University City - What's Your Opinion

[Innersoul1]

Interesting that Knightsbridge is a home building company. Those of you familiar with the Tuscany area of town will have seen their Villas along Stoney. Interesting that a primarily low-rise builder has moved into the high-rise market.

Their is some validity to the comment about investors scooping up the majority of suites. But that being said new rules on down payments certainly means that this is a trickier task. i would say that there will be a lot of interest from buyers. Let's face it. With the price point the builder is smart to market towards the investor. The should sell out the project. As the area continues to develop we will surely see a diversity in the price-point and the type of projects appealing to the scope of the market.

[WhipperSnapper]

How can anyone decide on the design with such an amateurish rendering?

I wonder how small the studios will be? Is 380 square feet out of question?

The building should sell extremely well. The partner, Metropia, is a relatively new , relatively unheard of company however, there is a ton of experience, a ton of money, and a ton of political power behind it. The local population doesn't need to buy a single unit for this to sell out in hours/days. Yeah, those 60 units will be long gone before the sales office opens to everyone.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Riise

I understand the point Policy Wonk had made and it is a valid concern. In the land-use and transportation planning nexus, I think it would fall on the transportation side. Increasing the capacity or speed of the CTrain is something I was actually thinking about last week, I had an interesting thought; just like our urban form maybe we should go up rather than out. Are there any metro systems that use double-decker trains? The closest I can think of is the RER. Bi-level trains could make the CTrain's high-level platforms a useful feature after-all. However, the heights of our tunnels might rule this option out.

It is possible to further excavate a tunnel to accommodate stacked cars, but it will take a tunnel out of commission for several years. It will also displace stations near the tunnels. Any system will be constrained by decisions made at the outset.

[WhipperSnapper]

Obviously theory and practice are two different things but isn't this TOD planned as a self contained live/work community? You would hope some of the future residents will choose to live here to be able to walk to work and avoid commuting altogether.

[Wooster]

Yes, not only that, but this area including the University and growing research park will increasingly bring reverse commuters to the NW.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Obviously theory and practice are two different things but isn't this TOD planned as a self contained live/work community? You would hope some of the future residents will choose to live here to be able to walk to work and avoid commuting altogether.

I think you are melding two different things, mixed-use and TOD are not necessarily linked. I don't think it would be a bad thing but I don't see enormous white collar employment clusters springing up outside of downtown.

With the exception of the core, making housing decisions around the assumption you are going to be working in an area for the foreseeable future seems unwise.

[Chinook Arch]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

How can anyone decide on the design with such an amateurish rendering?

I wonder how small the studios will be? Is 380 square feet out of question?

The building should sell extremely well. The partner, Metropia, is a relatively new , relatively unheard of company however, there is a ton of experience, a ton of money, and a ton of political power behind it. The local population doesn't need to buy a single unit for this to sell out in hours/days. Yeah, those 60 units will be long gone before the sales office opens to everyone.

The rendering is vague, but I'm interested mostly in the general massing, which looks good to me. The best thing about this project (for me) is that it gets the Brentwood TOD going.

[rapid_business]

/\ Agreed. Rendering is vague and tells you very little. But the pricing is aggressive and the location for such is optimal. They won't have a problem moving the units, but their inexperience in multi-family might lead to some PM problems.

[mersar]

I think that their inexperience in tower-based multi-family is why they partnered with Metropia from Toronto (one of their current projects is Emerald Park, which is a 41 and 32 story set of condo towers in North York). Knightsbridge has done several other multifamily projects before, but its the more villas style lowrise out in the newer communities (Tuscany, Aspen Woods)

[atlas_inc]

Taken off the Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Univer...8712332?ref=ts

[rapid_business]

I mean if you are set on stucco because it is cheap and you don't know any better, fine. But to choose that colour? I mean.... come on!

[McMahon]

Originally Posted by Riise

I understand the point Policy Wonk had made and it is a valid concern. In the land-use and transportation planning nexus, I think it would fall on the transportation side. Increasing the capacity or speed of the CTrain is something I was actually thinking about last week, I had an interesting thought; just like our urban form maybe we should go up rather than out. Are there any metro systems that use double-decker trains? The closest I can think of is the RER. Bi-level trains could make the CTrain's high-level platforms a useful feature after-all. However, the heights of our tunnels might rule this option out.

Not just the height of the tunnels, but quite a few stations would have to be rebuilt... Stampede stations, Chinook, Heritage, Southland, Anderson to name a few.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by McMahon

Not just the height of the tunnels, but quite a few stations would have to be rebuilt... Stampede stations, Chinook, Heritage, Southland, Anderson to name a few.

There is also the isue of weight. As far as I know the C-train tracks are only ment to be used by light trains, not by heavy trains and double-decked trains are usually heavy trains.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by McMahon

Not just the height of the tunnels, but quite a few stations would have to be rebuilt... Stampede stations, Chinook, Heritage, Southland, Anderson to name a few.

Good point, I use to ride the 202 so I didn't even think about this issue.

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

There is also the isue of weight. As far as I know the C-train tracks are only ment to be used by light trains, not by heavy trains and double-decked trains are usually heavy trains.

The light and heavy in LRT and heavy rail corresponds to the capacity of the rail vehicles and not their weight. IIRC, quite often LRVs actually outweigh subway cars.

[Policy Wonk]

Subways cars are in a world all their own outside of the light vs. heavy rail distinction.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

In the time I have lived in my house I have worked in seven different locations for four different companies, how many home owners are going to relocate every time they change jobs? To say nothing of two-income families. One of my relatives worked for eight different companies in the last decade, the life of a contractor.

And how do you describe the C-Train at rush hour or over-all capacity outlook?

Where does the next capacity increase come from after the addition of four car trains, which will only partially catch up with present peak demand?

The C-Train is successful, but it doesn't have infinite capacity, it is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. (that analogy has to apply to something)

Capacity could be increased quite substantially. Five car platforms could be implemented on the NW and S lines with the addition of the Eighth Avenue Subway since train lengths will no longer be constrained by the length of blocks on 7th Ave. If that is done we can have a 66% increase in train capacity (over current three car trains) and a 100% plus increase in number of trains. It more than triples the current capacity of those lines. If we ever need more capacity than that we might need to get creative but it is a problem that is decades in the future at the earliest.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If we ever need more capacity than that we might need to get creative but it is a problem that is decades in the future at the earliest.

Thing is, the actions we take today will decide what actions we can take in the future. For instance, the operational envelope used today has strongly affected our ability to run double-decker trains in the future.

[bookermorgan]

I also like University City.........

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

To this problem of overcrowding in the c-train, I think that the best solution would be to separate the lines downtown by building new tracks either underground or at grade one block away from the present tracks. That would double the possible frequency of both lines.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Riise

Thing is, the actions we take today will decide what actions we can take in the future. For instance, the operational envelope used today has strongly affected our ability to run double-decker trains in the future.

If five car consists running at the maximum headway allowed by the Eighth Avenue Subway is not enough then there are plenty of solutions beyond running double-decker trains on the C-Train line. A comprehensive commuter rail system coupled with additional rapid transit lines should be capable of keeping that level of service on the NW-S line viable indefinitely.

Really, double-decker trains seem much better suited to commuter rail systems with fewer stops than rapid transit systems. The longer egress times are less of an issue on a system with a single terminus, downtown, and fewer stops in general.