[ChazYEG]

Y'all know my position on this one and even being a pedestrian first, I applaud this option FOR NOW.

Use it 'as intended/designed' and see how a greater variety of uses does based on the years of consultation.

Take opportunities to activity key nodes at 103st, 99-101 just off of the Ave and educate folks on how there are options for folks on how to move about.

Throughout the year do some enhanced activation, maybe even some temporary closures, akin to areas on 124st, Old Strath etc.

I REALLY have my doubts about you being pedestrian first.

This is a missed opportunity and we'll regret it in the future. Once we open it to cars, there will be no coming back.

 

[IanO]

RHW, 104st, 99st east of Churchill all have more opportunity out of the gate.

As for being a pedestrian first (or not), I lived Downtown Edmonton for 15yrs, walked to work for 13 of those years and advocated for better pedestrian design/realms for that entire time and on average put < 2000km/yr on my car (which I love for other reasons - track days).

 

[BrettB]

RHW, 104st, 99st east of Churchill all have more opportunity out of the gate.

Although I'm disappointed with the decision, I agree with you.

Perhaps it would be easier for council to start with the space in front of the library, which would go a long way to stopping traffic that wants to use the space to speed straight through downtown. Of course, it's not like the LRT station was well designed to accommodate pedestrians from the south side of the street.

 

[IanO]

Edmonton simply does not have the urban demand, density, population, climate, built-form opportunities or selections of spaces that most other cities do; it continues to deliver underwhelming urban experiences across the board because we cannot see the forest from the trees.

This all reminds me of 'Metropolis' in Churchill Square.

 

[Garneau2Go]

They were talking about this on one of the recent Speaking Municipally podcast episodes. Administration came back saying that there was no activation on that space when we closed it so it needed to reopen to vehicles...Except the whole time it was closed fencing and barriers stayed up, there were still "no trespassing or you'll be prosecuted" signs out, and no real support for the pilot to activate that space, hoping it would happen naturally in what looked like an active construction zone. The LRT delay is to blame for the worst aspects of that, but extending the pilot so we could actually see what the street was like with the Valley Line running would have been the minimum if we wanted to actually experiment.

Of course it failed, we never even tried to make it work.

 

[thommyjo]

We should honestly put energy into completely redoing the surface of 104st and making it pedestrianized from jasper to 104ave with avenues staying open & bollards at crossing.

Do some nice cobblestone/pavers, way nicer landscaping, overhead lights and art installations, etc. How we still haven’t dropped 10mil on that street to make it our clear #1 downtown street is beyond me. Unlike 102, it has all the pieces in place already. Why is this not a priority?

104st vs other pedestrian streets:

 

[IanO]

While there is not enough density or visitors to support something like Al Fresco (2011 - OMG that's 12yrs ago - I am so old) each day, it could happen more than once a year.

 

[Didama]

So a 6 months trial through the winter months when the train isn't even running......oh Edmonton. If you're going to do a pilot then do it right. What a waste. Anyone who thinks ten cars per hour going down this road will bring more vitality than even a few pedestrians is going to be disappointed.

"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish (and also Ian O's tag on another forum. too bad he doesn't seem to appreciate it)

 

[Edmonchuk]

Edmonton simply does not have the urban demand, density, population, climate, built-form opportunities or selections of spaces that most other cities do;

What a load of crap.

 

[IanO]

So a 6 months trial through the winter months when the train isn't even running......oh Edmonton. If you're going to do a pilot then do it right. What a waste. Anyone who thinks ten cars per hour going down this road will bring more vitality than even a few pedestrians is going to be disappointed.

"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish (and also Ian O's tag on another forum. too bad he doesn't seem to appreciate it)

I'd very much agree that they didn't do it justice or 'right', but also that they didn't give the original design any chance or justice in its own right. But who cares right?

Oh, I very much stand behind that comment and its context was about freeway building in NYC during the 50s-60s which were intended to get people in and out of the Downtown as fast as possible.

She also speaks about balance when it comes to design, activation of spaces and one that promotes a variety of users, uses and accessibility.

Don't confuse my use of that for something like METS or say 104 Avenue with a multi-modal 102 Avenue that is still calmed, improved and far more balanced than what was there before.

 

[Didama]

Yeah I'm sure Jane Jacobs would have preferred 102 Ave being open to cars rather than pedestrians..... my bad

 

[IanO]

Pretty sure she would have been impressed to see this:

transform into this along that entire stretch.

 

[Didama]

yes and she clearly would have been abhorred by the idea of that lane for vehicles being turned over to pedestrians.

 

[David A]

As one city councilor said, there are no stores along that stretch of 102 Ave. If you want vitality, focus on areas like 104 St or Rice Howard Way.

In this case, making this section pedestrian only just makes access to nearby buildings and streets, which is already difficult, even worse.

 

[Didama]

How so? You can only drive on 102 ave, not park. Making it less pedestrian friendly will improve access... not sure how that works.