West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service - Page 8

Vascilli · #**141** Posted **Aug 30, 2009, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

I know that noticing graffiti makes me a NIMBY with the "neato structure" crowd, but the entire fence is now covered in graffiti.

Nice.

Here is a solution we've been advocating since February:

http://www.thelivingwall.net

Unfortunately senior city staff made a cursory review of the link (without contacting the originators of the concept) and dismissed it immediately. The merits of the Living Wall can be debated for sound attenuation, but it sure would make a nice tee-box screen. Toronto uses more salt than Calgary, so I'm guessing its survived road spray.

Is it at least good graffiti, or just some losers tags? There was lots of really nice graffiti on the retaining walls for the trains in Germany, it looked quite nice.

Mike Wilhelm · #**142** Posted **Aug 30, 2009, 6:51 PM**

Really bad single colour spray bombs.

MichaelS · #**143** Posted **Aug 30, 2009, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

I know that noticing graffiti makes me a NIMBY with the "neato structure" crowd, but the entire fence is now covered in graffiti.

Nice.

Here is a solution we've been advocating since February:

http://www.thelivingwall.net

Unfortunately senior city staff made a cursory review of the link (without contacting the originators of the concept) and dismissed it immediately. The merits of the Living Wall can be debated for sound attenuation, but it sure would make a nice tee-box screen. Toronto uses more salt than Calgary, so I'm guessing its survived road spray.

Were there reasons given for the rejection of it?

Mike Wilhelm · #**144** Posted **Aug 30, 2009, 8:40 PM**

Probably the city was feeling time pressure on the whole project, which made them resistant to a new "unproven" concept. We've found them to be incredibly risk adverse - a poor "proven" design is superior to a better idea on many issues.

They basically said it was a good idea, but blew it off. The actual reasons given were:

Effectiveness - concerns about the validity of the technical data on the website. A concern about wood not being as effective as concrete and masonary (they they missed the fact that the soundwall design in the the brochure is actually made of soil, with the willow on the outside).

I don't think they saw these:
http://www.thelivingwall.holz-scholbeck.de/brochures/brochure_ENGLISH.pdf
http://www.thelivingwall.holz-scholbeck.de/brochures/Technical_information_SOUND_BARRIER.pdf

Salt susceptibility of the plants. Street spray - they didn't see any data on this on the website. They did admit, however that this would be a bigger problem for Toronto than us.

Ability to repair/replant after collisions. A good point for soundwalls, but a golf course should have the resources to fix a hedge/or visual screen quickly. Lately I've seen numberous unrepaired soundwalls thoughout the city, so I'm not sure repairing has been a priority.

sim · #**145** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 2:51 AM**

Does anyone know the 3 bidders that are actually bidding?

I believe SNC- PCL, Stantec - Graham??, ??? - ???

mersar · #**146** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sim

Does anyone know the 3 bidders that are actually bidding?

I believe SNC- PCL, Stantec - Graham??, ??? - ???

All listed on the westlrt site here. Pretty much SNC, PCL and AECON each with their respective partners

jeffwhit · #**147** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 6:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

Probably the city was feeling time pressure on the whole project, which made them resistant to a new "unproven" concept. We've found them to be incredibly risk adverse - a poor "proven" design is superior to a better idea on many issues.

I would write it support of this (I don't have an oz of influence with anyone.) I'm sure some other people would too.

MalcolmTucker · #**148** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 2:25 PM**

^ Re: Fence

It isn't permenant - in 2014 if it is loud enough a realy noise wall could be built. If not, I am sure it will be reverted back to a screen fence. No need to cloister the golf club from the community behind a living wall.

Mike Wilhelm · #**149** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 8:34 PM**

Kyle, thanks for your authoritative post. Your continued guidance in these matters is appreciated.

Once again, direct us to publically available information you are using so we can direct city staff to the correct information. As you might expect, we are talking directly to city transportation staff and the head of golf course operations. We also have copies of the drawings.

I'm also confused. If required, why would a noise wall be better than a hedge?

frinkprof · #**150** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 9:01 PM**

Nevermind.

MalcolmTucker · #**151** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 9:09 PM**

It won't be, I am saying that unless something really changes you will end up with neither. It will go back to a screen fence.

As for sound walls, they are never approved until after a project is done, unless it is really obvious you need one. Once a project is done, sound testing will be done and if levels are above a certain level, a local committee of some sort will be engaged on what to do (I know some groups have decided against walls at some points in time). Same with the LRT in people's backyard in Martindale - no wall until the train is done and testing can be done.

If a sound wall is needed (it probably won't be if they redesigned the course in a sound manner), the golf course or parks if they are willing to top up funding to build it, and the wall does not create additional ongoing costs, it could be built.

You Need A Thneed · #**152** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Same with the LRT in people's backyard in Martindale - no wall until the train is done and testing can be done.

Actually, I think that Martindale already fought and got the City to install sound fence along the whole right of way. The drawings show sound fence the whole length, part of it is combination retaining wall/sound fence.

Earlier in the planning, they was definitely talk of doing less sound wall, only doing it where a private fence was right up against the LRT right of way, and not where it's only a back alley that borders the right of way (which makes up 75% of the distance)

Mike Wilhelm · #**153** Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 9:49 PM**

A screen fence would be fine.

There is no budget for the replacement of these fences. Hypothetically the golf course could replace these walls when the West LRT project is finished, when they obtain a new budget for possible entrance and clubhouse upgrades. Keep in mind that access is going to be disrupted by LRT construction for the next few years, so it is unlikely that they will introduce a new budget that contemplates additional disruption to golfers.

The purpose of the glass walled station design was to allow transit riders to see the golf course. Now they'll see a graffitti filled fence. Surely we can get creative about this without spending money (particularly security guard money).

The problem with your posts you imply that something is certain, when it is not. If there is no budget, then it is not certain (unless somebody is telling you it is).

SubwayRev · #**154** Posted **Sep 1, 2009, 1:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

The purpose of the glass walled station design was to allow transit riders to see the golf course. Now they'll see a graffitti filled fence. Surely we can get creative about this without spending money (particularly security guard money).

The problem with your posts you imply that something is certain, when it is not. If there is no budget, then it is not certain (unless somebody is telling you it is).

You say that the fence will be graffitti covered, as if it is not a matter of if, but rather when. I can think of dozens upon dozens of fences in this city, yet none of them are "graffitti filled." I'm not sure why this one will be.

The problem with your post is that you do the very same thing. Why don't you back off one person's speculation, instead of trying to disprove it with your own?

frinkprof · #**155** Posted **Sep 1, 2009, 1:30 AM**

Nevermind.

kap384 · #**156** Posted **Sep 1, 2009, 3:15 AM**

Graffiti exists. Saw it tonight

craner · #**157** Posted **Sep 1, 2009, 3:57 AM**

Graffiti makes my blood boil - can't stand it.

Mike Wilhelm · #**158** Posted **Sep 1, 2009, 4:30 AM**

Hopefuly a community guy can be debate an illogical argument or pass on a good idea or two on this board.

My style is to challenge for thoughtful debate - my perception is that Kyle likes to shut down debate by demonstrating knowledge, even if it's irrelevent. Maybe I'm wrong. If Kyle is illogical, or is using irrelevent facts, I'll tell him that.

Guys - don't shoot the messenger. I'll say it again - a structure without a clearly defined purpose will attract a purpose; in this case the graffiti that is already on that wall. The city tells me they are going to have security guards watch the wall from now on.

Hard to put graffiti on a hedge.

frinkprof · #**159** Posted **Sep 1, 2009, 4:42 AM**

Nevermind.

mersar · #**160** Posted **Sep 1, 2009, 4:56 AM**

Yep. Even in Vancouver with the huge amount of elevated track for the Skytrain there wasn't too much graffiti or even visible evidence of past grafiti on any of the supports.