IanO
Superstar
Actual logic and reasonability!
Focus on other areas that are more conducive to this and finding success.
Focus on other areas that are more conducive to this and finding success.
|
|
|
Car-Free Streets
- Thread starter Gronk!
- Start date
trevorhayden
Active Member
Would only support if it comes with a current downtown pedestrianization opportunities plan. Otherwise keep it open to people and closed to car pollution.
archited
Senior Member
How stupid! The argument is based on the position of the bike lanes vs the "vehicle space". How hard would it be to flip the two making for a larger pedestrian sidewalk and therefore more appealing people space. The added benefit is that it would also actually enhance bicycle activity in its relocated location. Administration wunderkinds showing the stuff they are made of once again! Good God this is frustratingly dumb!
TAS
Senior Member
Well 102 Ave will be closed from 102 - 107 streets for lrt construction soon so 102 Ave won't have any traffic coming from the west and traffic can't come from the east because it's one way so it is only going to have a couple of streets feeding into it.
And for the past 4 years? it hasn't had any traffic feeding into it east of 103 Street.
Again, would have been nice to have lrt running at least to see more human traffic there and better understand the pedestrian patterns.
BrettB
Active Member
I do rather object to city staff using the term jaywalking in a report to council.
Greenspace
Senior Member
I think it's premature to look at a pilot when we don't even know how the street will work with the LRT open and people there. Right now it only exacerbates the on-going safety challenges. It has been closed during construction, but that's not to say it hasn't had a negative effect on surround businesses or that businesses haven't been basing their plans on the fact it was to open again, down from 4 lanes to 1 lane for circulation, parkade access, business deliveries, etc.
So far I've seen nothing planned or otherwise to activate the space other than just keeping it close. Certainly not from those who are advocating it's closure. No one even walks on the closed lane, and can't be used to extend sidewalk patios (if there were any which there aren't). We need to make decisions based on previous consultation, expectations, planning and real data (like go down there and experience how it is right now).
So far I've seen nothing planned or otherwise to activate the space other than just keeping it close. Certainly not from those who are advocating it's closure. No one even walks on the closed lane, and can't be used to extend sidewalk patios (if there were any which there aren't). We need to make decisions based on previous consultation, expectations, planning and real data (like go down there and experience how it is right now).
CaptainBL
Active Member
My windows face 102 ave. If I had to guestimate, any day that I have looked during "peak" day time times I could probably count on one hand the number of people I have seen walking on the street between the old Bay space and the old Holt's entrance.
Just because you close the street does not magically equal a good idea. There is nothing there to make it interesting to walk, there are no shops or patios or engaging street art. There is literally nothing down there to engage or attract walking and it shows by the lack of people I see on a daily basis.
Its another example of great idea, awful execution. And until there is an idea to activate that street (which I dont think is even possible given what is there) I don't see any benefits to having this street remained closed and hoping that does something beneficial for some reason.
archited
Senior Member
^^^^ Au contraire mon frère. The City Admin-types and people on this Skyrise Cities site are continually bitching about the lack of downtown involvement and engagement (particularly by the pedestrian realm) and yet here we are faced with a number of progressive opportunities:
1. Howard Way (100a Street) represents one of the best potential Pedestrian realms in all of downtown and it bumps right into 102 Avenue
2. Edmonton City Centre West is purported to be planning a complete overhaul that includes opening up to the street -- the 102nd Ave. closure would improve chances of that coming to fruition.
3. The Edmonton Public Library -- a proven people place -- faces 102nd Ave. as does the Winston Churchill Square, as does the Citadel and the Winspear Centre
4. Edmonton Centre East and its fortress-like wall would be encouraged to connect to the street
5. TD Bank realizing that potential rebuilt its street facade to accommodate on-street pedestrian traffic/
6. The property on the Old Tegler Building site is a prime hotel location at street level -- it too would be encouraged to engage a pedestrian oriented street (hotel guests would find street vibrancy a huge plus in developmental circles.
7. Manulife Centre is waiting to see (nay lobbying to see) what becomes of 102nd Avenue before finalizing street-facing plans for Retail and Hospitality.
8. There will be a DIRECT connection to the new Warehouse District Park and to the Alex Decoteau (existing) Park -- why not build on that advantage -- the 102 Ave. could become a linear park connecting both parks and all of the foregoing in one chain.
9. 102 Avenue intersects 104th street, one of downtown's most friendly pedestrian realms.
Good Lord there are at least a couple of dozen more positive reasons to convert the 102 Avenue realm into a pedestrian strip in the downtown area... one of the most important reasons is to stop the whining of people on this site that Edmonton is "deadmonton" and homelessness and downtown crime is disproportionate for this City (which it most definitely is NOT).
This is an experiment -- why not see it through. First and foremost flip the Bike lanes with the Pedestrian realm in favor of wider sidewalks. The Admin. rationale is built on a current condition which should definitely CHANGE!
1. Howard Way (100a Street) represents one of the best potential Pedestrian realms in all of downtown and it bumps right into 102 Avenue
2. Edmonton City Centre West is purported to be planning a complete overhaul that includes opening up to the street -- the 102nd Ave. closure would improve chances of that coming to fruition.
3. The Edmonton Public Library -- a proven people place -- faces 102nd Ave. as does the Winston Churchill Square, as does the Citadel and the Winspear Centre
4. Edmonton Centre East and its fortress-like wall would be encouraged to connect to the street
5. TD Bank realizing that potential rebuilt its street facade to accommodate on-street pedestrian traffic/
6. The property on the Old Tegler Building site is a prime hotel location at street level -- it too would be encouraged to engage a pedestrian oriented street (hotel guests would find street vibrancy a huge plus in developmental circles.
7. Manulife Centre is waiting to see (nay lobbying to see) what becomes of 102nd Avenue before finalizing street-facing plans for Retail and Hospitality.
8. There will be a DIRECT connection to the new Warehouse District Park and to the Alex Decoteau (existing) Park -- why not build on that advantage -- the 102 Ave. could become a linear park connecting both parks and all of the foregoing in one chain.
9. 102 Avenue intersects 104th street, one of downtown's most friendly pedestrian realms.
Good Lord there are at least a couple of dozen more positive reasons to convert the 102 Avenue realm into a pedestrian strip in the downtown area... one of the most important reasons is to stop the whining of people on this site that Edmonton is "deadmonton" and homelessness and downtown crime is disproportionate for this City (which it most definitely is NOT).
This is an experiment -- why not see it through. First and foremost flip the Bike lanes with the Pedestrian realm in favor of wider sidewalks. The Admin. rationale is built on a current condition which should definitely CHANGE!
Last edited:
Gronk!
Senior Member
The trial run needs to be extended until the end of this summer at very least. We need to see what happens when the Valley Line LRT is finally open (or maybe that should be an 'if').
CaptainBL
Active Member
This might be the most pie-in-the-sky claim you've made since you adamantly claimed last spring that we would see sales trailers on the Quarters hotel site.
Everything you said sounds like a great outcome, and I 100% agree with the idea of all of it. But it would all (or even some) need to be executed on and executed well for it to come together...otherwise you are left with what 102ave is which is a good idea and poor execution...hence the point of my post and what is a closed street (great idea) with no activation on a dead and vacant street (poor execution).
This build it and they will come (or close the street and they will automatically come) is half baked on the City's part and is missing the other component - reasons for people to come. Even if we wait out the pilot until the LRT line is open (if it opens this year) that stretch between Manulife and 103 street will only act as an intermediary transit point for people to pass through until there is reason for people to be there.
IanO
Superstar
ar·chi·tect
/ˈärkəˌtek(t)/
Learn to pronounce
noun
/ˈärkəˌtek(t)/
Learn to pronounce
noun
- 1.
a person who is 'qualified' to design buildings and to plan and supervise their construction.
"an architect takes into consideration all of the constraints involved in building a house, but few of the realities'
Similar:
designer of aspirations
planner/not to be confused with doer
imagineer
Garneau2Go
Active Member
I think half the issue is that this is being done as a pilot rather than just outright closing 102nd permanently and being done with it. The infrastructure and development needed to activate the space is really hard to justify for a short term pilot project. If you commit and outright put permanent barriers in to shut it to everything but emergency traffic the project will eventually turn out alright .
IanO
Superstar
Bingo. Either do it or don't (correct action in this case) and while pilots are great at times, they sometimes end up with little buy-in for the reasons you mentioned.
JuliallThat
Active Member
I think many are framing the question backwards.
We shouldn't be treating "open to cars" as the default, especially in the downtown area. We should be treating "closed to cars" as the default for any future project, and then only enable automobile access when it's necessary or makes sense to do. Some roads absolutely it makes sense to be open to cars, and so we will continue to do as such. But every time we redevelop a street we should be asking: "Do cars need to have access to this road for this area to function properly?"
102 Ave? We've had no cars on that road for years and it's been fine, clearly we don't need to allow cars on that road for it to function - and so we shouldn't. "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
We shouldn't be treating "open to cars" as the default, especially in the downtown area. We should be treating "closed to cars" as the default for any future project, and then only enable automobile access when it's necessary or makes sense to do. Some roads absolutely it makes sense to be open to cars, and so we will continue to do as such. But every time we redevelop a street we should be asking: "Do cars need to have access to this road for this area to function properly?"
102 Ave? We've had no cars on that road for years and it's been fine, clearly we don't need to allow cars on that road for it to function - and so we shouldn't. "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
IanO
Superstar
How is 102 Avenue fine? It's literally the quietest, least active street in the core.
I am ALL for pedestrian 1st, but this simply does not make a lot of sense; with the only thing backwards being the reverse engineering of the cross-section.
I am ALL for pedestrian 1st, but this simply does not make a lot of sense; with the only thing backwards being the reverse engineering of the cross-section.