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

Car-Free Streets

I really hope this review identifies additional opportunities going forward but lets it open as intended.

As mentioned before, have trial closures on a few weekends and explore what options could make this a vibrant pedestrian zone in a few years or simply on occasion.
Why, Ian, why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: God
-Lack of people
-Lack of need there
-Lack of density
-Lack of opportunity to review it as designed and in operation. Give it a chance as is and then see what works and what does not.
-We cannot get our other people places nailed down so why add this to the rather long list
-It's a corridor that would need a ton of programming, oversight and more dollars (see above)
-It's the wrong type of space (at the moment)
-It's awkward compared to other options out there.
-It has potential to be used as a testbed to see what might work without committing to changing direction now
-It has limited options for people to linger and enjoy something at the moment in terms of adjacent/fronting CRUs

I'm not opposed to spaces for people as I am predominantly a walker/pedestrian and while that should mean I support this without question it seems, there are a bunch of reasons/arguments as to why we should wait on this.
 
I imagine closing this lane will encourage developers to redevelop some of the surrounding buildings around 102nd for street oriented retail, amenities and access to take advantage of the increased inevitable foot traffic. More bars, restaurants, shops etc.

The LRT will encourage this no doubt. Closing this road to vehicles will help even more. Its a complete win on all sides.

In the time being what would stop the market on 104th from moving or expanding to pedestrian free 102nd ave? (They close 104th to cars for a reason) Or having street vendors or the city doing any sort of street activation events.
What if closing this to vehicles is the reason why developers will build for immediate density along 102. What if its the reason downtown becomes more lively.

Its literally going to be a slow single lane road where the lights are going to be red alot of the time anyway. Having cars on it will require more maintenance costs on the city due to vehicles being rougher on infrastructure.

This could very well attract and develop density. It may not be there right now but opening this to cars definitely wont encourage that development imo.
 
-Lack of people
-Lack of need there
-Lack of density
-Lack of opportunity to review it as designed and in operation. Give it a chance as is and then see what works and what does not.
-We cannot get our other people places nailed down so why add this to the rather long list
-It's a corridor that would need a ton of programming, oversight and more dollars (see above)
-It's the wrong type of space (at the moment)
-It's awkward compared to other options out there.
-It has potential to be used as a testbed to see what might work without committing to changing direction now
-It has limited options for people to linger and enjoy something at the moment in terms of adjacent/fronting CRUs

I'm not opposed to spaces for people as I am predominantly a walker/pedestrian and while that should mean I support this without question it seems, there are a bunch of reasons/arguments as to why we should wait on this.
Ian, honest question: when you were getting your Econ degree, did you have any professor teach you that demand can be supply induced, too, or they taught you it's just one-way?
 
Day 2 actually.

I just don't see the justification for this at this time with wide sidewalks and nice street furniture on each side and what would be an awkward space for pedestrians and unnecessary given other priorities and lack of use of those spaces.

I am of the opinion that it can successfully be used as designed to the benefit of more people for more reasons and believe that even with significant programming, additional street furniture and the like it would drive anywhere near enough footfall to make it any more or less attractive.

The scorecard says proceed as designed and reevaluate in 6 or 12 or 18 months.

But hey, it feels good so let's do it!
 
Day 2 actually.

I just don't see the justification for this at this time with wide sidewalks and nice street furniture on each side and what would be an awkward space for pedestrians and unnecessary given other priorities and lack of use of those spaces.

I am of the opinion that it can successfully be used as designed to the benefit of more people for more reasons and believe that even with significant programming, additional street furniture and the like it would drive anywhere near enough footfall to make it any more or less attractive.

The scorecard says proceed as designed and reevaluate in 6 or 12 or 18 months.

But hey, it feels good so let's do it!
Maybe that's why. They said it on day 2, and never revisited, because time and time again, your argument for everything is to bring the demand first, instead of trying to induce it, which from a development point of view, is extremely passive.

But Urban Economics 101 for you: in the study of intra-city dynamics, the best way to achieve denser a diverse neighborhoods is by way of inducing demand.
 
Induced demand can work as we have seen on 104st on Saturdays but there was a lot of talk of closing the Jasper-102Ave section to traffic permanently. It is miles ahead of 102 Avenue in terms of potential and yet would have/has failed when it is shutdown more regularly with limited or intermittent programming.

How anyone things 102 Avenue has any chance RIGHT NOW is clearly beyond my limited cranial ability.

We have been working on Churchill for a decade and finally had it attracting reasonable crowds at lunch, on some evenings and on multiple weekends (not talking festival season), but it continues to lag expected results and has a ton of things working for it.

102 Ave simply does not and the amount of resources to get it there will be significant and take years if not decades.

Let's focus on low-hanging fruit rather than the one coconut 70' up.
 
"How anyone things 102 Avenue has any chance RIGHT NOW is clearly beyond my limited cranial ability."

Without commenting on your cranial ability, I would say 'chance for what'? In my opinion it's not about making 102 a thriving pedestrian corridor immediately. Let's face it: 102 ave is not going to be thriving with vibrancy any time soon, regardless of what happens. It's a choice of what to use the existing space for. We can have the occasional car cruising down the ave or we can have the occasional pedestrians strolling down. My priority - and clearly that of our new council - is to create new spaces for pedestrians. Will it be vibrant right off the bat? of course not. But we don't need the space for cars, so we might as well make it a pedestrian space.
 

Back
Top