News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
O-tac said:
Seton is more suburban feeling than West District, but depending how they finish off the Market Street and Central Park it could improve quite a bit. Excluding of course the main retail areas to the west and the cookie cutter stick frame condos to the south.
Click to expand...
Part of the challenge is there's so much land available for greenfield so they end up building these car centric shopping complexes that cater to not only people in Seton, but Mahogany, Rangeview, etc. Infill areas like WD/UD are inherently constrained by the available land, which is more valuable, so they will build a UD Save On with underground parking rather than a gigantic Superstore. The area is already well served, so the grocery store can serve UD only and don't need to be the store for the entire subdivison.
 
Apart from the questionable layout etc, Trinity Hills is also just flat out ugly from an aesthetic perspective. They had a great opportunity to go with a cool Canmore-esque alpine village type theme to really tie it into topography and proximity to COP.... but nope, generic suburban forms and weird brown/grey/light yellow combos.

The only part I don't mind is the two towers.
 
DiscoStu said:
Apart from the questionable layout etc, Trinity Hills is also just flat out ugly from an aesthetic perspective. They had a great opportunity to go with a cool Canmore-esque alpine village type theme to really tie it into topography and proximity to COP.... but nope, generic suburban forms and weird brown/grey/light yellow combos.

The only part I don't mind is the two towers.
Click to expand...
This doesn't remind you of Canmore? Trinity Hills has 1/10th the development and 1/20th the traffic of the real Canmore and Canmore seemed to managed without building highway off-ramp / community interchange anywhere close to this scale.

1778017337668.png


Apart from the scale of all road elements pictured here it's how they bleed right into the neighbourhood that really isn't helping stitch a coherent urban village together, even before considering the architecture and building design.

I appreciate the generous and continuity of the pathways on both sides but seriously - no city anywhere builds (good quality) urban villages with this level of swooping 2.5 lane wide, semi-truck prioritizing roads as their primary entrances:

1778017655912.png
 
Last edited:
I really dislike these traffic circles with sharp points on them that are more ellipses than circles. Driving them can be confusing. Seton has the same kind of crap.

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
O-tac said:
I really dislike these traffic circles with sharp points on them that are more ellipses than circles. Driving them can be confusing. Seton has the same kind of crap.

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
They keep building them and I keep drifting on them. These are race courses not viable streets with a decent public realm.

Mobility Eng - keep building me full blown race tracks out of what should be normal streets - and I’ll keep using them as such.
 
CBBarnett said:
Put another way - it's like we universally decided hat an actually arterial/main street hybrid like a 18m-wide 17th Avenue SW is universally a terrible design and should never be built again. Instead we must build 4, 6 or 8 lane arterial monsters that are 40 to 60m wide. We seemed to decide that new functional main streets can only exist as a brand new stub road, essentially a little internally focused pocket corridor (e.g. Mahogany Centre SE for Westman, Market Street SE for Seton, University Ave in UD, Broadcast Ave for West District) rather than that corridor actually being a materially important street as part of the citywide system.
Click to expand...
We can hope that the planners intended to reserve a 40-60m ROW for the future road diet of 2 lanes wide sidewalks and bike lanes in 200 years when we've moved past this car centricity.
 
The thing that is common between all of the newer density (University District, West District, Trinity Hills, Currie, Seton, and maybe there's another) is that they're all not that well served by transit so there is no real opportunity to say, "hey, maybe we don't need this massive ROW because we have this Rapid-transit nearby." UD is close-ish to the Red Line and Currie is close-ish to MAX TEAL and MAX YELLOW, Seton will get the Green Line in 2050 but as of today, the best potential TOD are yet to be realized: Westbrook, Chinook, Heritage, Southland, Anderson, North Hill, Banff Trail, Brentwood, Northland (needs a station), Dalhousie, Franklin, Marlborough, Rundle, International Ave (make MAX PURPLE proper rapid-transit using bus lane on 9th Ave through Inglewood).
 
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger said:
The thing that is common between all of the newer density (University District, West District, Trinity Hills, Currie, Seton, and maybe there's another) is that they're all not that well served by transit so there is no real opportunity to say, "her, maybe we don't need this massive ROW because we have this Rapid-transit nearby." UD is close-ish to the Red Line and Currie is close-ish to MAX TEAL and MAX YELLOW, Seton will get the Green Line in 2050 but as of today, the best potential TOD are yet to be realized: Westbrook, Chinook, Heritage, Southland, Anderson, North Hill, Banff Trail, Brentwood, Northland (needs a station), Dalhousie, Franklin, Marlborough, Rundle, International Ave (make MAX PURPLE proper rapid-transit using bus lane on 9th Ave through Inglewood).
Click to expand...
Transit works best staying on consistent, reasonably high-speed, direct cross-town corridors that also have sufficient density concentrated around them in a walkable format.

We've built the big, reasonably high-speed, direct corridors, however we restricted walkable high density near them and reduced access and pedestrian priority (the opposite of best transit-supportive practice). We did build the walkable high density clusters, but awkwardly outside comfortable walking distance to the good transit corridors.

Transit then can stay on the corridor and underperform due to lack of supportive land uses, or deviate from the corridor to hit more density, but at the cost of travel time competitiveness, also leading to underperformance.
 
CBBarnett said:
Transit works best staying on consistent, reasonably high-speed, direct cross-town corridors that also have sufficient density concentrated around them in a walkable format.

We've built the big, reasonably high-speed, direct corridors, however we restricted walkable high density near them and reduced access and pedestrian priority (the opposite of best transit-supportive practice). We did build the walkable high density clusters, but awkwardly outside comfortable walking distance to the good transit corridors.

Transit then can stay on the corridor and underperform due to lack of supportive land uses, or deviate from the corridor to hit more density, but at the cost of travel time competitiveness, also leading to underperformance.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more, I'd also argue, to quote myself... The bolded are also very well connected to high-volume road infrastructure: the best potential TOD are yet to be realized: Westbrook, Chinook, Heritage, Southland, Anderson, North Hill, Banff Trail, Brentwood, Northland (needs a station), Dalhousie, Franklin, Marlborough, Rundle, International Ave.

So, it isn't like this density potential can only use transit, it should be an easy sell to developers. Urban benefits with the option to still keep your car.
 
It sounds like ECCO on 24th Street SE is ceasing operations at that site soon. From an article on a pile of garbage at the site... News to me

The company also said it still has provincial approval to operate its separate landfill at the site until June 2027. Despite this, ECCO said it is no longer operating the landfill, and is co-operating with a city request to stop accepting landfill material and begin capping and closing the site.

McDougall said the company's long-term vision for the site is to support transit-oriented development around the planned Green Line, whose alignment crosses the existing site. The plan aims to completely remove the landfill mound and return the land to a natural state. "The Green Line comes here. It's our plan to eliminate all material and cease operations to make way for much-needed residential development," he said.

We've seen a lot of residential development talked about for this area but little of it has actually been realized. Interesting that there's another parcel that will be available.

This section of the Green Line will be interesting to watch, from the Imperial lands near Ogden Road, to the old Curling Rink in Ogden and the numerous empty fields around here, in the long term, the Green Line could pull some decent ridership from the area.

Edit, so I looked at the DMAP. There's a condo development proposed for where the trailer park is... DP2025-02706

1778259320385.png


1778259361694.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top