TAS
Senior Member
Sure but it also doesn't mean people still can't drive to the area and walk. I see many people drive to Oilers games and park several blocks away to avoid parking costs, congestion and maybe to even get a little exercise.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Gronk!
- Start date
Sure but it also doesn't mean people still can't drive to the area and walk. I see many people drive to Oilers games and park several blocks away to avoid parking costs, congestion and maybe to even get a little exercise.
IanO
Superstar
Genuinely curious to see what they will plan, host, showcase and eat there.
Also, what does it look like on a normal day at 9am, 12, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm.
Also, what does it look like on a normal day at 9am, 12, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm.
David A
Senior Member
I am fairly skeptical on this one. There is a bit of a if we build it, they will come thinking here. Maybe it works, but maybe not.
I think better streets to make for pedestrian use only are those that are in fairly lively areas that have a lot of people walking and a good mix of retail. Quite frankly, this is a street front retail total dead zone, with inward facing malls.
Even the Second Cup coffee shop on the corner (which I really liked and went to) and which actually had street facing doors closed several years ago. Does Shoppers even have a street front entrance? I don't think getting rid of cars is going to magically fix things here. Really there is no reason for anyone to walk down this street at this time, except unless it is on the route from somewhere to somewhere else.
I think better streets to make for pedestrian use only are those that are in fairly lively areas that have a lot of people walking and a good mix of retail. Quite frankly, this is a street front retail total dead zone, with inward facing malls.
Even the Second Cup coffee shop on the corner (which I really liked and went to) and which actually had street facing doors closed several years ago. Does Shoppers even have a street front entrance? I don't think getting rid of cars is going to magically fix things here. Really there is no reason for anyone to walk down this street at this time, except unless it is on the route from somewhere to somewhere else.
TAS
Senior Member
Then I would say the exact same thing for drivers - why do we need this short section of a one-way single lane road for vehicles on route from somewhere to somewhere else when they already have several other options.
Last edited:
David A
Senior Member
I would compare this street to Whyte Ave, which has a lot of pedestrian traffic, drawn to the stores and businesses that are there, people are actually going there not passing through there to somewhere else.
Technically, I actually am a pedestrian on 102 Ave at times, but mostly I just cross it at 102 St to go to the mall. Whether there are cars on it or not wont change anything for me. There is absolutely nothing there that warrants strolling down it.
Valveman
New Member
For some of us that live in buildings with parking access in the lanes that connect to 102 Ave it is quite necessary (similarly for delivery and service vehicles) - it's going to be "choked" enough as it is with the reduction to 1 lane in only 1 direction from 2 lanes in each direction (4 lanes total). Indeed, some of these buildings may have been designed/approved/built based on vehicular access to/from 102 Ave.
roe_
Active Member
In this specific case I think the risk is worth it. Why talk longingly about the beautiful pedestrian high streets of Europe and then claim it simply won't work here? If we want a pedestrian oriented downtown when do we start?
There is no question that you cannot unilaterally close a street and expect vibrancy, but there are a lot factors in the case of 102 ave that could make it a huge success. It will have pedestrian-oriented transit along its spine, as well as a bike lane, and any redevelopment of Manulife and ECCW could totally reposition the face of those buildings onto the street.
I'd say give the pilot a chance and see what happens. If it sucks and the area remains a wasteland then it can be opened up to cars again.
There is no question that you cannot unilaterally close a street and expect vibrancy, but there are a lot factors in the case of 102 ave that could make it a huge success. It will have pedestrian-oriented transit along its spine, as well as a bike lane, and any redevelopment of Manulife and ECCW could totally reposition the face of those buildings onto the street.
I'd say give the pilot a chance and see what happens. If it sucks and the area remains a wasteland then it can be opened up to cars again.
David A
Senior Member
But its not a European high street, nothing even remotely similar. It is a district with office buildings, malls and almost no commercial retail for pedestrians. Yes, you could start with it, but really almost any other street would be better.
I suspect after considerable disruption after several years the conclusion would be not much happened. I am not against changing things, but you have to be smart about it and it needs to be grounded in reality (ie. a place where there is a chance for success).
TAS
Senior Member
Like?
David A
Senior Member
itom987
Active Member
How will the YMCA that takes up an entire block going to become pedestrian friendly?
How is Boardwalk going to become pedestrian friendly on this street when the old buildings themselves don't even face the street.
The Revilon building has an enterance that faces the corner and nothing else. Do you honestly expect the owners to cut doors along the side of the building and insert retail bays?
The McKenney building doesn't face the street, are you going to force the owner to do what needs to be done with the Revilon building as well?
Same thing goes for the Metals building.
What about the old YMCA building? I know there is some talk of changes but we won't know the details till we see them.
City Centre Mall is huge, while we know that the owner has plans to renovate the building I can almost guarantee you that the end result will be value engineered to make compromises in opening up to the street while still being an indoor mall. Matter of fact, nobody will be on the sidewalk during the winter anyways because the mall is already runs parallel to the street. It will be just the bus and LRT stops that see people.
What about this telephone utility building that never had much going on along the street. Do you honestly expect the owner to make major changes when they have already spent a bunch of money on it?
I expect proponents of pedestrianizing 102 Ave. to have reasonable answers to all my questions above.
You may not like it but vehicle traffic does add to the vibrancy of a street, just like the horse and carriage did. You better hope that pedestrian traffic increases enough to make up for the loss.
How is Boardwalk going to become pedestrian friendly on this street when the old buildings themselves don't even face the street.
The Revilon building has an enterance that faces the corner and nothing else. Do you honestly expect the owners to cut doors along the side of the building and insert retail bays?
The McKenney building doesn't face the street, are you going to force the owner to do what needs to be done with the Revilon building as well?
Same thing goes for the Metals building.
What about the old YMCA building? I know there is some talk of changes but we won't know the details till we see them.
City Centre Mall is huge, while we know that the owner has plans to renovate the building I can almost guarantee you that the end result will be value engineered to make compromises in opening up to the street while still being an indoor mall. Matter of fact, nobody will be on the sidewalk during the winter anyways because the mall is already runs parallel to the street. It will be just the bus and LRT stops that see people.
What about this telephone utility building that never had much going on along the street. Do you honestly expect the owner to make major changes when they have already spent a bunch of money on it?
I expect proponents of pedestrianizing 102 Ave. to have reasonable answers to all my questions above.
You may not like it but vehicle traffic does add to the vibrancy of a street, just like the horse and carriage did. You better hope that pedestrian traffic increases enough to make up for the loss.
itom987
Active Member
Edmonton is not Amsterdam, and will never be Amsterdam. Amsterdam also has dead streets, which is fine. If 102 Ave.'s original buildings faced the street then pedestrianizing it would have not have been a problem but the tone was already set over a hundred years ago with brick buildings treating it like service road.
itom987
Active Member
The street that has Calgary's above ground LRT going through downtown is completely devoid of pedestrians, and it has been that way for 40 years.
40 YEARS!!!
40 YEARS!!!
Gronk!
Senior Member
Watch this video, including all you negative nellies out there
Last edited:
JaayJR
New Member
102nd ave may not be built for pedestrians right now. We ALL know that. People say maybe in 10 years... Or we aren't there yet.
Lets be realistic, if they open it to cars, they will NEVER close it again (at least in the next 25 years or whenever the road is up for renewal) . At that point it would cost *millions* to "convert it" (we know how cities work) to a pedestian way, and there would be so much backlash later than now.
To further that comment if they open to cars, development would never get there for business frontages because there would be no reason to anymore. At least if its pedestrianized , it provides opportunity whether taken or not. I support the pilot, its a year anyway and its not like anyone has been on it. In my perfect world if the pilot "fails" id like to see it used for busses and emerg only. I personally don't see the point of cars here. But what I feel certain, is if this isn't considered now, it wont be later. (Tho id like to be wrong)
Lets be realistic, if they open it to cars, they will NEVER close it again (at least in the next 25 years or whenever the road is up for renewal) . At that point it would cost *millions* to "convert it" (we know how cities work) to a pedestian way, and there would be so much backlash later than now.
To further that comment if they open to cars, development would never get there for business frontages because there would be no reason to anymore. At least if its pedestrianized , it provides opportunity whether taken or not. I support the pilot, its a year anyway and its not like anyone has been on it. In my perfect world if the pilot "fails" id like to see it used for busses and emerg only. I personally don't see the point of cars here. But what I feel certain, is if this isn't considered now, it wont be later. (Tho id like to be wrong)