103 Avenue Civic Precinct Renewal

[Daveography]

Explore the possibilities and potential of 103 Avenue
September 16, 2019

103 Avenue, between 100 Street and 101 Street, is a natural connection that links people to the Civic Precinct, Ice District, the Royal Alberta Museum, Winspear Centre, City Hall, Stanley A. Milner Public Library, office towers, restaurants, hotels and the Valley Line South LRT. The City of Edmonton is exploring ideas to transform this important connection into a green and walkable streetscape.

Join the project team to share your feedback and ideas to develop a vision and options for the 103 Avenue Streetscape Project.

Date: Tuesday September 17
Time: 3 - 6 p.m. (drop-in)
Location: Edmonton Tower Lobby, 10111 104 Avenue NW

This event will introduce the project, provide background information and seek public input that will be used in the development of a concept design.

For more information:
edmonton.ca/103avenue

 

[KyleBlanchett]

103 Avenue Streetscape

The 103 Avenue Streetscape Project focuses on enhancing the area between 100 Street and 101 Street.

www.edmonton.ca

 

[archited]

Better than nothing but not anywhere near a functional potential.

 

[Daveography]

@archited What would you do differently?

 

[archited]

Quite a few things, @Daveography -- the proposal as it exists seems to be just a passive park -- isn't there already one of those on the south apron of City Hall? Is that one so overcrowded that another one is needed. I think the street needs to be activated with vehicular traffic lanes eliminated to the greatest extent possible (minding the need for emergency vehicle access). So, in reference to the plan above I would completely close off vehicle traffic on the lane south of 103rd Avenue, ensuring that there was an adequate turnaround on the east/west lane 1/2 block south of 103 Avenue (more than adequate to service the traffic in and out of the Edmonton Centre parkade for monthly renters). In its place I would enable the installation of retail/hospitality kiosks on this section of alley against the blank wall of the parkade facing the "Centennial Building" (Churchill Revera Building). The pedestrian alley between the new kiosks and the existing CRUs would help to enliven a "dead alley". I would also collect all egress/ingress traffic going westward from the "Main Street Building" and direct flow from their entry/exit portals to 101st Street, eliminating traffic altogether eastward to 100 street.
I would close off the 103rd avenue entry/exit to the surface parking lot that faces 101 street and 104 Avenue -- the access on 104 Avenue seems sufficient for such a small lot and the City should not make "easy accommodation" to surface lots at any rate. Two lanes of traffic (one eastbound; one westbound) is sufficient for the parking structures (no more constricting than their actual entry/exit points anyway and I imagine the use of the "Main Street Building" Parkade is pretty casual anyway. Certainly the pedestrian sidewalk preference out of the MNP/Sutton Place Parkade, being far more active, reeks of a Planning error of calamitous proportions. That sums up the ideas in terms of vehicular movement.

The 103 Avenue block, then, freed up for pedestrian activity should NOT be passive it should be ACTIVE - with kiosks, performance areas, engaging street furniture and the possibility of a second level pedway connection (also doubling as a "shelter") from the second level of City Hall to the Edmonton Admin building a short block away, with plenty of vertical access along the route down to street level.

What we have here looks like an effort that was actually done internally by City Planners -- the "planting beds and benches" solution that will not impel pedestrians to check it out more than one time.

 

[Daveography]

@archited I hope you'll provide that feedback on the survey.

 

[archited]

@Daveography, I did respond to the survey but I find that nobody reads them -- I believe that at best they put them in "data piles" probably labeled "pro", "con" and "neutral" where, if the "pro" wins out, they surge ahead with the project. The City administration -- as you know from past comments that I have made -- needs a "seismic shake-up" to root out the dead wood that resides there. BTW the "pros" could win here if effected by a benign sense of "aren't those pretty little renderings." This falls into the category of "good enough for Edmonton". Good example -- the millions that were spent on 96th street upgrades -- nice to look at; no energy.

 

[itom987]

Not a single homeless/panhandler person to be seen in the rendering. The proposal for this insignificant street is only good for one thing, loitering.

 

[Daveography]

@itom987 We should want more people loitering.

If homelessness and panhandling are that much of a concern, then support social services, supportive housing, affordable housing, UBI, etc.

 

[itom987]

It only takes 1 panhandler to make 10 people think twice about hanging out in the area. I'm not against urban parks but they need to be built in areas where there already is a lot of foot traffic. This not a "Field of Dreams" situation where they build it, users will come.

 

[itom987]

Furthermore, let's say this project has a price tag of 5 million dollars. Some people will think it is money well spent, but discussion on maintenance is usually absent from the presentation. The cost of maintaining said project will be much more than a regular street.

 

[Daveography]

@itom987 This bit of avenue is actually pretty well travelled, especially with the City of Edmonton staff now in Edmonton Tower. The problem is that no one has any reason to linger here (being a wind tunnel doesn't help, but some of the proposed changes should help that).

The changes will also open up opportunities for patios (looking at you Rose & Crown and Pazzo Pazzo), where there's currently insufficient space.

Of course this will have maintenance costs. So do overbuilt and underutilized roads but we don't spend nearly as much time talking about those.

 

[danimori]

I have said this in the survey, but I hope the city adds tables, not just benches. There are TONS of benches in the city; Very few tables. I also suggested having more active uses. A linear, small dog area, for example. I also mentioned that the City is redeveloping lots of streets in a grey, dark colour. I am worried that everything in the downtown will become grey haha. Overall, I think a bit more creativity and asking the question of "Why come here over churchill) would help this space.

 

[archited]

@Daveography there is no change to the Rose and Crown sidewalk physically other than (perhaps) new paving material and a few twigs that will take twenty years to grow -- under this proposal the sidewalk will be the same width fronted by parallel parking -- again zero imagination and thoughtless plunking of "this" here and "that" there. And do you actually think that those wind screen thingies are functional?

 

[archited]

Millions of dollars to create a dead street -- really smart City administration (not!) DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!