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

Car-Free Streets

^^^^ It seems that more and more you are being drawn to the 'O dark side.
All I am saying is temper your expectations for 102 Avenue. If anything, focus efforts on Downtown streets that have much more potential right now, like 97 Street, Jasper and 104 Street. There are only so many resources to go around and spreading them too thin won't help much compared to focusing efforts on specific areas.
 
Wrong @Avenuer -- opportunity is a wonton maiden -- she strikes in the most unlikely places. That is one of the great failings of "Planning"... you will see some examples of that in 2023
 
Hey, you, 102!
DSC_1128_zpsmn3iqlaa.jpg
 
Chicken-and-egg problem. CRUs were not in place forever. Create a scene that is conducive to CRUs and they will come... adjacent buildings will open up to the street and new buildings will plan with the street in mind.
 
Population for Edmonton 100 years ago was 60,000 so 100 years from now suggests major changes beyond the ability to fathom... the desired result is somewhere between 3 and 6 years -- I would split the difference if you are looking for a true answer.
 
If the population increases by 500,000 in 20 years (25,000 per year) - and that's below some forcasts, it seems like a lot of new developments will need to happen in a significantly faster way - perhaps even this one. I don't know what to expect to be honest. Is "fasten your seat belts..." appropriate?
 
We still have a bunch of parking lots and vacant land that has seen no change for 20+ years.
Change should take no longer than 6 years if it doesn't happen by then then we didn't do enough to facilitate change.
 
Revamping 12 blocks of Jasper Avenue will take damn near two decades... so don't expect much.
 
This post could not more perfectly exemplify why 102 Avenue should not be shut down to vehicles, or at least not yet. The bones are simply not there and while they could be added, the differences between the example she uses and 102 Avenue could not be more dissimilar and stark.

-Roadway width
-Small scale retail bays
-human-scale
-Feeling of comfort
-Density
-Greenery
-What appears to be a public washroom
-Sheltered from wind/elements to some degree
-Character buildings/surroundings

Lipstick on a pig holds true here and would lead to sending folks away with a poor quality experience that is a disservice to the movement and original idea.

Screen Shot 2023-01-22 at 10.35.00 AM.png


 
The proposal to keep 102 Ave closed for a year trial goes to a council public hearing on Feb. 21.

Administration makes it clear off the top they don't support the idea and the report going to council basically sh*ts all over the idea:

Though the proposal will allow for the further pedestrianization of this portion of 102 Avenue, notable constraints associated with this proposed closure area include:
  • Active Edges and Streetscape Activity - Surrounding land uses are not conducive to creating a vibrant pedestrian corridor
  • Design - The closure area is separated from sidewalks on the north and south side, which may cause confusion due to non-intuitive allocation of pedestrian space
  • Local Access - Nearby roadway/intersection may experience capacity and operational challenges, including wayfinding issues
  • Safety - New pedestrian crossing control challenges at intersections and increased potential for jaywalking across the bike lane or light rail transit (LRT) tracks
    Administration will work with the Downtown Business Association and stakeholders to develop a project for activation and submit an application for Downtown Vibrancy funding, which is subject to approval of the Core Partners Committee.
 

Back
Top