perhaps they expect the adjacent property owners to pay for the improvements and maybe the various owners of the Lewis Lofts perceive no value in paying for an improvement that doesn't necessarily provide anything to their units and have balked at having a surcharge added to their property taxes.
Pure conjecture on my part.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Jimby

Perhaps the City has wanted to improve the sidewalk on 2nd St and perhaps they expect the adjacent property owners to pay for the improvements and maybe the various owners of the Lewis Lofts perceive no value in paying for an improvement that doesn't necessarily provide anything to their units and have balked at having a surcharge added to their property taxes.
Pure conjecture on my part.

Interesting idea - looking at what it takes to get a local improvement started, which this most likely would be (CoC link
), I would say that you just might be onto something here. A look at the 2ns Street side of Lewis Lofts would appear to back your point up and even on 11th Avenue, I would dare say that there probably isn't much of an incentive for any Lewis Loft owner to support a local improvement there as well.

Very interesting as there's a number of older buildings that have been turned into condo living spaces in the Beltline where this could or probably is happening - Manhattan on 1st Street would be another great example where the individual owners probably don't care too much as to how liveable/useable the sidewalk is adjacent to their property as they wouldn't realize all that much benefit from it being improved, they either walk or drive into their building and their interaction with the sidewalk ends there. So it falls back to the CoC to improve this little section of sidewalk and the priority of that being pushed up is probably quite low.

[J-D]

This is a mix with transit infrastructure and sidewalks, but I've also never understood this kind of set up.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/611...8ca1c0!6m1!1e1

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by J-D

This is a mix with transit infrastructure and sidewalks, but I've also never understood this kind of set up.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/611...8ca1c0!6m1!1e1

A challenging place to provide space for bikes and for transit users, without increasing the width of the roadway. Ideal would be to have an island between the bike lane and the driving lane for transit users to wait. Of course having a sidewalk to get to/from the transit stop might be the best first step in this case.

[DizzyEdge]

I wonder if you could have a bypass bike lane go around the shelter, to only be used when there's a bus in the way?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I wonder if you could have a bypass bike lane go around the shelter, to only be used when there's a bus in the way?

Not sure that having two bike lanes would be necessary I would think you could move the bus stop beside the road and have the bike lane go around, treat it similar to the tram stops in Amsterdam.