West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Statistics are fun things to abuse in either direction.

80% of all people know that.

[kap384]

— Panther.......They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

80% of all people know that.

You just made that up. I am 50% sure, with a margin of error of 50%. 11 times out of 20.

[Wentworth]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I don't see the graffiti because as a suburbanite, I'm banned from venturing into downtown to do my exercise, so I only ever see the graffiti-free fences and overpass structures by my house.

Stereotypes rule.

As all the toddlers in your community grow into teenagers, you will see the grafitti in your suburb. (As brand new burbs tend to have mostly very young children only initially.) You can see this happening in the Coach Hill / Strathcona / Westside Rec area right now. The stucco wall all along 17th Ave is riddled with painted over graffiti patches. It's starting to appear in Springside now, too, as that area is full of tweens. I see lots of it everywhere in my 'burb as when I am cycling and running. Lots of tagging on garbage bins, electrical boxes, signs, etc.. The latest craze, though, seems to be breaking limbs off of young trees.

[Vascilli]

Originally Posted by Wentworth

As all the toddlers in your community grow into teenagers, you will see the grafitti in your suburb. (As brand new burbs tend to have mostly very young children only initially.) You can see this happening in the Coach Hill / Strathcona / Westside Rec area right now. The stucco wall all along 17th Ave is riddled with painted over graffiti patches. It's starting to appear in Springside now, too, as that area is full of tweens. I see lots of it everywhere in my 'burb as when I am cycling and running. Lots of tagging on garbage bins, electrical boxes, signs, etc.. The latest craze, though, seems to be breaking limbs off of young trees.

Some of those broken limbs are because of one of the slightly lesser crazes, that being falling out of trees. On purpose. (Using the branches to break your fall)

[DavidKuitunen]

Originally Posted by fusili

Kinda late into the debate here, but I think things such as elevated trains can be done really well. The S-Bahn in Berlin is a great example. Stations like Hackescher Markt and Alexanderplatz are done fantastically. There are restaurants, kiosks, convenience stores and even restaurants underneath the rail line at the station. Places like Sunalta station should incorporate things like this.

And in terms of graffiti, I understand the concerns that people have. But just because there is a place to graffiti, doesn't mean people will graffiti it. And even if they do why is it such a bad thing? I admit I am probably alone in this forum saying so, but I really like graffiti. Some of it can be really creative (just google graffiti art and you will see some really cool images). Some cities basically turn a blind eye to it and a great graffiti culture thrives. Calgary, of course, is not one of these places, and I don't think it will be anytime soon. But one can hope.

Graffiti culture is awesome. Period.
v=1gEfnr3ZSTshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEfnr3ZSTs
The reason no good graffiti artists thrive in Calgary is because of the $5000 fine we get for producing it. Thats why all Calgary will ever amount to in graffiti culture is — little tags and throw ups. There are a few good pieces under bridges on bike paths and in far places far away from the public eye hidden from everyone, but thats thanks to the attitude of your average Calgarian.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Wentworth

As all the toddlers in your community grow into teenagers, you will see the grafitti in your suburb. (As brand new burbs tend to have mostly very young children only initially.) You can see this happening in the Coach Hill / Strathcona / Westside Rec area right now. The stucco wall all along 17th Ave is riddled with painted over graffiti patches. It's starting to appear in Springside now, too, as that area is full of tweens. I see lots of it everywhere in my 'burb as when I am cycling and running. Lots of tagging on garbage bins, electrical boxes, signs, etc.. The latest craze, though, seems to be breaking limbs off of young trees.

Eh. I've already lived in a brand new suburb and watched it grow over nearly 20 years, and didn't see what you describe. Every few years the demographics change, from new families to teenagers to seniors, but nothing much changes in the neighbourhood.

I think it has a lot more to do with *which* neighbourhood a person is in, and what the popular pasttime of kids is in any given year.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by DavidKuitunen

Graffiti culture is awesome. Period.

Graffiti is awesome, vandalism is a stupid selfish destructive act. Period.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Wentworth

As all the toddlers in your community grow into teenagers, you will see the grafitti in your suburb. (As brand new burbs tend to have mostly very young children only initially.) You can see this happening in the Coach Hill / Strathcona / Westside Rec area right now. The stucco wall all along 17th Ave is riddled with painted over graffiti patches. It's starting to appear in Springside now, too, as that area is full of tweens. I see lots of it everywhere in my 'burb as when I am cycling and running. Lots of tagging on garbage bins, electrical boxes, signs, etc.. The latest craze, though, seems to be breaking limbs off of young trees.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Eh. I've already lived in a brand new suburb and watched it grow over nearly 20 years, and didn't see what you describe. Every few years the demographics change, from new families to teenagers to seniors, but nothing much changes in the neighbourhood.

I think it has a lot more to do with *which* neighbourhood a person is in, and what the popular pasttime of kids is in any given year.

Living in Tuscany, I'm starting to see isolated incidents of grafitti in the community. Not much mind you, but a little. And the new bridges on the Crowchild / Stoney interchange have been tagged recently as well.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Living in Tuscany, I'm starting to see isolated incidents of grafitti in the community. Not much mind you, but a little. And the new bridges on the Crowchild / Stoney interchange have been tagged recently as well.

Sure, I see some too. Everywhere has it, some places more than others.

(I guess my tongue-in-cheek comment about graffiti-free suburbs when discussing stereotypes went over most people's heads)

[Mike Wilhelm]

Let's elevate this discussion past graffiti. I'd like the forums thoughts on:

• The elevated station in Sunalta, and elevated stations generally (Chicago, New York, Vancouver)

• Integrating/improving structures in the inner city (i.e preventing urban walls)

• Making TOD work in a recession - who buys condos, anyway? - and what new industry in Calgary is going to generate growth to support TOD?

Let's stay away from city processes - the process doesn't matter; the result does.

[Wooster]

[QUOTE=Mike Wilhelm;4439430]

• The elevated station in Sunalta, and elevated stations generally (Chicago, New York, Vancouver)

In Certain contexts I think they're alright. In Calgary on any of the future LRT lines there won't be too many elevated sections. I think Calgary should take a pragmatic approach to the grade of the line and not be afraid to do it right the first time and bury it where it makes sense.

• Integrating/improving structures in the inner city (i.e preventing urban walls)

Not quite sure what you're getting at, but I suspect its the integration of stations in communities?

• Making TOD work in a recession - who buys condos, anyway? - and what new industry in Calgary is going to generate growth to support TOD?

TOD will take deliberate action from the city. One thing that's clear is that development does not automatically follow LRT investment. The conditions have to be set for it to succeed. In an ideal world the City would create a development agency (perhaps as an arm's length corporation of Calgary Transit) that would aggresively acquire, build the infrastructure and participate in public-private partnerships to develop land around LRT stations. The Bridges model could be successful throughout the city in select TOD nodes and corridors - Anderson, Westbrook, Brentwood, Sunalta, Lions Park, Centre Street, 17th SE, Chinook, 36th Street Corridor strike me as some of the areas of highest potential and therefore where effort and investment could be focused.

As for the market, condos make up a rapidly increasing share of the housing market and i think that will only increase as Calgary becomes bigger, more expensive and congested. Locations with good transit access, urban amenities and a high quality public realm will be a very popular choice for a lot of people.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Wooster,

Agree generally.

The pragmatic approach to grades is a good one, providing that the grade decision is well thought out. I was hopeful that someone on this board had some practical (or has visited) some successful examples. There is also lots of information on the web.

My experience is with Skytrain. From talking to the Translink guys, the jury is out on elevated stations particularly if you don't gate them (ie turnstiles).

Structures are a bigger problem for the inner city, as we don't have the setbacks the suburbs have. Sound walls and pedestrian bridges tend to be right up against neighborhoods, freeway and transit structures are larger to handle higher volume. A real world example - the architect hired by the city for the Sunalta ARP referred to the challenge of designing around a wall, which is the elevated line there. Inner city communities need to balance quality of life with the realities of structures carrying huge numbers of suburban traffic.

As to managing growth - my concern is that the growth expectation is based on a graph. Both the city and the development industry often make bad decisions based on mathematical models which attach a level of certainty to the line on that graph. People making these TOD decisions are often too young to remember a down market, and many have never lived outside of Calgary. I'd be surprised if any of our local politicians have ever lived anywhere else.

So are we sure that there will be growth to manage? The past eight years have been driven by the longest sustained oil and gas bull market in Calgary's history. The 2006 peak condo market is directly connected to peak oil prices. Guys were selling their companies, taking money off the table and redeploying it in a very competitive real estate market. Non-resident investors, flush from a multi-year stock market were speculating in the Calgary condo market.

It's over folks, it's 1981 all over again.

What is the plan to create and sustain the non oil and gas driven growth on the graph in a in light of a mature sedimentary basin and a $2.00 natural gas market?

[MalcolmTucker]

"who buys condos, anyway?"

Who cares? The market allocates the correct number of units according to demand. It is not like these units are built out of altruism. If there isn't demand we will have to look at policies and see if the ones we have that promote mostly point towers on low podiums should be modified for midrises that are full block buildouts with courtyards, or dense townhouse walkup apartments. (the second and third are cheaper to build, but you might have to sacrifice a little density). Eliminating minimum parking requirements and letting the market allocate up to a maximum level would be good too.

[mooky]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

"who buys condos, anyway?"

Who cares? The market allocates the correct number of units according to demand. It is not like these units are built out of altruism. If there isn't demand we will have to look at policies and see if the ones we have that promote mostly point towers on low podiums should be modified for midrises that are full block buildouts with courtyards, or dense townhouse walkup apartments. (the second and third are cheaper to build, but you might have to sacrifice a little density). Eliminating minimum parking requirements and letting the market allocate up to a maximum level would be good too.

I'd settle for option 2 and 3. I'm all for density, but developers seem to think that means all/mostly high rise condos, which is a — travesty. I personally would love a new townhouse style condominium with 3 bedrooms, and a basement and (maybe) a tiny yard. The house doesn't need to be 1800+ sq ft either, I'd settle for a well laid out 1100sq ft. I'm currently living in a walk-up condo in Bridgeland that's only 786sq ft and its not bad, though typical 1970's design on the room structures.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

What is the plan to create and sustain the non oil and gas driven growth on the graph in a in light of a mature sedimentary basin and a $2.00 natural gas market?

I think this might be a bit beyond the scope of the West LRT project.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by mooky

I'd settle for option 2 and 3. I'm all for density, but developers seem to think that means all/mostly high rise condos, which is a — travesty. I personally would love a new townhouse style condominium with 3 bedrooms, and a basement and (maybe) a tiny yard. The house doesn't need to be 1800+ sq ft either, I'd settle for a well laid out 1100sq ft. I'm currently living in a walk-up condo in Bridgeland that's only 786sq ft and its not bad, though typical 1970's design on the room structures.

I agree with you also Mooky. I'd rather see more midrise condos and townhomes than just a bunch of "point on a podium" towers.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

I think this might be a bit beyond the scope of the West LRT project.

Sorry, I thought the reason to build West LRT was to promote TOD on the West side, which I think is a good reason to build a transit line. If we don't have a growth plan, then how does the project work?

Maybe I'm missing something here - maybe "if we build it they will come". I'm just asking - where are they coming from?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

Sorry, I thought the reason to build West LRT was to promote TOD on the West side, which I think is a good reason to build a transit line. If we don't have a growth plan, then how does the project work?

Maybe I'm missing something here - maybe "if we build it they will come". I'm just asking - where are they coming from?

Aren't there already a few people living on the west side of the city?

TOD is nice but it's certainly never been the driving factor pushing our LRT lines forward. There's really no TOD in the NW yet the trains seem to get used every day.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

"who buys condos, anyway?"

Who cares? The market allocates the correct number of units according to demand. It is not like these units are built out of altruism. If there isn't demand we will have to look at policies and see if the ones we have that promote mostly point towers on low podiums should be modified for midrises that are full block buildouts with courtyards, or dense townhouse walkup apartments. (the second and third are cheaper to build, but you might have to sacrifice a little density). Eliminating minimum parking requirements and letting the market allocate up to a maximum level would be good too.

I agree that this would be a good outcome. However, why would a developer pay up for land zoned for a 30 story tower, and then build a townhome on it? How do the numbers add up for him when he can pay up for land zoned for a 30 story tower in London or New York, and build a 30 story tower on it?