What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    47
I don't buy that it's the road crossing that's the problem.. That's a pedestrian scramble crossing there; easy peasy. I don't think a multi-million $ bridge is the solution; if folks can't get up the energy to cross 30' of pavement (which they do with aplomb one block west at Calgary Trail), they're not going to climb up a set of stairs to cross; not enough of a draw is the most likely cause.
 
Last edited:
buildings said:
I don't buy that it's the road crossing that's the problem.. That's a pedestrian scramble crossing there; easy peasy. I don't think a multi-million $ bridge is the solution; if folks can't get up the energy to cross 30' of pavement, they're not going to climb up a set of stairs to cross; not enough of a draw is the most likely cause.
Click to expand...

For me, its mostly an issue that it's along a very busy, congested roadway. Just not a pleasant place to walk as nice as the improvement is with this building.

I like the project. If this was over by the bus barns, farmer's market would it be a slam dunk?

Regarding Patagonia, such a nice store. Does retail only do well in malls and power centres in Edmonton?
 
It does seem street front retail in Edmonton is very poor compared to almost any other major city in Canada. It is like we are especially addicted to power centres and suburban malls.

Of course it is worst downtown with so many empty store fronts still, but even Whyte Ave has had its struggles particularly over the last several years.

The Lululemon store which was right on Whyte Ave closed. Yes, Whyte Ave seems to draw a lot of traffic, but a lot of that is to bars, restaurants, coffee shops, theatre and the farmers market, perhaps not as much to other retail.
 
For street front retail to work, you need to be able to “see” where you’re going and deem it worth walking to. It doesn’t matter whether you’re looking 30 feet or 150 feet, if you can’t see something you want to walk to, you won’t.

Station Park’s biggest failing is the orientation of its containers in that the storefronts face a small internal courtyard with poor to nonexistent sight lines from the intersection it needs to entice people to cross (like a mall, it presents a blank face and not an animated one).

People won’t take a risk on crossing a street only to find there’s nothing there for them to see or do when they get there. And simply providing an elevated rather than an at grade crossing won’t change that.
 
TAS said:
One thing Whyte Ave seems to be missing are banks. Maybe they can afford the lease rates.
Click to expand...
Bring back the banks!?

Well there are not as many as there used to be, but still has TD at 109 Street, RBC across the street, ATB a couple blocks south on 104 St (maybe close enough to count?) and CIBC at 99 Street.
 
Sometimes these lines are invisible, sometimes there’s real physical barriers, sometimes a bit of both.

103ave from 105-109st is one of those imo. Hence why good goods failed. No clear barrier, but just mentally not in the “map” of most people as they walk DT.

Gateway is arguably a very real barrier.

106-108ave of 124st is a good example of “breaking” a real barrier and expanding people’s mental maps. The park on 108ave/market draws people north over 107ave. Numerous events like farmers markets and All is Bright where the entire stretch is open (roads closed) and connected help to get people to experience the whole stretch.

Not sure how we do it with gateway, arguably this project is a part of the solution. But I think it’s a real mental map for many. Gateway is the “end” of the whyte nightlife.

I wonder if apartments above this project would have been wise. More 81ave development. Redevelop the parking lots north of station park.
 
thommyjo said:
Not sure how we do it with gateway, arguably this project is a part of the solution. But I think it’s a real mental map for many. Gateway is the “end” of the whyte nightlife.

I wonder if apartments above this project would have been wise. More 81ave development. Redevelop the parking lots north of station park.
Click to expand...

Transform that used car lot north of Whyte Ave into a mid-rise development (similar to the Hat nearby), then use the ground level CRUs to expand the Whyte Ave nightlife with a pub and live music venue. The public washroom and the streetcar terminal can remain as-is.
 
I think one of the best solutions -- and it wouldn't be inexpensive but it would be transformational -- would be to depress Gateway starting from the 80th avenue intersection north and under Sask. drive with a new (less of a hairpin) access to the 105th Street bridge (in fact I would abandon the existing connector at QE Park Rd. altogether). With the road depressed the opportunity would present itself for branched-off UG parking along the way thereby reducing auto presence in large part. Pedestrian bridges could criss-cross the now-depressed roadway at points like "End of Steel Park", "Yardbird Suite", "OS Farmers' Market", "Strathcona Hotel", "Station Park" and the "Historic Railway Station". a very large UG parking structure could be accessed from the depressed roadway between 83rd and 85th Avenue on the east side of Gateway (perhaps tied into a mixed use development atop the parkade). Access ramps from the depressed roadway need only be provided at Sask. Drive. This would surely seam Old Strathcona into a much stronger pedestrian realm and allow for a significant eastward expansion of retail and hospitality.
 
archited said:
I think one of the best solutions -- and it wouldn't be inexpensive but it would be transformational -- would be to depress Gateway starting from the 80th avenue intersection north and under Sask. drive with a new (less of a hairpin) access to the 105th Street bridge (in fact I would abandon the existing connector at QE Park Rd. altogether). With the road depressed the opportunity would present itself for branched-off UG parking along the way thereby reducing auto presence in large part. Pedestrian bridges could criss-cross the now-depressed roadway at points like "End of Steel Park", "Yardbird Suite", "OS Farmers' Market", "Strathcona Hotel", "Station Park" and the "Historic Railway Station". a very large UG parking structure could be accessed from the depressed roadway between 83rd and 85th Avenue on the east side of Gateway (perhaps tied into a mixed use development atop the parkade). Access ramps from the depressed roadway need only be provided at Sask. Drive. This would surely seam Old Strathcona into a much stronger pedestrian realm and allow for a significant eastward expansion of retail and hospitality.
Click to expand...
That is not a project that I would support. Gateway Boulevard north from 82nd Avenue is a nice stretch of road and if the park space on its east side is developed into park space as planed, it will become a very attractive area for development without hoping that economic activity in the area would improve by excavating it. The High Level bridge is nearing the end of its lifespan and replacing it would be a more impactful transformation project to the City's development than having Gateway Boulevard and Walterdale as the City's primary artery into downtown from the south. 109 Street is a much better north-south corridor as its more direct for most travel - particularly and presumably if two way traffic was restored. It wouldn't be a big stretch to suggest that the Province would pick up the tab for landscaping the west side of the legislative grounds to compliment a new bridge. So if the goal is to make the Gateway Boulevard and Whyte Avenue intersection - and Whyte Avenue for that matter - more walkable which I do support, then shift the traffic flow over to 109 Street by replacing the High Level bridge with a modern bridge that accommodates traffic flow better than the current arrangement.
 
Don't see why tax payers should shell out multi-millions to increase foot traffic to a cluster of small businesses.. not one penny. let the businesses themselves create the draw. Think this convo has gone to cloud cuckoo land.
 
Last edited:
buildings said:
Don't see why tax payers should shell out multi-millions to increase foot traffic to a cluster of small businesses.. not one penny. let the businesses themselves create the draw. Think this convo has gone to cloud cuckoo cuckoo land.
Click to expand...
I do feel bad that a lot has been invested in here, in something actually nice and it has not done better so far. I agree the heavy traffic on the two roads is a part of the problem.

However, this traffic was there before it was built, so the people who developed it went into it with their eyes wide open. We can't make expensive or big changes just to try help out a few businesses with a challenging location.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top