Stantec Tower | 250.84m | 66s | ICE District Prop.

[David A]

I'm obsessed with the implication here that elitists have pedestrians as their priority or that those who don't or can't drive are themselves the elitists. As for how much people "love" driving, I don't think anyone I've spoken to in my life has expressed joy about driving downtown; it is a poor situation for everyone involved. I personally don't think it should be the inherent right of suburban commuters to speed in and back out of downtown just because they like driving a car, at the expense of the quality of life of core residents. This attitude towards transportation is so, so tired.

Maybe unlike many other cities, our downtown is not generally an expensive place to live. So the people walking around are probably not rich elitists.

However, the people driving through in fancy SUV's or paying for parking and then driving back to Riverbend - that might be a different story.

In any event, if we want to make downtown more attractive, we do need to make it more appealing for people to live and walk around.

 

[Gus Haynes]

I'm obsessed with the implication here that elitists have pedestrians as their priority or that those who don't or can't drive are themselves the elitists. As for how much people "love" driving, I don't think anyone I've spoken to in my life has expressed joy about driving downtown; it is a poor situation for everyone involved. I personally don't think it should be the inherent right of suburban commuters to speed in and back out of downtown just because they like driving a car, at the expense of the quality of life of core residents. This attitude towards transportation is so, so tired.

Don't forget the implication that pedestrian infrastructure is somehow separate entirely from the concept of "transportation infrastructure". I've read some hot takes on this forum, but rarely have I guffawed so hard.

 

[ChazYEG]

People love cars, and love roads. We love being able to get across the city, access to deliveries, emergency services, etc.

Pedestrian improvements are nice, but not a necessity, especially at the expense of transportation infrastructure. Taking something such as road access away for the masses to allow for elitists to play simcity seems like a dangerous precedent.

Funny you'd say that.

"People love cars" is a hilarious statement. The vast majority of the folks I know actually hate driving routinely. What they do love is the illusion of convenience that having a car in a car-centric city gives. Never, in my entire life, I've ever heard ANYONE say: "Oh, I love commuting" or "Oh, I love having to drive for everything because I want to spend almost every waking second in my car". Even in the suburbs.

What you'll always hear is "I couldn't live with our a car here, it's so much more convenient than taking the bus/train" or "it's so convenient, because it would be a 30min walk. Who has time for that?".

People who actually love cars, car guys like Ian or me, HATE commuting or having to hop on a 3 min drive just to buy toothpaste. We love long drives, actually enjoying the cruising experience, etc. You ask me to cross the country driving on back roads and taking my time, just for the enjoyment, and I'll say yes every time. But I've gone days without bread because the very though of having to hop on my car to drive 5 min and back makes me roll my eyes.

Pedestrian improvements ARE a necessity and THEY ARE transportation infrastructure. Active transportation is also transportation. Cars already have the vast majority of the dedicated infrastructure, it's time to give some back to others, and make the city livable for EVERYONE, where driving is a choice, not a necessity. The cause-effect relation here is not "we need more road infrastructure because there are so many cars" but "we'll keep getting more cars because the only pieces of infrastructure that make moving around in a remotely convenient way are roads".

Also, it's kind of hilarious that you'd mention deliveries and emergency services... Europe, Asia, Latin America... All have these. Some of the places there have it WAY more efficient than we do, as a matter of fact, and yet they mostly have much better transportation infrastructure that is NOT car-centric. Care to explain how they're able to make such miracle happen? Flying firetrucks? Ambulance teleportation? Cop-in-a-box?

But the funniest thing is you saying the people wanting to put pedestrians first are elitists. That actually made me question my whole understanding of what elitism means. I've always thought that elitism was intrinsically related to money, so it would make more sense for me that elitists are those privileged ones who are spending huge swaths of money on the latests truck, suv or whatever other big mobile monstrosity (that are despised even by ACTUAL car lovers) and want to keep their privileges, because they HAVE to parade their $100k shiny new toy around, at the expense of the people who can't drive (either for physical reasons, or financial ones).

 

[archited]

I believe you are mistaken if you think that car-loving Ian wouldn't purchase a top-end Maserati, Ferrari, or Lamborghini if it was within his comfortable financial reach to do so -- not necessarily elitist just fanitist (coin). I have an idea, let's ask him. Some people and their respective chosen profession, together, demand a car in a City like Edmonton (or L.A.) just to be able to perform duties efficiently. A so-called "15-minute City" which is in Edmonton's sights will allow people to walk to basics (at least those within the dense core of that kind of build-out). One of the biggest fallacies in a utopian neighborhood in North America stems from the persistent need to order "stuff" online so that Amazon or Amazon-like providers can deliver (by almost anything but a bicycle) in an oversized cardboard container one's "stuff" buried discretely inside. The fallacy is the notion that this is "environmentally friendly" and it completely obviates the no-automobile vehicle modes that harbor such angst. There is a saving in having someone else do the driving for you (the generic "you" not the "you" you)? That is a rhetorical question. Until -- as a society -- we can go back to supporting brick-and-mortar retail as a mainstay we will not see the neighborhoods that we so desperately yearn for.

 

[ChazYEG]

I believe you are mistaken if you think that car-loving Ian wouldn't purchase a top-end Maserati, Ferrari, or Lamborghini if it was within his comfortable financial reach to do so -- not necessarily elitist just fanitist (coin). I have an idea, let's ask him.

My point went right over your head, didn't it? I am not unlike him (or any car enthusiast) and, if money was no object, I would buy any of these cars myself (as happy as I am with my small sportscar). But if anything can be said, He also advocates for more (and better) pedestrian infrastructure, and I very much doubt you'd ever hear from any of us that we want to spend hours commuting by car every day, and that we should prioritize cars in our urban areas. You might not like the guy, or have many disagreements with him (as I do), but these are things I have never heard from him.

The point, if it wasn't clear, is that calling people who advocate for pedestrian infrastructure "elitist" doesn't make sense AT ALL. Neither does implying that people who prefer pedestrian oriented streets in our urban neighbourhoods are elitist. And that has a lot to do with people who want to live in their big-ass suburban McMansions, drive their $120k F-150 King Ranch downtown everyday to work, at the expense of the people who either can't afford to drive, or can't drive due to physical or legal limitations. THAT is elitist. It has to do with privilege, and not just money.

As per your comment regarding online shopping, while I agree (and personally, I HATE online shopping. I'll do everything in my power to avoid it, unless it is substantially cheaper), I don't see this trend changing anytime soon, especially in North America. The "illusion of convenience" I alluded to includes this, and in our sprawling cities, where people don really like to drive (they just don't have any other more convenient way of going around), having someone do it for them, and deliver it at their doors is the way to go. This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation: do we need to change the mindset so that brick and mortar come back to life, or do we need public policy to somewhat "bankroll" brick and mortar and re-insert them into people's lives (changing zoning laws, reducing the power of HOAs, adding requirements for street oriented commercial units in suburban neighborhoods, etc...) so that people can start feeling what it is like to not HAVE to drive everywhere?

 

[archited]

No, it didn't go over my head -- and I was essentially agreeing with you.

 

[jason403]

I actually agree that making pedestrian friendly improvements are a good thing. However if they are at the expense of something else, the benefit is small compared to the cost.

I just find with idealism, only one side of the "improvement" is looked at, ignoring what is lost. Which is probably the likely reason that certain opinions may be popular on the forum, yet not with a majority of a random sampling of citizens.

 

[ChazYEG]

I just find with idealism only one side of the "improvement" is looked at, ignoring what is lost. Which is probably the likely reason that certain opinions may be popular on the forum, yet not with a majority of a random sampling of citizens.

In the very specific case of improving pedestrian friendliness in urban neighbourhoods, it's essentially impossible to significantly change anything without impacting car infrastructure. Two things cannot occupy the same physical space, it is as simple as that.

 

[archited]

Exactly, I think @jason403 was making that comparison when he said that a transfer of one for the other better make sense (financially or otherwise).

 

[Seamusmuldrew]

I actually agree that making pedestrian friendly improvements are a good thing. However if they are at the expense of something else, the benefit is small compared to the cost.

I just find with idealism, only one side of the "improvement" is looked at, ignoring what is lost. Which is probably the likely reason that certain opinions may be popular on the forum, yet not with a majority of a random sampling of citizens.

As someone who is in school for planning, the conversations I have with people when I tell them what I’m studying have repeatedly proven that the average Edmontonian shouldn’t be anywhere near where decisions are made about infrastructure. I understand some people believe they should have a direct say in exactly what happens to their tax money but that’s not really feasible. The ideas are popular with people on this forum since many take up an active interest in urban planning and design and know that improvements to active infrastructure are very often positive, especially in the long run.

 

[archited]

The history of "Planning" as a design discipline is also pretty sketchy (pun intended).

 

[Clearshades]

I believe you are mistaken if you think that car-loving Ian wouldn't purchase a top-end Maserati, Ferrari, or Lamborghini if it was within his comfortable financial reach to do so -- not necessarily elitist just fanitist (coin). I have an idea, let's ask him. Some people and their respective chosen profession, together, demand a car in a City like Edmonton (or L.A.) just to be able to perform duties efficiently. A so-called "15-minute City" which is in Edmonton's sights will allow people to walk to basics (at least those within the dense core of that kind of build-out). One of the biggest fallacies in a utopian neighborhood in North America stems from the persistent need to order "stuff" online so that Amazon or Amazon-like providers can deliver (by almost anything but a bicycle) in an oversized cardboard container one's "stuff" buried discretely inside. The fallacy is the notion that this is "environmentally friendly" and it completely obviates the no-automobile vehicle modes that harbor such angst. There is a saving in having someone else do the driving for you (the generic "you" not the "you" you)? That is a rhetorical question. Until -- as a society -- we can go back to supporting brick-and-mortar retail as a mainstay we will not see the neighborhoods that we so desperately yearn for.

Defaming someone is not cool. I don't hang out with Ian, but he has championed transit and walkable cities since the days of another community chat forum. Speak on your behalf and cool down on this uncouth assertions.

As per Edmonton and it's love for cars, that too is an unfair accusation. The city was designed to force car consumption. For example, to apply for jobs in certain areas, a vehicle is prerequisite. Transit make people wait for 1/2 hr or an hour. Some intimated about a few minutes wait under gruelling conditions; well, try waiting for a bus.
The "15 minute city", is a whole different topic and agenda altogether.

 

[Clearshades]

As someone who is in school for planning, the conversations I have with people when I tell them what I’m studying have repeatedly proven that the average Edmontonian shouldn’t be anywhere near where decisions are made about infrastructure. I understand some people believe they should have a direct say in exactly what happens to their tax money but that’s not really feasible. The ideas are popular with people on this forum since many take up an active interest in urban planning and design and know that improvements to active infrastructure are very often positive, especially in the long run.

I don't it is that we want direct say, but, rather, our civic, provincial and federal have poorly implemented that in the past and wasted tremendously. I suspect people have become tired of the wastage. A fine example is the Anthony Henday West leg.

 

[ChazYEG]

Defaming someone is not cool. I don't hang out with Ian, but he has championed transit and walkable cities since the days of another community chat forum.

I don't think this was defaming. Ian (as well as me) is a declared car enthusiast, and there's nothing wrong with it. My point was exscltwhat you said: people who actually love cars and driving tend to like long drives and having actual fun. His stance on walkability speaks volumes towards this point.

Walkability for day-to-day and urban areas, and let us enjoy our cars where it actually makes sense and it's pleasing to drive. Downtown is not the place for it.

 

[Clearshades]

I don't think this was defaming. Ian (as well as me) is a declared car enthusiast, and there's nothing wrong with it. My point was exscltwhat you said: people who actually love cars and driving tend to like long drives and having actual fun. His stance on walkability speaks volumes towards this point.

Walkability for day-to-day and urban areas, and let us enjoy our cars where it actually makes sense and it's pleasing to drive. Downtown is not the place for it.

It was singling someone out when they have consistently championed responsibility. He lived right downtown at one point prior to moving southward. It is a form of bullying and not kosher to do so. I'll call it out anytime and everytime.