[Out of Towner]

As opposed to what the City did with Hall D?

A tower of any height would be much less intrusive when it comes to protecting view corridors while providing animation and access.

Hall D (?? convention center) in front of 97Street is exactly the kind of visual dead end that should be avoided.

 

[kcantor]

Hall D (?? convention center) in front of 97Street is exactly the kind of visual dead end that should be avoided.

Which was exactly my point…

 

[kcantor]

I really don't see the point of preserving river valley views when that Russian church is standing in the way.

There's still quite a stretch from the church back to the convention centre...

 

[archited]

The Russian orthodox church is part of preservable history.

 

[devobersver]

Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.

This is incorrect. The city's budget for bike lanes from 2023-2027 was $100M, most of this budget has yet to be spent.

 

[Avenuer]

Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.

If you think the City would (somehow) choose to acquire and develop, a market high-rise condominium project, which would need much more than $100M, you are quite out to lunch.

Equating potential City funding for a singular high-rise residential project to a City-wide active transportation network is even more of a stretch, honestly. Not the same things at all.

 

[thommyjo]

Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.

100mil over 4 years.

25/year.

It equates to a couple of bucks annually for the average household. Basically non material.

Also, false dichotomies aren’t helpful. Our active transportation funding is less proportionally than even its mode share. Arguably the most objective approach would be to tie those together (which would still fail to address 50+ years of unequal funding we should work to catch up on too).

 

[Out of Towner]

This is incorrect. The city's budget for bike lanes from 2023-2027 was $100M, most of this budget has yet to be spent.

You're right. Instead of saying "last year alone," I should have said "was approved." Sorry for any confusion it may have caused.

 

[Out of Towner]

100mil over 4 years.

25/year.

It equates to a couple of bucks annually for the average household. Basically non material.

Also, false dichotomies aren’t helpful. Our active transportation funding is less proportionally than even its mode share. Arguably the most objective approach would be to tie those together (which would still fail to address 50+ years of unequal funding we should work to catch up on too).

If the cost is only a couple bucks to the average household, then cyclists should be able to pay to register their bicycles, pay for insurance, pay for bike path upkeep, and pay for parking. I mean, there's so many of you guys using the paths, it shouldn't be a problem to cover the cost of them. Or at least make a contribution for your transportation convenience. Basically non material.

 

[Out of Towner]

If you think the City would (somehow) choose to acquire and develop, a market high-rise condominium project, which would need much more than $100M, you are quite out to lunch.

Equating potential City funding for a singular high-rise residential project to a City-wide active transportation network is even more of a stretch, honestly. Not the same things at all.

The only one talking about the City developing a high-rise condominium project on the Alldritt property is you. I posited that expenditures on bicycle paths have been prioritized by the City and that it's budget doesn't permit other things to be done. The City doesn't have the money to do everything.

 

[thommyjo]

If the cost is only a couple bucks to the average household, then cyclists should be able to pay to register their bicycles, pay for insurance, pay for bike path upkeep, and pay for parking. I mean, there's so many of you guys using the paths, it shouldn't be a problem to cover the cost of them. Or at least make a contribution for your transportation convenience. Basically non material.

We do, by paying property taxes and driving less on average than non biking households (meaning less of a tax burden and contribution to congestion and road damage).

And many of the neighborhoods with the highest cycling rates are also central and more expensive. Meaning higher property taxes than all the car dependent suburbanites who require 2x as many roads to live their daily lives.

And once again, car registration doesn’t pay for roads. Neither does insurance. And most car parking is free and requires 5-8x the space of a car. Property taxes pay for our roads buddy. Not sure how many times a dozen of us need to tell you this.

 

[Avenuer]

The only one talking about the City developing a high-rise condominium project on the Alldritt property is you. I posited that expenditures on bicycle paths have been prioritized by the City and that it's budget doesn't permit other things to be done. The City doesn't have the money to do everything.

You’re the one bringing up bike infrastructure in a thread about that property though…

 

[constance_chlore]

We do, by paying property taxes and driving less on average than non biking households (meaning less of a tax burden and contribution to congestion and road damage).

And many of the neighborhoods with the highest cycling rates are also central and more expensive. Meaning higher property taxes than all the car dependent suburbanites who require 2x as many roads to live their daily lives.

And once again, car registration doesn’t pay for roads. Neither does insurance. And most car parking is free and requires 5-8x the space of a car. Property taxes pay for our roads buddy. Not sure how many times a dozen of us need to tell you this.

Ah but what about the fire pits in the warehouse park?

 

[Out of Towner]

We do, by paying property taxes and driving less on average than non biking households (meaning less of a tax burden and contribution to congestion and road damage).

And many of the neighborhoods with the highest cycling rates are also central and more expensive. Meaning higher property taxes than all the car dependent suburbanites who require 2x as many roads to live their daily lives.

And once again, car registration doesn’t pay for roads. Neither does insurance. And most car parking is free and requires 5-8x the space of a car. Property taxes pay for our roads buddy. Not sure how many times a dozen of us need to tell you this.

You should put some oil on your chain because it squeaks. This summer a middle age woman in Calgary was reportedly struck by a kid riding a bicycle. She fell and hit her head on the bike path and died from her injury. An accident but no insurance.

 

[Out of Towner]

You’re the one bringing up bike infrastructure in a thread about that property though…

No. I used bike paths as an example of City Council having priorities. Do you get it now?