Calgary Roads

[halifaxboyns]

I take it you didn't even read most of these. From the clickable versions:

"On just about any ground imaginable -- safety, congestion, pollution, and effects on most businesses -- one-way grids and one-way couplets are a superior method of moving people and vehicles. The idea that pedestrian-friendly design can be enhanced by creating more pedestrian-deadly environments is just a planning fantasy."

http://www.ti.org/vaupdate30.html

"Street conversions to two-way traffic should be based upon real and anticipated economic benefits, such as reduced vacancy rates, increased retail sales and employment, increased pedestrian activity, and/or increased property tax assessments. While a growing number of communities are opting for two-way traffic in their business districts and there is significant anecdotal evidence that positive changes occur after most street conversions, there has been limited research on actual retail sales and property value increases. More economic data is needed to support the economic benefits of these conversions."

http://www.preservationnation.org/main-street/main-street-news/2002/06/converting-one-way-to-two-way.html

The essays advocating for conversion are just that - essays. No data, no studies, no supporting evidence, just pie in the sky ideas about safety, economy, and pedestrian traffic. If we are going to do this we should demand better than that.

As a practicing urban planner - there are more studies, I have a few at home I'd have to find. But essentially Fusili is correct - high rents are not a bad thing at all. In fact traffic isn't a bad thing, it's pretty common sense.

Traffic shows people want to go to that area - they want to shop there and eat at restaurants. The commercial rent value is a factor of the success of a street - 17 Avenue for the most part is a success because of store owners that work hard to make their business do well, thus the higher rents. It also helps having a huge chunk of density within walking distance and many successful restaurants that people want to return too.

One way streets are designed simply to funnel traffic - that's it. They aren't there to encourage people to be a part of the neighbourhood, they push the traffic out of it.

Many of your issues are akin to the debate about putting bicycle dedicated lanes onto a street and business getting worried because of the loss of on street parking for the bicycle lanes. Does business not think that bicyclists don't shop?

The same issue was raised when Portland built their now famous streetcar. Many businesses felt it was going to cause no end of grief and kill them off - yet now, businesses are locating to the Pearl District BECAUSE of the streetcar. People use it to go shopping, just like any other form of transportation.

[geotag277]

Yes, and therefore high rents are a sign of a successful area. If businesses can afford high rents it means they are moving a tremendous volume of product. Businesses on 17th avenue move out because they just aren't doing good enough in a highly competitive market.

Look at Chinook mall. Rents there are the highest in the City. Is Chinook failing then? Is Chinook doing worse than Northland mall?

I understand retailers want low rents, who doesn't. But high rents have one massive benefit to lower rents: more customers.

A failing commercial strip is one where rents are plummeting, stores are vacant and pawn shops and predatory money lenders move in.

A landlord can charge whatever rent they want. Charging high rent is not necessarily a sign of more customers, better location, or anything tangible.

That said, there is a mechanism for arbitration whereby a business can claim the landlord is overcharging for rent. All that process does is evaluate comparable rents in the area, so it doesn't necessarily tell you anything except everyone else is also charging high rent.

Chinook mall is not exactly full of small businesses. I would say it's arguable if Chinook Mall is a positive impact on the Calgary business environment in general and is an example we should be trying to emulate at all. It also has it's fair share of tenants leaving over the years. Chinook mall also has sources for data:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Chinook+Centre+reaching+record+sales+heights/8218188/story.html

Rent is 1108 per square foot.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Nordstrom+Target+additions+push+Chinook+Centre+annual+sales+near+billion+mark/7236776/story.html

Annual sales 1 billion.

Find, show me the data for 17th avenue businesses.

The burden is on you to prove that businesses on 17th avenue are more successful if you are making that claim. Show me the numbers. So far all you've done is quote me a number of 60/sqft with no source.

This is the kind of questioning we should be demanding of city council if they are proposing a change like this. Hear say, he said she said, maybe possibly more profitable land lords - these are not good reasons to make the change.

[Calgarian]

Several restaurants in Kuzina, the coffee shop across Analog, La Vida Loca used to be Wild Wing, another restaurant by the way which closed down.

Show me the data. I don't want a quote from a random stranger on the internet about rental costs. I want to see a peer reviewed study that analyzing the rental cost of both locations, the revenue averages across avenues, and overall business turn over on both sections of the city.

By the way, it's a bit strange to say that on it's own having high rental costs is a positive thing. Having high rental costs makes it harder for a business to survive, increases costs to customers, and generally only benefits the landlord. Sure, if you're in the landlord business I can see why pretending 17th avenue is better for retail businesses can allow you to charge more rent, but on it's own the number is pretty meaningless.

Are you actually arguing that 17th ave isn't far, far more successful than 11th? All you have to do is walk or drive down both streets and you can see that 17th absolutely kills 11th, no contest. I don't know what effect being a 1 way has had on 11th (was Electric Ave 1 or 2 way traffic?), but it obviously has much less demand for space than 17th, hence the rents are higher. If you can't afford to go to stores and restaurants on 17th, then go to another street.

[geotag277]

Not trying to be picky but how relevant is data from a 38 year old study?

More relevant than the opinion of a City Councillor I'd say. It might not be the greatest, but it's something. Should we just throw out all sources of studies just because they are old and shoot from the hip instead?

[Calgarian]

A landlord can charge whatever rent they want. Charging high rent is not necessarily a sign of more customers, better location, or anything tangible.
Of course it is. If a landlord decided to raise rents on a street where there isn't the demand for their space, then no one would pay the rent and the space would sit empty, this is capitalism after all.

[geotag277]

The commercial rent value is a factor of the success of a street - 17 Avenue for the most part is a success because of store owners that work hard to make their business do well, thus the higher rents. It also helps having a huge chunk of density within walking distance and many successful restaurants that people want to return too.

So 17th avenue store owners work hard, 11th avenue store owners are lazy?

Again, no one has shown any data that shows businesses on 17th avenue are more successful. We should be making fact based decisions, not "hey, I walk around 17th and it seems pretty busy, let's emulate this everywhere". I will again say there are plenty of businesses on 17th avenue that have failed, and I haven't seen any body provide evidence that shows one avenue has more turn over and business success than the other.

[geotag277]

Are you actually arguing that 17th ave isn't far, far more successful than 11th? All you have to do is walk or drive down both streets and you can see that 17th absolutely kills 11th, no contest. I don't know what effect being a 1 way has had on 11th (was Electric Ave 1 or 2 way traffic?), but it obviously has much less demand for space than 17th, hence the rents are higher. If you can't afford to go to stores and restaurants on 17th, then go to another street.

17th avenue has had a 3-4 decades long revitalization plan with the specific goal of encouraging businesses to open there. 11th and 12th avenue haven't had the same effort put into them. Give businesses time to move into the new and opening retail frontages that are being built along 11th and 12th avenue. Encourage developers to build retail frontages comparable to 17th avenue.

I get it, people want more and better businesses to open along 11th and 12th. That is going to take time, and some businesses that open there will be wildly successful, some will fail. Just like 17th avenue. The city could be doing any number of things to encourage a business environment on those streets.

Trying to encourage business development by screwing up the traffic flow and increasing congestion is not the answer.

[Calgarian]

17th avenue has had a 3-4 decades long revitalization plan with the specific goal of encouraging businesses to open there. 11th and 12th avenue haven't had the same effort put into them. Give businesses time to move into the new and opening retail frontages that are being built along 11th and 12th avenue. Encourage developers to build retail frontages comparable to 17th avenue.

I get it, people want more and better businesses to open along 11th and 12th. That is going to take time, and some businesses that open there will be wildly successful, some will fail. Just like 17th avenue. The city could be doing any number of things to encourage a business environment on those streets.

Trying to encourage business development by screwing up the traffic flow and increasing congestion is not the answer.

As rents on 17th continue to get higher, you will see some of the smaller retailers that can't afford the rents move to other streets like 8St or 11th ave, so they can benefit each other.

[geotag277]

Of course it is. If a landlord decided to raise rents on a street where there isn't the demand for their space, then no one would pay the rent and the space would sit empty, this is capitalism after all.

There are plenty of empty retail stores on 17th avenue. My point is simply that whatever a land lord charges for rent doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that store's customer traffic or likely success. High rent is an absolute small business killer. Once you hit the levels of for example Chinook Mall say goodbye to any small stores trying to move into the area. Pretending that high rent is always and forever a positive thing is misguided.

Besides that, no one has given any source for showing that 17th avenue does charge higher rent than 11th avenue. No one has provided a revenue per square foot comparison. No one has shown one street has more business turn over than the other. If anything from memory, I seem to recall far more stores closes on 17th avenue than 11th.

[geotag277]

As rents on 17th continue to get higher, you will see some of the smaller retailers that can't afford the rents move to other streets like 8St or 11th ave, so they can benefit each other.

Again, is this a positive thing? Forcing businesses out? Likely they will have to move further and further away from the city, not closer.

[mersar]

Highlights from the Beltline ARP:


7.5.4 11 and 12 Avenues

This plan recognizes that the conversion of 11 and 12 Avenues from one-way to two-way can provide many benefits to the community and local business. Benefits include enhancing pedestrian comfort and mobility, improving retail and business vitality and improving local access for vehicles and cyclists. However, the conversion can result in an unacceptable loss of mobility for regional commuter traffic, given the role 11 and 12 Avenues play in the regional transportation network.

Over time, as other transportation-related initiatives are implemented, the impact of the conversion on commuter mobility may be mitigated. Examples of those initiatives include, but are not limited to, increased transit service to and from the west, new LRT connections to the west and the southeast, an underpass connecting Olympic Way to 4 Street S.E., a flyover from the west connecting to 5 Avenue in the downtown and the creation of a full, signalized intersection at 10 Avenue and 14 Street S.W. These types of improvements may eventually allow the conversion to take place with minimal disruption to commuter traffic.

[fusili]

A landlord can charge whatever rent they want. Charging high rent is not necessarily a sign of more customers, better location, or anything tangible.

That said, there is a mechanism for arbitration whereby a business can claim the landlord is overcharging for rent. All that process does is evaluate comparable rents in the area, so it doesn't necessarily tell you anything except everyone else is also charging high rent.

Chinook mall is not exactly full of small businesses. I would say it's arguable if Chinook Mall is a positive impact on the Calgary business environment in general and is an example we should be trying to emulate at all. It also has it's fair share of tenants leaving over the years. Chinook mall also has sources for data:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Chinook+Centre+reaching+record+sales+heights/8218188/story.html

Rent is 1108 per square foot.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Nordstrom+Target+additions+push+Chinook+Centre+annual+sales+near+billion+mark/7236776/story.html

Annual sales 1 billion.

Find, show me the data for 17th avenue businesses.

The burden is on you to prove that businesses on 17th avenue are more successful if you are making that claim. Show me the numbers. So far all you've done is quote me a number of 60/sqft with no source.

This is the kind of questioning we should be demanding of city council if they are proposing a change like this. Hear say, he said she said, maybe possibly more profitable land lords - these are not good reasons to make the change.

Jesus. Landlords can't charge whatever rent they want. If they charge too high, they won't get tenants. Do you know how a market works?

The $60 came from a report from Colliers I think. I will have to dig it up again.

EDIT- Here is a link: http://www.retail-insider.com/2013/10/canadas-top-retail-rents-all-lower-than.html

[Calgarian]

Again, is this a positive thing? Forcing businesses out? Likely they will have to move further and further away from the city, not closer.

I would say it is a positive thing, 17th is a very successful street despite having the highest rents (but pales in comparison to Robson in Vancouver, Bloor in Toronto or Ste. Catherines in Montreal). http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Calgary+streets+among+Canada+priciest+shopping+strips/9016360/story.html

Like I said, if businesses want to be in the area and can't afford the rent on 17th, they will look for another place and this creates an opportunity for other streets in the area (11th and 12Aves, 1st, 8st, 11st, 14st...). How is this not a good thing?

[Calgarian]

Highlights from the Beltline ARP:

Thanks for posting that, good to see they are looking at it from both sides.

[fusili]

Geotag, look, I know this has got you worked up, but 17th has the highest retail rents in Calgary (street front). I have worked with several landlords and tenants on the street, as I have with businesses on 11th (and many other commercial streets in the city). Rent on 17th is the highest. See the link above.

[mersar]

Thanks for posting that, good to see they are looking at it from both sides.

Yep. Thats been the wording in the ARP since it was approved. The community association has long pushed for two way conversion and while I can't find it right now, I actually believe that the West LRT land use study also recommended it once the West LRT was opened.

[speedog]

More relevant than the opinion of a City Councillor I'd say. It might not be the greatest, but it's something. Should we just throw out all sources of studies just because they are old and shoot from the hip instead?
No, but there are probably some more timely studies out there. All I'm saying is that if we rely on 38 year old studies, then we could very well be taking a step backwards - would you be confident that a 38 year old medical study would be all that relevant considering the advances we've seen over those 38 years?

In the past 38 years and especially in the past 5 or so years, pedestrians and vehicle operators have become a much more distracted lot - 38 years ago, there were no hand-held distractions such as cell phones, tablets, video players, game players and now it is not uncommon to see many pedestrians and vehicle operators totally zoned out on a device while they are walking/driving. So tell me again how relevant that 38 year old study really is?

[artvandelay]

Steering this away from retail rent discussion (higher rents are obviously a sign of a more desirable area)....

Here:

Ted Brovitz, Converting Downtown Streets from One-Way to Two-Way Yields Positive Results, The Urban Transportation Monitor (2000)."]Ted Brovitz, Converting Downtown Streets from One-Way to Two-Way Yields Positive Results, The Urban Transportation Monitor (2000)

Meagan Elizabeth Baco, One-way to Two-way Street Conversions as a Preservation and Downtown Revitalization Tool: The Case Study of Upper King Street, Charleston, South Carolina (M.Sc. Thesis, Historic Preservation, Graduate School of Clemson University and the Graduate School of the College of Charleston, May 2009).

G. Wade Walker, Walter M. Kulash, and Brian T. McHugh, Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks? TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium (1999), 5. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf

Thoreau Institute, Should Cities Convert One-Way Streets to Two Way?, The Vanishing Automobile 30, 29 October 2008. http://www.ti.org/vaupdate30.html

Walker, Kulash, and McHugh, Downtown Streets, 5. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf

John D. Edwards, Converting One-Way Streets to Two-Way: Managing Traffic on Main Street (Washington, D.C.: The National Trust's Main Street Center, 2002). http://www.preservationnation.org/main-street/main-street-news/2002/06/converting-one-way-to-two-way.html

I took a look at most of these last night, and they provide nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Find me a study that shows a material increase in retail sales per square foot on a street that has been converted from one-way and you might have a point. Not only that, but most of the studies I have found focus on American cities with dead downtowns which are in no way comparable to Calgary. With the amount of activity we have in our inner sityy, we are much more comparable to coastal cities like Portland or European cities (which have an abundance of one way roads) than most of the US cities mentioned.

Also, did you read the Thoreau Institute article? Because it entirely contradicts what you are saying. This is the conclusion:
On just about any ground imaginable -- safety, congestion, pollution, and effects on most businesses -- one-way grids and one-way couplets are a superior method of moving people and vehicles.

[kw5150]

Well this is a boat-load of crazy.

1. 2 way streets seem to increase PEDESTRIAN street vibrancy.
2. People drive faster, more frequently along 1 way streets. I would know, our office is wedged between 11th and 12th and people FLY by all day.
3. Certain things can be implemented on 1 way street to make them feel more like 2 way streets (traffic calming, tree planting etc.......)
4. I would rather walk a 2 way street ANYDAY over a 1-way, plain and simple.
5. I dont know how effective 11th and 12th would be as 2 way streets. I will leave that up to the experts.
6. I would rather see 9th ave converted to a two way!!!! That way people can drive by the palliser and calgary tower in both directions.

How about this little tidbit of thought. The councilor wants to convert 17th ave to a one way......and 15th or 16 as well in the other direction......See how aweful that sounds already???

As far as I know, the great streets are almost always 2 ways, except for stephen ave.....wait, I would love that to be a 2 way as well.......if it could fit.

[geotag277]

Jesus. Landlords can't charge whatever rent they want. If they charge too high, they won't get tenants. Do you know how a market works?

The $60 came from a report from Colliers I think. I will have to dig it up again.

EDIT- Here is a link: http://www.retail-insider.com/2013/10/canadas-top-retail-rents-all-lower-than.html

If you want to claim the higher rents on 17th avenue lead to more successful businesses, show me the data that supports that. Anecdotally from memory, more businesses fail on 17th avenue than anywhere else in the city.

Land lords can charge whatever they want, especially if they are marketing a "trendy hip" location like 17th avenue. It attracts a small business, the small business gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt largely paying rent, and a couple years later fails after rent hikes, debt interest, and unfulfilled promises of customer traffic.

I work with small businesses in a retail environment. I am intimately familiar with the financial realities of this. Trying to spin a 8% rate increase as a positive thing has me shaking my head.

An 8% increase in one year means a business was paying about $60 a square foot last year and $65 this year. For a 500 sqft retail space, tiny by most standards, rent just went form 30000 a month to 325000 a month. That's 25k a month skimmed right off the top of a businesses' profit.

And you are trying to spin this as a positive? There is no proof yet that the businesses there can sustain that kind of increase. Let's give it time.

[geotag277]

I took a look at most of these last night, and they provide nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Find me a study that shows a material increase in retail sales per square foot on a street that has been converted from one-way and you might have a point. Not only that, but most of the studies I have found focus on American cities with dead downtowns which are in no way comparable to Calgary. With the amount of activity we have in our inner sityy, we are much more comparable to coastal cities like Portland or European cities (which have an abundance of one way roads) than most of the US cities mentioned.

The only studies I've seen which support 2 way streets increase retail traffic have been correlated with huge urban redevelopment programs. So 2 way street conversions tagged along with adding tens of thousands of living units and dozens of retail frontages. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that 2 way streets in that scenario had any benefit whatsoever.

The fact is, it comes down to successful businesses opening their doors and attracting customers and foot traffic, retail frontages supporting a string of businesses, and more pedestrian traffic in the area due to living units. All these things take time, and 11 and 12 avenue are moving in those directions already.

[ByeByeBaby]

If you want to claim the higher rents on 17th avenue lead to more successful businesses, show me the data that supports that. Anecdotally from memory, more businesses fail on 17th avenue than anywhere else in the city.

Do you have any data to back up your assertion that businesses on 17th are in general more successful then businesses on 11/12? Where is the data showing higher average retail rents and less turn over?


Should we maybe just let you argue this out with yourself for a while first? Anecdotes are good, except when they aren't. Politicians don't study first, except that's what they're doing.

[Calgarian]

If you want to claim the higher rents on 17th avenue lead to more successful businesses, show me the data that supports that. Anecdotally from memory, more businesses fail on 17th avenue than anywhere else in the city.

Land lords can charge whatever they want, especially if they are marketing a "trendy hip" location like 17th avenue. It attracts a small business, the small business gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt largely paying rent, and a couple years later fails after rent hikes, debt interest, and unfulfilled promises of customer traffic.

I work with small businesses in a retail environment. I am intimately familiar with the financial realities of this. Trying to spin a 8% rate increase as a positive thing has me shaking my head.

An 8% increase in one year means a business was paying about $60 a square foot last year and $65 this year. For a 500 sqft retail space, tiny by most standards, rent just went form 30000 a month to 325000 a month. That's 25k a month skimmed right off the top of a businesses' profit.

And you are trying to spin this as a positive? There is no proof yet that the businesses there can sustain that kind of increase. Let's give it time.

You should check your math, a 8% increase is $2500, not $25000. And if a business can't make a profit on an expensive street, then maybe they should have done better research before moving in so as to ensure they can be profitable. 17th isn't the only option, so like I said, having high rents on that street makes others more attractive. I like how you ignore that point.

Anyway, this thread is about roads not retail, so I digress.

[geotag277]

Should we maybe just let you argue this out with yourself for a while first? Anecdotes are good, except when they aren't. Politicians don't study first, except that's what they're doing.

My point with the anecdotes is that they can be argued either way. It's not a basis for implementing a public policy and spending tax dollars on a project that is likely only to have one net negative affect (congestion). I'm not arguing that 17th avenue is definitely a model we shouldn't follow, I'm arguing that it's not clear 17th avenue is a successful model we should follow.

[fusili]

Geotag: I am at a complete loss for words when you can't understand that increased rents mean more successful business. This does not mean every business will thrive or that high rent environment works for all businesses, especially small businesses trying to get a start. That is what low-rent environments are for. If you are a small business just starting and don't have brand recognition or a large existing customer base and don't have the capital to stick it out in a high rent environment for long enough to build sales volume, don't go to a high rent district. But if you are global chain and you are moving into a new market, there is no better place to go. Zara, H&M and other big retailers don't seek out low-rent districts, they seek out high rent districts where they can have massive exposure.

Saying that the avenue is not successful because businesses can't compete in the high rent market is like saying the Olympic Basketball team sucks because a bunch of bad players were cut.

But you don't seem to understand this basic principle of economics, so I'll stop trying to argue with you.

[fusili]

Tracked one down. Peer reviewed article in Transport Research Record. This is a link to an article summarizing the article: http://www.uctc.net/access/41/access41-2way.pdf

Contrary to conventional wisdom and design handbooks, two-way networks are often
more efficient than one-way networks. Even though two-way networks may provide lower
vehicle-moving capacities, they can, in some cases, serve trips at a higher rate. This
trip-serving capacity is a better metric for predicting network performance during peak
periods. When trips are short, two-way networks that allow conflicting turning maneuvers
have higher trip-serving capacities than one-way networks because the additional circuity
in one-way networks offsets the more efficient intersection control. Two-way networks are
more competitive as the length of the signal cycle increases. Additionally, two-way
networks that ban left turns can always serve trips at a higher rate. While both strategies
eliminate conflicting turning maneuvers, two-way networks with banned left turns impose
less circuity than one-way networks.

The main contention in the study is that while one ways increase flow, they also require longer trips. If the increased flow (number of vehicles per direction per hour) is off-set by the increased distance, than the "trip serving capacity" can be reduced. This gets a lot into the metrics of how traffic is measured (which I am always interested to learn about).

[halifaxboyns]

I would say it is a positive thing, 17th is a very successful street despite having the highest rents (but pales in comparison to Robson in Vancouver, Bloor in Toronto or Ste. Catherines in Montreal). http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Calgary+streets+among+Canada+priciest+shopping+strips/9016360/story.html

Like I said, if businesses want to be in the area and can't afford the rent on 17th, they will look for another place and this creates an opportunity for other streets in the area (11th and 12Aves, 1st, 8st, 11st, 14st...). How is this not a good thing?

Agreed - reality of the market is that as an area becomes more 'hip/trendy' and people want to be there or move there, rents go up. Same with rents for residential and condo prices - that's the way the markets work.

Businesses that do well and work hard at retaining clients and attracting new ones can handle the rent increases to a point or overall. But smaller businesses that might not be doing well, the will leave. That's reality - that's what happens everyday. Is @geotag277 saying that doesn't happen?

[artvandelay]

4. I would rather walk a 2 way street ANYDAY over a 1-way, plain and simple.


Would you rather walk on 10th Avenue, which is lacking a sidewalk on several stretches - or 11th Ave, which is a one way, but does have a proper sidewalk?

[MasterG]

Would you rather walk on 10th Avenue, which is lacking a sidewalk on several stretches - or 11th Ave, which is a one way, but does have a proper sidewalk?

I wouldn't walk on either (although I do everyday). they are both terrible experiences for pedestrians. 10th has the added danger of worse lighting and a dumb amount uncontrolled intersections where apparently a pedestrians crossing is a startling experience that almost results in an accident most of the time.

I would take signals at all 10th ave intersections with 50-50 cycle times and actual sidewalks as my number one improvement in the area. I assume that sidewalks aren't too much to ask for between the highest-density employment centre and high-density residential area that are within walking distance of each other. You'd think that it would be something easy to get support for :shrug:

[Calgarian]

I wouldn't walk on either (although I do everyday). they are both terrible experiences for pedestrians. 10th has the added danger of worse lighting and a dumb amount uncontrolled intersections where apparently a pedestrians crossing is a startling experience that almost results in an accident most of the time.

I would take signals at all 10th ave intersections with 50-50 cycle times and actual sidewalks as my number one improvement in the area. I assume that sidewalks aren't too much to ask for between the highest-density employment centre and high-density residential area that are within walking distance of each other. You'd think that it would be something easy to get support for :shrug:

Didn't the city put in asphalt sidewalks all along 10th in 2012 for the 100th Stampede?

[fusili]

I wouldn't walk on either (although I do everyday). they are both terrible experiences for pedestrians. 10th has the added danger of worse lighting and a dumb amount uncontrolled intersections where apparently a pedestrians crossing is a startling experience that almost results in an accident most of the time.

I would take signals at all 10th ave intersections with 50-50 cycle times and actual sidewalks as my number one improvement in the area. I assume that sidewalks aren't too much to ask for between the highest-density employment centre and high-density residential area that are within walking distance of each other. You'd think that it would be something easy to get support for :shrug:

10th is terrible. Missing a sidewalk in most places. No pedestrian crossings or hell, even crosswalks. If I were Woolley, my focus would be on putting in sidewalks and crosswalks on 10th avenue first rather than the two-way conversion.

[Ramsayfarian]

Didn't the city put in asphalt sidewalks all along 10th in 2012 for the 100th Stampede?

I know they paved the north side of 10th, just west of 1st SW.

I think I've found a solution to Calgary's gridlock. We just need to build a bunch of these:
http://i.imgur.com/ZU4bQA3.jpg

[MalcolmTucker]

Well this is a boat-load of crazy.

1. 2 way streets seem to increase PEDESTRIAN street vibrancy.
2. People drive faster, more frequently along 1 way streets. I would know, our office is wedged between 11th and 12th and people FLY by all day.
3. Certain things can be implemented on 1 way street to make them feel more like 2 way streets (traffic calming, tree planting etc.......)
4. I would rather walk a 2 way street ANYDAY over a 1-way, plain and simple.
5. I dont know how effective 11th and 12th would be as 2 way streets. I will leave that up to the experts.
6. I would rather see 9th ave converted to a two way!!!! That way people can drive by the palliser and calgary tower in both directions.

How about this little tidbit of thought. The councilor wants to convert 17th ave to a one way......and 15th or 16 as well in the other direction......See how aweful that sounds already???

As far as I know, the great streets are almost always 2 ways, except for stephen ave.....wait, I would love that to be a 2 way as well.......if it could fit.
You know what plan fixed downtown's road network to allow for two ways on 9th, 11th, and 12th? The Bow Trail connector, which realigned westbound Bow with 4th Ave, and east bound with 5th Ave.

I wonder if we could get anything close to the realignment built as part of the west end redevelopment and an LRT tunnel. Don't really need the free way elements proposed in the 80s.

[MasterG]

10th is terrible. Missing a sidewalk in most places. No pedestrian crossings or hell, even crosswalks. If I were Woolley, my focus would be on putting in sidewalks and crosswalks on 10th avenue first rather than the two-way conversion.

the Beltline could use some refocusing on pedestrians. Not all streets need the glacial-paced Greenway project, although it looks good and will be a great addition to the community. I don't think Woolley will be silent for long on proposing pedestrian improvements throughout the area either.

[Calgarian]

10th is terrible. Missing a sidewalk in most places. No pedestrian crossings or hell, even crosswalks. If I were Woolley, my focus would be on putting in sidewalks and crosswalks on 10th avenue first rather than the two-way conversion.

Do you really want the city to spend a pile of money building sidewalks that could easily get ripped up within 5 years? I'd be cool with asphalt, but that's it.

I know they did quite a bit in 2012, not sure how far they went as I never walk down 10th, just know they did the lot between 1st and 2nd SE and the lot between 1st and 2nd St SW.

[fusili]

Do you really want the city to spend a pile of money building sidewalks that could easily get ripped up within 5 years? I'd be cool with asphalt, but that's it.

I know they did quite a bit in 2012, not sure how far they went as I never walk down 10th, just know they did the lot between 1st and 2nd SE and the lot between 1st and 2nd St SW.

Do the sidewalks necessarily get demolished with new construction? I guess wiht 10th avenue, it is the only sidewalk, so it would be used for staging etc. So yeah, maybe the simplest sidewalks possible, but at least put something in there.

[MasterG]

Do you really want the city to spend a pile of money building sidewalks that could easily get ripped up within 5 years? I'd be cool with asphalt, but that's it.

I know they did quite a bit in 2012, not sure how far they went as I never walk down 10th, just know they did the lot between 1st and 2nd SE and the lot between 1st and 2nd St SW.

That "ripped up in 5 years" clock has been ticking on 10th and 9th avenue for 25 years and counting...

[Ramsayfarian]

Do you really want the city to spend a pile of money building sidewalks that could easily get ripped up within 5 years? I'd be cool with asphalt, but that's it.

I know they did quite a bit in 2012, not sure how far they went as I never walk down 10th, just know they did the lot between 1st and 2nd SE and the lot between 1st and 2nd St SW.

Look at the all money The City spent on fixing up the roads and sidewalks in the East Village. I'm pretty sure once construction is finished, all those paving stones will have to be replaced.

[Calgarian]

Look at the all money The City spent on fixing up the roads and sidewalks in the East Village. I'm pretty sure once construction is finished, all those paving stones will have to be replaced.

Good point. I think they did it in the East Village just to get the ball rolling so maybe a bit apples and oranges though.

That "ripped up in 5 years" clock has been ticking on 10th and 9th avenue for 25 years and counting...
True, but we are finally starting to see things happen along 10th, so I really don't think the city should do any more than just pave it all with asphalt.

Do the sidewalks necessarily get demolished with new construction? I guess wiht 10th avenue, it is the only sidewalk, so it would be used for staging etc. So yeah, maybe the simplest sidewalks possible, but at least put something in there.

They would get damaged at the very least. Bringing sidewalks up to city standards is a requirement of any DP anyway, so unless the sidewalk is in great shape after the buildings are finished, they will need to be replaced anyway.

[Full Mountain]

Good point. I think they did it in the East Village just to get the ball rolling so maybe a bit apples and oranges though.


True, but we are finally starting to see things happen along 10th, so I really don't think the city should do any more than just pave it all with asphalt.



They would get damaged at the very least. Bringing sidewalks up to city standards is a requirement of any DP anyway, so unless the sidewalk is in great shape after the buildings are finished, they will need to be replaced anyway.

Isn't replacing it the responsibility of the developer? Or at least through some payment to the community development fund?

[geotag277]

Geotag: I am at a complete loss for words when you can't understand that increased rents mean more successful business.

The logic is simply backwards. Increased rents are correlated with more successful retail, but increased rents don't cause more successful businesses. You can't just look at Chinook Centre and Robson Street and say "let's raise rent since increasing rent is a sure fire way to have a successful retail location".

No, it doesn't work like that. 17th avenue doesn't have ANY history of prolonged sustained success. There have been numerous, numerous businesses closed on that street (Chiasso Coffee, Wild Wings, several restaurants in Kuzina, etc. etc. etc.). Just because you see increased rental price increases doesn't mean anything at all. Especially when land lords just hiked rents up by 8% which can be devastating for a small business owner.

17th doesn't have high profile stores. They don't have H&M and international investment like Robson or Chinook. The big money on 17th is the banks and the mobile stores. The rest is the smattering of small businesses which really make the street what it is today.

At some point, high rents might make sense on 17th avenue, but it has certainly not proven that out at this point in 2014.

Finally, how does high rents on 17th relate to anything? Where is the evidence that shows 17th has high rents because it is a two way street? The way I see it, 17th has high rent for several incidental reasons and not due to being two way.

It is helped by a good proximity to Lower Mount Royal and was a key focus of the Lower Mount Royal redevelopment plan. It has several stable tenants that people need to visit regularly (banks). A combination of these factors cause good long term stability and focused investment - a winning combination that should be used by 11th and 12th avenue before we consider their traffic flow.

[geotag277]

Tracked one down. Peer reviewed article in Transport Research Record. This is a link to an article summarizing the article: http://www.uctc.net/access/41/access41-2way.pdf



The main contention in the study is that while one ways increase flow, they also require longer trips. If the increased flow (number of vehicles per direction per hour) is off-set by the increased distance, than the "trip serving capacity" can be reduced. This gets a lot into the metrics of how traffic is measured (which I am always interested to learn about).

We should be very clear about the reasons for doing a two way conversion. Mr City Councillor has said the reason to do it is economic development of the retail area, not to improve traffic flow. He actually said he doesn't care if traffic flow is impacted.

We shouldn't start with a project (convert everything to two way streets) and work backwards to justify the arbitrary decision. We should have a good reason for doing it (economic retail development) and justify how it would improve the area in that context.

The justification for doing it for economic retail development reasons is missing.

[Rusty van Reddick]

I doubt we'll ever see a study. The philosophy with politicians is spend tax dollars first, ask questions later.

This is just nonsense. You're so wrong it's incredible.

[Fuzz]

10th street sidewalks from 8th st to 14 th SW really suck. Most sections are poorly shoveled and in poor condition. Strangely one of the worst cleared sections right now is in front of the fire station. Lots of ice from water(perhaps maintenance?) and no snow clearing...I would have thought the fire dept would have the clearest section of sidewalk in the city...

Stuff like this blows my mind, downtown

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.044011,-114.08658&spn=0.017241,0.049567&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.044013,-114.086742&panoid=vsjZhbtJ2ap0CRSP-FBTkw&cbp=12,320.62,,0,22.13

[geotag277]

This is just nonsense. You're so wrong it's incredible.

It was an inflammatory exaggeration. But we'll see, going by the city council's handling of the whole secondary suites issue I don't have much hope. It's not like there aren't a laundry list of examples where projects were funded or proposed without solid evidence. Personally if something like this is proposed, I hope the population demands at least some evidence or support. Judging by what people are accepting here as fact is not a good sign.

[ByeByeBaby]

The logic is simply backwards. Increased rents are correlated with more successful retail, but increased rents don't cause more successful businesses. You can't just look at Chinook Centre and Robson Street and say "let's raise rent since increasing rent is a sure fire way to have a successful retail location".

No, it doesn't work like that. 17th avenue doesn't have ANY history of prolonged sustained success. There have been numerous, numerous businesses closed on that street (Chiasso Coffee, Wild Wings, several restaurants in Kuzina, etc. etc. etc.). Just because you see increased rental price increases doesn't mean anything at all. Especially when land lords just hiked rents up by 8% which can be devastating for a small business owner.

17th doesn't have high profile stores. They don't have H&M and international investment like Robson or Chinook. The big money on 17th is the banks and the mobile stores. The rest is the smattering of small businesses which really make the street what it is today.

At some point, high rents might make sense on 17th avenue, but it has certainly not proven that out at this point in 2014.

Finally, how does high rents on 17th relate to anything? Where is the evidence that shows 17th has high rents because it is a two way street? The way I see it, 17th has high rent for several incidental reasons and not due to being two way.

It is helped by a good proximity to Lower Mount Royal and was a key focus of the Lower Mount Royal redevelopment plan. It has several stable tenants that people need to visit regularly (banks). A combination of these factors cause good long term stability and focused investment - a winning combination that should be used by 11th and 12th avenue before we consider their traffic flow.

Wow, so:

Banks are the major traffic drivers in an area. (This is why Barclay, with the plethora of banks, is so much more vital than Stephen Ave - especially in the blocks east of the ATB, where there are no banks at all.)
The high rents on 17th are entirely unrelated to whether or not it is a successful retail corridor.
Three restaurants closing in a mile long strip proves that the strip isn't successful (and has nothing to do with the fact that 60% of restaurants fail within three years).
Proximity to LMR (3200 people) created a thriving retail district; proximity to the Beltline (20,200 people) is irrelevant.
The LMR redevelopment plan is vital to the success of 17th, but the Beltline redevelopment plan (which suggests two way conversion at this point) is irrelevant.

Well, you're certainly... confident in your beliefs.

[geotag277]

Wow, so:
Banks are the major traffic drivers in an area. (This is why Barclay, with the plethora of banks, is so much more vital than Stephen Ave - especially in the blocks east of the ATB, where there are no banks at all.)


No, banks are the most stable tenants on the strip, and they stabilize the retail environment. I explicitly said the non-bank businesses are what make the street what it is today with the street traffic. Those businesses are at risk with 8% rate hikes.

The high rents on 17th are entirely unrelated to whether or not it is a successful retail corridor.

No, my point was it's too early to say whether it will be a successful business corridor with historically high rental rates.

Three restaurants closing in a mile long strip proves that the strip isn't successful (and has nothing to do with the fact that 60% of restaurants fail within three years).

Shouldn't restaurants on 17th avenue do better if it is such a good location? I'm not arguing 17th is a bad model, only that it is unproven and it's record as a beacon of retail success is not as clear cut as some people make it out to be.

Proximity to LMR (3200 people) created a thriving retail district; proximity to the Beltline (20,200 people) is irrelevant.

Loyal Mount Royal contributed in so much as it included 17th avenue in a major redevelopment plan in the area starting in 1988. The Beltline doesn't have the same investment yet.

The LMR redevelopment plan is vital to the success of 17th, but the Beltline redevelopment plan (which suggests two way conversion at this point) is irrelevant.

The LMR plan took 3 decades to execute. People are expecting the Beltline to get there within 3 years. It takes time, and it takes a very long time for retail space to be vended to new businesses that can thrive. You can't force things by investing in congestion.

Well, you're certainly... confident in your beliefs.

You are certainly good at misinterpreting someone. Hint: if something sounds insane, it's probably not what I originally intended to mean. I am not the most eloquent writer obviously, but thanks for having the benefit of the doubt :shrug:

[fusili]

The logic is simply backwards. Increased rents are correlated with more successful retail, but increased rents don't cause more successful businesses. You can't just look at Chinook Centre and Robson Street and say "let's raise rent since increasing rent is a sure fire way to have a successful retail location".

No, it doesn't work like that. 17th avenue doesn't have ANY history of prolonged sustained success. There have been numerous, numerous businesses closed on that street (Chiasso Coffee, Wild Wings, several restaurants in Kuzina, etc. etc. etc.). Just because you see increased rental price increases doesn't mean anything at all. Especially when land lords just hiked rents up by 8% which can be devastating for a small business owner.

17th doesn't have high profile stores. They don't have H&M and international investment like Robson or Chinook. The big money on 17th is the banks and the mobile stores. The rest is the smattering of small businesses which really make the street what it is today.

At some point, high rents might make sense on 17th avenue, but it has certainly not proven that out at this point in 2014.

Finally, how does high rents on 17th relate to anything? Where is the evidence that shows 17th has high rents because it is a two way street? The way I see it, 17th has high rent for several incidental reasons and not due to being two way.

It is helped by a good proximity to Lower Mount Royal and was a key focus of the Lower Mount Royal redevelopment plan. It has several stable tenants that people need to visit regularly (banks). A combination of these factors cause good long term stability and focused investment - a winning combination that should be used by 11th and 12th avenue before we consider their traffic flow.

When did I argue that raising rents caused success in retail? I said it was a sign of successful retail. I was making the point that higher rents on 17th avenue are an indication that it is a more successful retail street than 11th or 12th. Rising rents without the demand to back it up is a sure fire way to have vacant stores. I would never argue for rising rents as a strategy to increase business. Rent should only go as high as the market can bear.

Rising rents on 17th are driven largely by increased restaurant demand (driven themselves in part by a zero parking requirement), who are willing to pay much higher rents than most retailers. In general restaurants push a lot more volume of sales than a typical retail store. But for restaurants, overhead is much higher, and rent is not as significant a cost because labour is so high. Agreed about the banks though, they will pay anything for exposure.

But Lower Mount Royal is not the reason for success of 17th avenue by any shot. The population of Lower Mount Royal (I am a resident) is miniscule compared to the Beltline. Growth in Beltline is driving some of the growth, but much of it is coming from elsewhere.

What I believe is happening, for various reasons, is 17th is becoming a destination restaurant strip. While a lot of Beltliners, Missionites and Lower Mount Royals are going out to eat there, many of the patrons are coming from across the City. Part of this is driven by agglomeration where businesses co-locate to capture the same market, which subsequently attracts a larger market and so on and so on (retailers and restaurants are like lemmings, they just follow each other around).

[MasterG]

When did I argue that raising rents caused success in retail? I said it was a sign of successful retail. I was making the point that higher rents on 17th avenue are an indication that it is a more successful retail street than 11th or 12th. Rising rents without the demand to back it up is a sure fire way to have vacant stores. I would never argue for rising rents as a strategy to increase business. Rent should only go as high as the market can bear.

Rising rents on 17th are driven largely by increased restaurant demand (driven themselves in part by a zero parking requirement), who are willing to pay much higher rents than most retailers. In general restaurants push a lot more volume of sales than a typical retail store. But for restaurants, overhead is much higher, and rent is not as significant a cost because labour is so high. Agreed about the banks though, they will pay anything for exposure.

But Lower Mount Royal is not the reason for success of 17th avenue by any shot. The population of Lower Mount Royal (I am a resident) is miniscule compared to the Beltline. Growth in Beltline is driving some of the growth, but much of it is coming from elsewhere.

What I believe is happening, for various reasons, is 17th is becoming a destination restaurant strip. While a lot of Beltliners, Missionites and Lower Mount Royals are going out to eat there, many of the patrons are coming from across the City. Part of this is driven by agglomeration where businesses co-locate to capture the same market, which subsequently attracts a larger market and so on and so on (retailers and restaurants are like lemmings, they just follow each other around).

Slower traffic and a more pleasant pedestrian environment also helps boost pedestrian-oriented retail. I think that is an idea behind 2-way conversions of 1 ways as it can accomplish these two related tasks.

I don't think you necessarily need to be 2-way to do that. However it's probably easier than alternatives.

[geotag277]

Rising rents without the demand to back it up is a sure fire way to have vacant stores.

The thing about commercial real estate, having a bank as one of your anchor tenants is something commercial land lords can parade around. It's a stable tenant, they will pay whatever you ask for, and it causes you to care a bit less about the health of the other businesses in your block. That's just the dynamics of the commercial real estate retail business. All those banks down 17th avenue have done wonders to stabilize the street for the land lords.

Rising rents on 17th are driven largely by increased restaurant demand (driven themselves in part by a zero parking requirement), who are willing to pay much higher rents than most retailers. In general restaurants push a lot more volume of sales than a typical retail store. But for restaurants, overhead is much higher, and rent is not as significant a cost because labour is so high. Agreed about the banks though, they will pay anything for exposure.

Restaurants are a tough business. Having a tiny, tiny 500 sqft restaurant with the rate hikes means 2500 a month gone, that's almost 2 part time employees to serve a 500 sqft area. A typical restaurant is more than 2000 sqft, that's 10k *MORE* a month gone just to rent over a one year rate hike period, that adds up to several potential employees.

All I'm saying, is that given 17th track record, it is unclear if it can sustain these kinds of rate increases while still being a channel for success for these businesses. Remember those banks don't care, and plenty of restaurants have closed even before the rate hike.

But Lower Mount Royal is not the reason for success of 17th avenue by any shot. The population of Lower Mount Royal (I am a resident) is miniscule compared to the Beltline. Growth in Beltline is driving some of the growth, but much of it is coming from elsewhere.

Beltline is two amalgamated communities which are much more spread out than Lower Mount Royal (Victoria Park + Connaught). My point with Lower Mount Royal is that they had a redevelopment plan in place since 1988 which included a large part of 17th avenue redevelopment for retail frontages. It will take time for the vast spread out community of Beltline to catch up, but there is no reason to believe it won't with all the new developments coming up over the next 10-20 years. That's how long it takes to build a modern 17th avenue.

What I believe is happening, for various reasons, is 17th is becoming a destination restaurant strip. While a lot of Beltliners, Missionites and Lower Mount Royals are going out to eat there, many of the patrons are coming from across the City. Part of this is driven by agglomeration where businesses co-locate to capture the same market, which subsequently attracts a larger market and so on and so on (retailers and restaurants are like lemmings, they just follow each other around).

Sure, and it took 30 years to get there. And it's not clear what, if any, impact that it being a two way street provided. Again, I think the presence of banks to stabilize the commercial property played a huge part, and a host of other factors included Lower Mount Royal's redevelopment plan.

Things like that seem much more concrete to me than willy nilly messing with traffic flow.

[Full Mountain]

The thing about commercial real estate, having a bank as one of your anchor tenants is something commercial land lords can parade around. It's a stable tenant, they will pay whatever you ask for, and it causes you to care a bit less about the health of the other businesses in your block. That's just the dynamics of the commercial real estate retail business. All those banks down 17th avenue have done wonders to stabilize the street for the land lords.



Restaurants are a tough business. Having a tiny, tiny 500 sqft restaurant with the rate hikes means 2500 a month gone, that's almost 2 part time employees to serve a 500 sqft area. A typical restaurant is more than 2000 sqft, that's 10k *MORE* a month gone just to rent over a one year rate hike period, that adds up to several potential employees.

All I'm saying, is that given 17th track record, it is unclear if it can sustain these kinds of rate increases while still being a channel for success for these businesses. Remember those banks don't care, and plenty of restaurants have closed even before the rate hike.

There's an assumption that your making here without acknowledgment, you assume that those restaurants failed due to high rent, not due to poor concepts, poor service, food or a multitude of other things other than pure cost of space.

Beltline is two amalgamated communities which are much more spread out than Lower Mount Royal (Victoria Park + Connaught). My point with Lower Mount Royal is that they had a redevelopment plan in place since 1988 which included a large part of 17th avenue redevelopment for retail frontages. It will take time for the vast spread out community of Beltline to catch up, but there is no reason to believe it won't with all the new developments coming up over the next 10-20 years. That's how long it takes to build a modern 17th avenue.

Sure, and it took 30 years to get there. And it's not clear what, if any, impact that it being a two way street provided. Again, I think the presence of banks to stabilize the commercial property played a huge part, and a host of other factors included Lower Mount Royal's redevelopment plan.

Things like that seem much more concrete to me than willy nilly messing with traffic flow.

Beltline may be larger in area than LMR, but also has dramatically higher population than LMR, as a result the Beltline still has a higher population density than LMR

Beltline - 21 Blocks E-W by 7 blocks N-S (147 blocks including ~25 blocks of stampede land) 20,194 people - ~137 people per block (~165 p per b excluding stampede lands)

LMR - 9 blocks E-W by 3 blocks N-S (27 blocks) 3,263 people - ~120 people per block

Sources:
Population - 2013 Civil Census (link (http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Pages/Election-and-information-services/Civic-Census/2013-Results.aspx))
Area - Google Maps Search (Beltline (https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!q=beltline&data=!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x5371701d15d754e3%3A0xd69ef77d39c8cf16!3m8!1m3!1d11749!2d-114.0852855!3d51.0299352!3m2!1i1745!2i899!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.0413217!4d-114.0889693), LMR (https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!q=Lower+Mount+Royal%2C+Calgary%2C+AB&data=!1m4!1m3!1d12926!2d-114.0868311!3d51.0278298!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x5371702458269539%3A0x62eb7d533092436a!3m8!1m3!1d11746!2d-114.069024!3d51.041202!3m2!1i1745!2i899!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.0304699!4d-114.0879561))

[geotag277]

There's an assumption that your making here without acknowledgment, you assume that those restaurants failed due to high rent, not due to poor concepts, poor service, food or a multitude of other things other than pure cost of space.

No, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm just pointing out that restaurants on that street have failed. There has been little evidence in any direction that 17th avenue produces more successful businesses than other avenues, outside of the fact that it charges more for rent.

Beltline may be larger in area than LMR, but also has dramatically higher population than LMR, as a result the Beltline still has a higher population density than LMR

Beltline - 21 Blocks E-W by 7 blocks N-S (147 blocks including ~25 blocks of stampede land) 20,194 people - ~137 people per block (~165 p per b excluding stampede lands)

LMR - 9 blocks E-W by 3 blocks N-S (27 blocks) 3,263 people - ~120 people per block

Sources:
Population - 2013 Civil Census (link (http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Pages/Election-and-information-services/Civic-Census/2013-Results.aspx))
Area - Google Maps Search (Beltline (https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!q=beltline&data=!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x5371701d15d754e3%3A0xd69ef77d39c8cf16!3m8!1m3!1d11749!2d-114.0852855!3d51.0299352!3m2!1i1745!2i899!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.0413217!4d-114.0889693), LMR (https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!q=Lower+Mount+Royal%2C+Calgary%2C+AB&data=!1m4!1m3!1d12926!2d-114.0868311!3d51.0278298!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x5371702458269539%3A0x62eb7d533092436a!3m8!1m3!1d11746!2d-114.069024!3d51.041202!3m2!1i1745!2i899!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.0304699!4d-114.0879561))

Half of them are in Connaught and half of them are in Victoria Park. Lower Mount Royal stretches east to west across approximately 8 blocks. Measured to Elbow River Beltline is 21 blocks long. 17th avenue also has very good proximity to Mount Royal, a community which likely has the highest amount of disposable income in the inner city.

My point also isn't that Lower Mount Royal is so dense and populous that it birthed 17th avenue, it's that they had a plan since 1988 to revitalize the area. The Beltline is just getting started. Give it time.

[fusili]

The thing about commercial real estate, having a bank as one of your anchor tenants is something commercial land lords can parade around. It's a stable tenant, they will pay whatever you ask for, and it causes you to care a bit less about the health of the other businesses in your block. That's just the dynamics of the commercial real estate retail business. All those banks down 17th avenue have done wonders to stabilize the street for the land lords.



Restaurants are a tough business. Having a tiny, tiny 500 sqft restaurant with the rate hikes means 2500 a month gone, that's almost 2 part time employees to serve a 500 sqft area. A typical restaurant is more than 2000 sqft, that's 10k *MORE* a month gone just to rent over a one year rate hike period, that adds up to several potential employees.

Agreed, banks will pay whatever rent you want. Mostly because rent is probably the smallest line item on a banks books that it just isn't even considered.

Trust me I know the restaurant industry (used to be a manager, and many of my clients are restaurants). If your nightly sales volume is $15K, you are not too concerned with high rent. You are concerned with an empty restaurant with 15 staff doing nothing and food going to waste. Heck, a $10K fire code fine for being over capacity is sometimes worth it. With a restaurant you need to be full as much as possible because overhead and wastage are very real costs.

[geotag277]

The problem with rent increases is that it comes right out of the owner's profit. It's not unreasonable for a smallish 2000 sqft restaurant to be a reasonably successful restaurant and bring in 10k a month to it's owners. With a 8% increase on 17th avenue, all of a sudden that place is breaking even with no profit for the owners. Now you risk increasing prices and alienating your customers. Like I said, in my opinion it's too early to tell for 17th avenue as a whole.

[Full Mountain]

No, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm just pointing out that restaurants on that street have failed. There has been little evidence in any direction that 17th avenue produces more successful businesses than other avenues, outside of the fact that it charges more for rent.

Wait, let me get this straight, you don't believe that restaurants on 17th are more successful yet they are relocating/opening there in droves? If they would be as successful on 11th or 12th don't you think they would open there for the very reason that you are proposing (lower rent)?

[DizzyEdge]

I have barely been skimming, but is this rent discussion about whether high rents will kill a street, and whether lower rents are needed?

[geotag277]

Wait, let me get this straight, you don't believe that restaurants on 17th are more successful yet they are relocating/opening there in droves? If they would be as successful on 11th or 12th don't you think they would open there for the very reason that you are proposing (lower rent)?

First, a business owner chooses a location for any number of reasons. Contrary to your implicit assumption business owners are not perfectly rational humans who make the best decisions for themselves and their business. 17th avenue has a lot of "hype" and is currently being marketed as a trendy location.

That PR might also largely be funded by the commercial real estate owners and management companies of 17th avenue itself, which leads me to my next point that secondly, the commercial real estate management companies on 17th are probably better funded, can afford a better sales team, can afford more marketing, can afford better sales agents, etc. Being anchored by stable reliable high paying tenants like banks can go along way to funding themselves along with higher asking sqft asking prices.

The world isn't black and white, and it's not possible to simplify the commercial real estate market into a nice tidy box such as "higher rents are always a good thing" and "businesses are opening on 17th avenue so it must be a great location".

[geotag277]

I have barely been skimming, but is this rent discussion about whether high rents will kill a street, and whether lower rents are needed?

Not exactly, it's more about how historically high rents are a new thing to 17th avenue and it hasn't proven it's ability to sustain those rates yet. Also that it took 17th avenue three decades to get to where it is today with a solid development plan from the city and people are expecting other streets to mature the same amount within a couple years.

[ByeByeBaby]

The thing about commercial real estate, having a bank as one of your anchor tenants is something commercial land lords can parade around. It's a stable tenant, they will pay whatever you ask for, and it causes you to care a bit less about the health of the other businesses in your block. That's just the dynamics of the commercial real estate retail business. All those banks down 17th avenue have done wonders to stabilize the street for the land lords.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Look at the central portion of 17th Ave between 6th and 7th streets for instance. There are two banks in that section, the Servus Credit Union on the north side at 6th (former Blockbuster), and the BMO on the south side at 7th. They are both in stand alone buildings. There are another 8 or so buildings in the area with over a dozen other tenants, mostly food-related businesses. Next to the BMO, for instance, on a separate building and parcel, is Brava Bistro/Subway/Starbucks.

It seems to me that whoever owns the two buildings the banks are in are benefiting from the "dynamics of the commercial real estate retail business", but that's not going to help the owners of the other eight buildings on these blocks.

The only way that the banks and their willingness to pay high rent helps the owners of the restaurant buildings is if there is one landowner who owns a number of the buildings. But in that case, the diversity of the retail spaces should protect the landlord from turmoil in the same way that a single good tenant would. Basically, your argument only seems to make sense if there are two or three unit buildings, one tenant a bank. (Or two or three building landlords.) Am I incorrect in my assumption that many different firms own buildings on 17th, in which case banks aren't particularly helping most of them?

And if a bank is a good tenant on a retail strip because of their stability and willingness to pay rent, isn't a handful of established professional service companies with 25,000 square feet of office space each an even better tenant? Because a lot of 11th and 12th has those guys as tenants.

Also, gosh, this is getting far from roads.

[DizzyEdge]

Not exactly, it's more about how historically high rents are a new thing to 17th avenue and it hasn't proven it's ability to sustain those rates yet. Also that it took 17th avenue three decades to get to where it is today with a solid development plan from the city and people are expecting other streets to mature the same amount within a couple years.

Well, I think it's like this:

1) high rates might very well kill the existing businesses, but in theory the high prices will simply attract a different kind of business

2) the businesses which can't afford it will move to lower rent areas.

Now two caveats which may or may not happen. For 1), obviously if you end up with a 1/4 of the street vacant then they've raised rates too high, but hopefully that would not happen as as soon as it drifted that way, rents would come down. What more concerns me, is if rents got too high and replaced retail/restaurants with banks, insurance, investment offices, etc. An example is a friend who is closing their business in Kensington. Every other business owner she's talked to in the area is just staying a float (retail businesses) and some are already closing.
For 2), unlike some other cities, Calgary doesn't have a ton of streetside retail, so I worry that as all the main areas (Stephen Ave, Kensington, Bridgeland, Inglewood, Marda Loop, 17th, 4th) get pricier, there isn't blocks of low rent retail where businesses pushed out could go.

I'd be curious what rents are like in Kensington Market in Toronto.

[DizzyEdge]

Actually just found this article:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/06/kensington_market_caf_and_candy_shop_faces_the_end_because_of_rent_hike.html

rents going up to "$50 to $60 per square foot, compared with the area of average of roughly $30 to $40."

I also just noticed this is in roads....

[ByeByeBaby]

Not exactly, it's more about how historically high rents are a new thing to 17th avenue and it hasn't proven it's ability to sustain those rates yet. Also that it took 17th avenue three decades to get to where it is today with a solid development plan from the city and people are expecting other streets to mature the same amount within a couple years.

I'm pretty sure you are the only one talking about the straw man argument on whether or not other streets will mature the same amount within any short timeline; I'm certainly not. And the "historically high" rents on 17th avenue are only this if history started in 2011. Per Collier's, rents were $75 in 2010, $55 in 2011 and 2012, and $65 in 2013.

[geotag277]

Melrose on 17th closing:

http://melrosecalgary.com/notice

Likely related to rent increases, but can't say I would miss it. Let's hope it's replacement can elevate that section of 17th a bit.

[J-D]

Not entirely related to roads, but interesting none-the-less.

I hate streets that don't connect.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/Karshenbaum+losing+access+public+spaces/9391722/story.html

[You Need A Thneed]

A little bit of technical reading on the Airport Trail tunnel. (http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2013/session7/azita.pdf)

[Rusty van Reddick]

Melrose on 17th closing:

http://melrosecalgary.com/notice

Likely related to rent increases, but can't say I would miss it. Let's hope it's replacement can elevate that section of 17th a bit.

They owned the building, so no, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "rent increases."

[You Need A Thneed]

Airport Trail Tunnel - January update. (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/Airport-Tunnel-Update-Jan2014.pdf)

[5seconds]

Had a look at the City's Glenmore Trail widening plans between 37th street and Crowchild. It maintains 3 lanes westbound all the way towards 37th (where the Province is going to widen Glenmore Trail as part of the ring road project) and three lanes eastbound until the Crowchild interchange, where the third becomes the ramp to go north or south on Crowchild. The plan keeps two lanes heading eastbound under that interchange.

The road is also being pushed a bit north within that corridor to be closer to Garrison Green (more gentle curves?), and the connection with Richard Road is similar to now, but with longer exit and merge lanes. It looks like the emergency lane to turn east from Richard Road is no longer going to be there.

[milomilo]

Good stuff. My biggest issue round there is the weaving from Crowchild traffic entering Glenmore and 14th St traffic leaving. Would require some expensive engineering though.

[lubicon]

Had a look at the City's Glenmore Trail widening plans between 37th street and Crowchild. It maintains 3 lanes westbound all the way towards 37th (where the Province is going to widen Glenmore Trail as part of the ring road project) and three lanes eastbound until the Crowchild interchange, where the third becomes the ramp to go north or south on Crowchild. The plan keeps two lanes heading eastbound under that interchange.

The road is also being pushed a bit north within that corridor to be closer to Garrison Green (more gentle curves?), and the connection with Richard Road is similar to now, but with longer exit and merge lanes. It looks like the emergency lane to turn east from Richard Road is no longer going to be there.

Crowchild & Glenmore will become even more of a choke point than it already is if they cannot find a way to keep it three lanes all the way. It almost defeats the purpose of adding the third lane.

[5seconds]

Crowchild & Glenmore will become even more of a choke point than it already is if they cannot find a way to keep it three lanes all the way. It almost defeats the purpose of adding the third lane.

Genuine question: Is that a choke point in the morning rush hour? I join Glenmore at Crowchild (from the south, not the flyover) and the traffic never seems too bad merging onto Glenmore there, but I don't actually drive that particular part of Glenmore often. I know that widening that part of the road westbound will help in the afternoon, but is it a problem in the morning?

The City will be looking at the Glenmore/Crowchild interchange in the next few years.

[lubicon]

It's difficult to say right now since Glenmore is only 2 lanes EB west of Crowchild. But based on my daily observations traffic is pretty heavy on that and funneling 3 lanes down to two, then adding the 2 lane Crowchild merge right after that is still going to be ugly. At least as bad as it is now IMHO.

[milomilo]

It's difficult to say right now since Glenmore is only 2 lanes EB west of Crowchild. But based on my daily observations traffic is pretty heavy on that and funneling 3 lanes down to two, then adding the 2 lane Crowchild merge right after that is still going to be ugly. At least as bad as it is now IMHO.

In my experience the traffic is severely hindered by having so many intersections between Crowchild and Macloed with some nasty weaving. As soon as you pass Macloed it clears up a bit - but I'm not sure if that is simply because there is less traffic going that way.

[5seconds]

I am always surprised at the slow down at the end of the Causeway as it goes under the 14th street interchange. You would think that once the weaving was over the traffic would get faster, especially as the road widens there, but going under those bridges is almost always the slowest part.

That area is a bit of a mess. I would love to see better segregation of the Crow-14th lanes and the Glenmore lanes, like they planned in 2002.

[craner]

Crowchild & Glenmore will become even more of a choke point than it already is if they cannot find a way to keep it three lanes all the way. It almost defeats the purpose of adding the third lane.

I agree, need that third lane to be continuous. Perhaps it will be addressed when the city examines the Crow-Glenmore interchange that 5seconds mentioned.
Of course we'll still have the 4 lane to 2 lane reduction on EB Glenmore after the 14th Street split.:(

[Mazrim]

As long as there are two lanes going EB under 14th, there isn't much to be gained or lost having 2 lanes under Crowchild. If they fix Crowchild or 14th Street however...then they should fix both.

[J-D]

In my experience the traffic is severely hindered by having so many intersections between Crowchild and Macloed with some nasty weaving. As soon as you pass Macloed it clears up a bit - but I'm not sure if that is simply because there is less traffic going that way.

Not to mention how short (https://www.google.ca/maps/preview/@50.994247,-114.074431,3a,73.6y,134.48h,74.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAqwRZVPA6DyHsOQ7WLfmAg!2e0) some of those merges are.

[middeljohn]

Nice AADT map:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/data/traffic_flow_maps/2011_flowmap_city.pdf

[MasterG]

Nice AADT map:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/data/traffic_flow_maps/2011_flowmap_city.pdf

These maps always make me think of the difference on if the S LRT or Northwest didn't exist. About 110,000 on the South and 80-90,000 on the NW line per day.

Can you imagine what those roads would have looked like it expansion went to Crowchild and MacLeod instead of the LRT? Both would be 12 lanes + as well as other upgrades to all connector roads in the area.

It will be interesting to see SE changes on this map when that LRT is completed. Perhaps not the same effect, due to the amount of sprawl in the SE that is still outside the LRT catchment area and the difference in routes between the SELRT and Deerfoot, but I expect to see significant reflection of the LRT investment over time on that stretch of Deerfoot's volumes.

I would also like to see this paired with a number of travelers estimate. My numbers are very rough but here is an Example:

Centre Street N has roughly the same number of vehicles as 162 Ave S per day. But it puts approximately 80 buses an hour on it during rush-hour. CT has estimated 30,000 transit users on centre Street with 20,000 autos. 162 Ave have anything close to that? Maybe 5,000?

Centre Street N = 50,000 +/- travelers (there are also auto passengers etc.)
162 Ave S = 25,000 +/- travelers

With that logic, I would suspect that portions of Crowchild are equal or surpassing the busiest portions of Deerfoot in terms of number of travelers per day.

Number of travelers is probably a better metric than number of vehicles. Albeit a harder to measure metric.

[Fuzz]

I was surprised to see 4th st NW having almost as much traffic as centre, considering it is basically a branch form centre in the north, rejoining in the south. Together they move almost 1/2 as many vehicles as Crowchild.

[Acey]

Look at those damn volumes on Crowchild, and it's pretty much one lane northbound over the river. Good God, I'm so thankful I no longer live over there. :haha:

63,000 on McKnight east of Deerfoot though... arguably one of the more depressing figures on the map. :runaway: Airport Tunnel, can you help us out? Not surprised at the huge numbers for Glenmore though, in case anyone forgot how important our only proper east-west route is.

[J-D]

Look at those damn volumes on Crowchild, and it's pretty much one lane northbound over the river. Good God, I'm so thankful I no longer live over there. :haha:

63,000 on McKnight east of Deerfoot though... arguably one of the more depressing figures on the map. :runaway: Airport Tunnel, can you help us out? Not surprised at the huge numbers for Glenmore though, in case anyone forgot how important our only proper east-west route is.

Crowchild and Deerfoot past Southland are what really scare me. A couple more years with 15,000+ people moving here and a lot of the cities growth concentrated in those areas... Ugh.

[milomilo]

I didn't realise that section of Glenmore was that busy, almost as much as Deerfoot's highest. No wonder it's such a slamshow.

[DizzyEdge]

So, it's the mantra of progressive planners to be against 'downtown penetrators', due to the wiping out of communities or highstreets as past plans would have done.

But sometimes I wonder if freeways designed and located to minimize the demolitions required, would allow the parallel highstreets to focus on cycling and pedestrians and patios and such, keeping the noisy polluting cars away, and eliminating much of the conflict which arises when you try to move traffic, people, and bikes all on the same road.

[middeljohn]

Does Calgary ever get to the point of stop and go on the freeways (in regular rush hour, not during accidents)?

[fusili]

So, it's the mantra of progressive planners to be against 'downtown penetrators', due to the wiping out of communities or highstreets as past plans would have done.

But sometimes I wonder if freeways designed and located to minimize the demolitions required, would allow the parallel highstreets to focus on cycling and pedestrians and patios and such, keeping the noisy polluting cars away, and eliminating much of the conflict which arises when you try to move traffic, people, and bikes all on the same road.

Expanded road widths and more lanes are a terrible solution to congestion. Congestion is a problem of space, and single occupant vehicles are the most inefficient in terms of space. You don't solve a problem by simply encouraging the activity that leads to the problem.

[Calgarian]

Does Calgary ever get to the point of stop and go on the freeways (in regular rush hour, not during accidents)?

Oh yeah, especially on Deerfoot.

[DizzyEdge]

I agree completely. I also agree that single occupancy vehicles wanting to go fast causes the worst experience for peds and bikes, and that slowing down traffic and discouraging SOVs is the best solution. I also know that commuters via SOV are the biggest voting block, and I'm constantly worried about a Rob Ford-like backlash.

I also rarely hear things in the media like "Adding a 4th LRT car will remove x number of cars from the daily commute" which is the sort of thing which should be in every press release ever issued. But now I'm digressing :)

[milomilo]

Expanded road widths and more lanes are a terrible solution to congestion. Congestion is a problem of space, and single occupant vehicles are the most inefficient in terms of space. You don't solve a problem by simply encouraging the activity that leads to the problem.

I do think the bigger issue on the roads is the design and sheer number of intersections. Many roads have more than enough lanes (16th Ave, Macloed), but they are used very inefficiently, at least to my eyes.

I wish that roundabouts weren't such an alien concept here. They're awesome.

[lubicon]

Does Calgary ever get to the point of stop and go on the freeways (in regular rush hour, not during accidents)?

Oh yeah, especially on Deerfoot.

And Glenmore. And Crowchild.

[Acey]

Does Calgary ever get to the point of stop and go on the freeways (in regular rush hour, not during accidents)?

As far as I'm concerned we only have one true freeway, and that is Stoney Trail. Glenmore, Deerfoot, Crowchild are all bumper to bumper during rush hour.... daily.

[fusili]

As far as I'm concerned we only have one true freeway, and that is Stoney Trail. Glenmore, Deerfoot, Crowchild are all bumper to bumper during rush hour.... daily.

Give it time.

[lineman]

I drove Stoney from 16th Ave south to 114th Ave this morning at around eight. I can see that area becoming a shitshow in a decade.

[middeljohn]

Basically from my cumulative subjective analysis, it seems that urban freeways occasionally get clogged up beyond 12,000 vehicles per lane per day. So for a 6-laner to get clogged the tipping point is 72,000 AADT. Obviously there's more factors at play, but that seems to be the average I've noticed.

[milomilo]

I drove Stoney from 16th Ave south to 114th Ave this morning at around eight. I can see that area becoming a shitshow in a decade.

The difference with Stoney compared to all the other roads though is that there is ample space left around it to upgrade as necessary, and not overly excessive numbers of interchanges (although still too many, IMO).

[fusili]

Basically from my cumulative subjective analysis, it seems that urban freeways occasionally get clogged up beyond 12,000 vehicles per lane per day. So for a 6-laner to get clogged the tipping point is 72,000 AADT. Obviously there's more factors at play, but that seems to be the average I've noticed.

What I heard from a few transportation engineers is 1800 vehicles per direction per hour is pretty much maximum capacity. Remember too that the "peak" can start to stretch out as commutes get longer and people adjust their work hours as a defensive measure.

[Acey]

(although still too many, IMO).

Beddington/Shag/Sarcee is a bit of a mess, but aside from that it's alright. There's still more interchanges to come, however... but room to build basketweaves if it ever gets to to that point.

[milomilo]

Beddington/Shag/Sarcee is a bit of a mess, but aside from that it's alright. There's still more interchanges to come, however... but room to build basketweaves if it ever gets to to that point.

I know that the 'ultimate' phase of the SW leg has collector/express lanes to handle a potential outer ring road which will need to interline with it - does the rest of Stoney have any grand plans for an ultimate phase? It appears there is enough room.

[mersar]

I know that the 'ultimate' phase of the SW leg has collector/express lanes to handle a potential outer ring road which will need to interline with it - does the rest of Stoney have any grand plans for an ultimate phase? It appears there is enough room.

The entire thing was designed with an 'ultimate' design, though in most cases its far less than the SW by sheer necessity. Mostly turning interchanges into free-flowing designs and a few more lanes here and there.

The outer ring road concept was killed by the province though so the 'ultimate' design for Stoney may end up needing to be beefed up in the long run beyond what it is currently, which should be possible to some extent but not everywhere. Some bridges (Crowchild) definitely have enough room under them, others are far tighter and adding more than a lane or two may be tricky. But thats also quite a long time off, even the SW I doubt we'll see being fully built to its ~16 lane configuration anytime in the next few decades.

[5seconds]

The entire thing was designed with an 'ultimate' design, though in most cases its far less than the SW by sheer necessity. Mostly turning interchanges into free-flowing designs and a few more lanes here and there.

The outer ring road concept was killed by the province though so the 'ultimate' design for Stoney may end up needing to be beefed up in the long run beyond what it is currently, which should be possible to some extent but not everywhere. Some bridges (Crowchild) definitely have enough room under them, others are far tighter and adding more than a lane or two may be tricky. But thats also quite a long time off, even the SW I doubt we'll see being fully built to its ~16 lane configuration anytime in the next few decades.

Do you know when the Province shelved the outer road idea? Was there any announcement or reasoning?