As a MacEwan student, this street can be quite hostile to not only pedestrians, but the quality of the road is in such poor condition. I've had more than my fair share of potholes busting up my tires and feeling like I am going to hit another vehicle coming down the opposite way. It doesn't help as well when trying to exit onto that road there is an absurd amount of street parking on an already tight road that cars cram as close to each other as possible, reducing one's ability to see any oncoming traffic whatsoever. Cars park right up to the entrance/exit points. MacEwan in general I think has an overabundance of parking, but it's quite expensive. Therefore, a lot of people use the cheaper street parking which falls under the city's responsibility. Hopefully when the new Valley West line is built, this will reduce the need for parking at MacEwan and thus make 105 Ave more pedestrian friendly. I've seen people walking in the bike lanes and in mud due to a lack of sidewalks right now, and I think if there were proper sidewalks and a more pedestrian friendly street (along with more of the development of apartments and retail) it can become quite a popular and lively street. But as of right now, no one really wants to walk nor spend time there.
 
@archited I mean, the easiest option would be to simply have a crisscross track situation with the LRT on 104th ave, but I'm not sure how that'd functionally work. It would have to either go through the underpass below the Robbins Health Centre or make a hard diagonal left directly into the quad by Allard Hall. There I'd imagine the "Macewan" bookend stop would be in that area behind Allard Hall. From there, it would go down that back alley and turn left onto Columbia, going all the way down to 116th or even better the cemetery!
 
^^^^Keep "thinin'" Quicksdraw (you'll have to look up the reference). We need to repurpose the cemetary to accommodate a new sport that I like call bumper-golf -- that aligned with the current use.
 
I came across this excellent idea for the 107th Ave Graveyard --
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/style/forest-burial-death.html which, combined with the First Nations (some tribes) notion of carving figurines into the bark layer of trees could replace headstones and create a more parkland type atmosphere for general public enjoyment.
Click to expand...
Imagine, post-mortal-coil, you could specify your desired tree-type (I, for example, would like to be remembered in the ilk of a Mountain Ash so that I could spread my orange-red berries all over the natural forest carpet and feed the birds at the same time -- thinking that a little bit of me in each of the members of dominant flocks will be flitting about the City, pooping on naysayers and singing to the lovelies -- sorting the nasties from the angelic, the UPCs from the NDPs, and the loud motorcycling hogs from the Dave-like peddle-power mavens). I can suggest tree-types for each of you, aligning the species with your most prevalent character traits -- this I will do for donated lollipops, cotton candy, caramel popcorn, dark chocolate fudge or old-time Hudson's-Bay-equivalent malted milk.
 
Last edited:
A pretty decent amount of missing middle density here from this angle.

Screenshot_20210210-112831_Instagram.jpg
 
thommyjo said:
A pretty decent amount of missing middle density here from this angle.

View attachment 299536
Click to expand...
This picture has a weird Manhattan feeling that I usually don't associate with Edmonton (although I would love to).
Amazing shot! Now we only need to see the same density spreading out to everything between 82 and 124 Street and 76 and 111 Avenue and we'll be super fine! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
ChazYEG said:
This picture has a weird Manhattan feeling that I usually don't associate with Edmonton (although I would love to).
Amazing shot! Now we only need to see the same density spreading out to everything between 82 and 124 Street and 76 and 111 Avenue and we'll be super fine! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...
You are correct tho! We do need much more of these low to mid-rise style buildings in the core area (maybe with some more interesting and well thought-out designs thrown in there too)
 
@Daveography Do you think a parking protected bike lane, as highlighted in this video, could work on 105th avenue? If the city is so insistent that parking must remain in these areas, I don't get why the bike lane can't be between the parking and the curb, rather than between the road and the parking. I know it's not ideal, because people could block the bike lane when near their vehicles, but is it better than what the plan currently calls for?

Also, I think the project page is outdated. I tried calling the project manager listed on the page to discuss the parking-protection concept with him. It turns out that he is the construction manager, not the design manager. As far as he is aware, the design is already finalized and the time for public feedback passed already. He gave me some numbers I can contact, but this is just so I can learn about the reasoning for the design from the folks who did it, rather than passing feedback on to try and get something changed.
 
CplKlinger said:
I remember reading your opinion article in the Journal, before I joined this forum. I absolutely support the proposal to delay this, I hope it's not too late yet. It's absurd that stretches of bike lanes will be unprotected and squeezed between roadway and... other roadway. That defeats the entire purpose of a bike lane, and cyclists might as well be back on the street itself.
Click to expand...
FFS what is with these stupid divided bike lanes? put both directions together! it's simpler, easier to use, and reduces the kind of driving-parking-biking conflicts you rightly point out. I swear the people who design these lanes don't actually use a bike and are pulling this stuff of pinterest saying "this looks trendy, let's do that!" without thinking about actual functionality. very dissapointed in this. i didn't realize they were going to bugger up the existing setup like this when they redid the road.

I'll add that 105 west of 116 has a truly bizarre arrangement of MUP and painted bike lanes on the road. the Eastbound (south side, fronting onto condos instead of the cemetery) lane is almost always covered by parked cars, and thanks to the lanes being inconsistent, most cyclists just ride in the road as a result, sometimes against traffic to line up with the lane east of 116. This split-direction system is confusing as hell and we don't need it here. just put a bi-directional lane on the north side.
ugh
 
cliffapotamus said:
FFS what is with these stupid divided bike lanes? put both directions together! it's simpler, easier to use, and reduces the kind of driving-parking-biking conflicts you rightly point out. I swear the people who design these lanes don't actually use a bike and are pulling this stuff of pinterest saying "this looks trendy, let's do that!" without thinking about actual functionality. very dissapointed in this. i didn't realize they were going to bugger up the existing setup like this when they redid the road.

I'll add that 105 west of 116 has a truly bizarre arrangement of MUP and painted bike lanes on the road. the Eastbound (south side, fronting onto condos instead of the cemetery) lane is almost always covered by parked cars, and thanks to the lanes being inconsistent, most cyclists just ride in the road as a result, sometimes against traffic to line up with the lane east of 116. This split-direction system is confusing as hell and we don't need it here. just put a bi-directional lane on the north side.
ugh
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely. I just thought that the change I'm talking about is such a tiny difference, and I don't get how this can be called a protected bike path when vehicles are cutting in and out of them by design.
 
105th ave is so strange rn. Why does there even have to be parking on the street in front of those buildings? Why can't they even just make a sidewalk going through here??
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top