Iron Horse Line / Station Park | ?m | 6s | Beljan Development | Hodgson Schilf Evans

[Guy 1]

My issue with it is just the size and impermeability that it creates (it's ugly too, but that's beside the point). If we want this area to be more walkable, we can't have a building that stretches 2 blocks without being able to get through. It's kind of like how city centre mall blocks 102 st between 102 & 103 ave. An extra block may not sound like much, but it makes a huge difference to the walkability of an area.

 

[IanO]

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Considering whats there right now and has been there for many years this project would be a massive improvement.

 

[archited]

^^^^ Yes it would; doesn't mean there isn't room for further improvement -- eliminate right-most lane (allowing for a right-turn lane closer to Whyte) expand the sidewalk and look to Beljan to add retail and put parking below grade and to add the provision for a future Edmonton Radial Railway System Depot on the east side of the development.

 

[Daveography]

We need to be mindful that this is one of the primary entranceways into our Downtown... and it is confusing and congested as is.

Confusing how?

Congestion is part of living in a city. You yourself have been quoted as saying we need more congestion, in the context that it encourages more walking, cycling, transit, more density, more local businesses, etc. etc. etc.

Being a primary entrance to downtown for cars isn't a good reason to constrain the environment for everyone else anymore. That's the entire point of so much of what Council and Administration have been working towards for the better part of a decade.

 

[IanO]

Not for me, but if I had a dollar for 'Gateway to Downtown is confusing, hairpin this or that'... well, I'd be rich.

Congestion can be positive and is found where people want to be and yes, I agree.

We need to ensure reasonably good access through here as much as to here.

 

[archited]

^^^^Two through lanes would do just fine since that is what goes down the hill to new bridge at any rate -- short turning lane eastward near Whyte; longer turning lane west at Whyte. No parking along Gateway.

 

[David A]

As someone who lives not too far away from here, I find much of Gateway to be a bit bleak, perhaps because of much of the area near the rail line has not been developed. You get to the Whyte Ave area, yes it is a nice lively area, but blink and you go through it along Gateway in a few blocks. It would be nice to extend the Whyte Ave vibe a bit further south on Gateway. It is a nice area, but a lot is just concentrated along Whyte Ave itself. We should take more advantage of some of these prime spaces we have and fill them up.

 

[Clearshades]

I don't know how old you are but I started exploring Whyte since I was 14. The corridor south if 104st was not even activated including the train terminal during my early 20s (in the 90s). After mid 90s, it saw progressive movement.

 

[Macroman520]

We need to be mindful that this is one of the primary entranceways into our Downtown... and it is confusing and congested as is.

I don't really see how it's a primary entranceway into downtown. It's certainly a way, but it just kind of... stops at Saskatchewan Drive without connecting directly to either of the approach roads for the Walterdale Bridge. The main thing I see it doing is generating unnecessary through-traffic for Whyte Avenue (or leading to an incredibly sharp, hairpin turn from Saskatchewan Drive to Queen Elizabeth Park Road), which is already fairly congested as it is. There's no real reason or benefit I can see to having it treated as a primary roadway north of 63 Street. Traffic should be redirected to 109/99 Streets instead, which align with the bridges leading into downtown.

 

[IanO]

It is a primary routing from anyone coming from Red Deer south.

 

[Macroman520]

That's true, but it doesn't seem to be the best, or even a good one.

 

[IanO]

Why not? Direct until north of Whyte, you can pop into Whyte for some lunch of dinner and then carryon. It provides you with two options to Downtown from Sask depending on where you are going and is scenic.

 

[Macroman520]

It's certainly direct (but again, not to downtown), and is scenic to an extent (once you are past all of the industrial to the immediate south). All of that is correct, but those benefits exist (mostly) with 109/99 as well. Neither of those are too far from the good parts of Whyte Avenue, and are more conveniently placed for travel into downtown than Gateway Blvd. The current arrangement certainly has benefits, as you pointed out, but not overwhelmingly so. I don't think any significant benefits would be lost if Gateway Boulevard was no longer an arterial. My main problem is that what we have now is (in my opinion) keeping Gateway Boulevard from developing in the same way as the rest of the area (for reasons which have been pointed out by others), and I don't think the interests of Whyte Avenue are exactly best served by directing significant traffic volumes right through the most attractive portion of it.

 

[archited]

Gateway could be a dramatic entrance if it split south of Saskatchewan drive with a single northbound lane connecting to the aforementioned Sask Drive and two lanes tunneling under Sask Drive with a more direct link to Queen Elizabert Park Road (no more hairpins) and the new 105th Street Bridge (imagine the vista that would open up as you traveled northward -- wow -- what a view -- it would have Kaizen's camera workin' overtime!).