News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.8K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.9K     0 

Car-Free Streets

Guaranteed that Oxford had CCM pegged for disposition long before any construction barricade touched 102.

Holt's closing, from everything I read about it, seemed like a death by 1000 cuts. Space issues, losing LV to WEM (and their overall expansion into luxury brands creating lack of interest in Holt), increasing crime and homelessness in the area, corporate retail strategy changes, the list goes on. Did 102 ave add additional downward pressure on Holt? Yes. Was it the reason they closed? Absolutely not.
 
Canada Place has a parkade entrance/exit on 97 St. There may be another parkade entrance/exit on the west side from Shoctor Alley.

20211112_150448.jpg
 
Last edited:
I really love this idea of totally closing 102nd ave to cars and making it a pedestrianized space (and imo it will probably happen once the VLW opens), but there are a couple things that would really help give an initiative to do this some more merit.

A: City Centre Mall redevelopment
B: Say it with me kids! Mid-Rise, Mixed-Use development along that road.
 
Coun. Anne Stevenson put forward a notice of motion on Monday to investigate the option of closing part of 102 Avenue to the single car traffic currently planned for the downtown area.

Pedestrians/cyclists only along with the LRT?

I say let's do it!
 
Partial closures on say Friday or Saturday nights but this is simply not needed until we far, far more businesses fronting it and considerably more people living, working and playing Downtown.

Select closures like 104st to enhance but don't make it into something hyper urban just to make it into something you like out of a postcard from HK or Europe. Heck, even in the very dense LKF (HK) they keep it open during the day and only close it at night... and it has dozens of business, bars, restaurants fronting and opening out onto it.

This is not the chicken and the egg conundrum. It is the egg and that egg should not hatch for some time.
 
Partial closures on say Friday or Saturday nights but this is simply not needed until we far, far more businesses fronting it and considerably more people living, working and playing Downtown.

Select closures like 104st to enhance but don't make it into something hyper urban just to make it into something you like out of a postcard from HK or Europe. Heck, even in the very dense LKF (HK) they keep it open during the day and only close it at night... and it has dozens of business, bars, restaurants fronting and opening out onto it.

This is not the chicken and the egg conundrum. It is the egg and that egg should not hatch for some time.
You broke the streak, @IanO it's absolutely impossible to agree with you, there. No beer for you.

If we don't plan NOW on how to stop the car-centrism (and start acting on such plans), we'll have trouble doing it in the future.

Also, I don't see the logic of avoiding closing lanes/streets like the plague. One thing is going full Copenhagen and saying "let's ban cars from Downtown", but we're talking about closing a lane that has been closed for half a decade, now, anyways. And it's not "kiss or kill" anyways, as we can keep limited access to parkades (10km/h speeds and hefty fines for going even an inch faster), and to load/unload merchandise for businesses (limited hours, say, from 6 to 8am or after 7pm), ao we don't hurt businesses anymore, but there's no good reason to keep that open.

Sometimes you do come up with good ideas/observations for urban development, but I wish you'd keep your car-centrism to your car meetings, and out of the long-term planning of Edmonton's urban fabric.

And clarifying, I don't hate cars, I'm actually very fond of them, but I do believe that they have the least priority in our minds, when planning cities. Pedestrian, bikes, transit, all should be way above cars in the "food-chain".
 
I'll still buy one for you to further elaborate on my 'car-centric' position/lifestyle/ideals/devotion.

But is there a good reason to keep it closed? What is the goal here?

-safety?
-space for people?
-urban activation?
-other?

We can still plant seeds and showcase what 'could be' once we have need, density, footfall, desire, suitable frontages... etc. etc. etc.

It's aspirational to have the Avenue a pedestrian wonderland and one we should pursue, but removing a lane 'to give it back to the people' ain't going to do very much at all and if anything create a less desirable solution for more people.

Retain the oneway east for limited traffic, deliveries, access, pickups, taxis etc. Heck, only permit delivery, car share and taxi use if you want.
 

Back
Top