What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    58
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.
 
jason403 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jason403 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Seamusmuldrew said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Clearshades said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You can be a 'car enthusiast' without being someone who puts cars first or designs for them... you know that, right?

This is my car; it is not something I daily drive and put ~1000km a year on it since 2006; mostly on a track or in the mountains.

I lived right Downtown, walked to work every, single, day for 15years, had a transit pass at times if I had meetings and advocated for more walkable, urban and people first places for two decades.I'd put my daily step count up there with anyone in Edmonton and was often 11000-18000 per day, each day.

That said, I don't believe in stupid ideas just to check a few boxes or to penalize some, but rather would prefer to integrate a variety of modal options into more places and make the vehicle less attractive of an option. I want transit to be cheap, efficient, safe and clean. I want lights to be pedestrian prioritized and while scrambles gave urban planners chubs, they make us walkers stand outside in the cold or rain or wind longer under the auspice of 'safety'. F that. It was a way to reward drivers who don't pay fucking attention. Nice regressive thinking there planners.

I love sports cars and motorcycles though and but would never touch something Italian Archi. Up my VISA to get me a 911GT3RS or a GMDT50 and I would give up walking for good.

4617873572_b77c3c6978_b.jpg
 
ChazYEG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
archited said:
What defaming??? Ian is a car enthusiast -- long standing!!! And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am a tech enthusiast and as that also applies to cars then I suppose I am a car enthusiast as well. Give your head a shake!
Click to expand...

I am, but once again it seems as though I must reiterate that that does not make me any less of a pedestrian first and foremost; while I may disagree with a pedestrian mall to 'provide better balance of sqft' Downtown, I would support it if it had greater chances of success and raison d'être.
 
Your very beginning of the statement. Don't speak on other's behalf. Putting them on a pedestal like that is not cool and is a transgressional attempt. What one can or can't afford is none of your business and does not need to be discuss or brought up here or any other thread.
 
@IanO I don't even like the idea of a standard downtown mall -- I believe you would agree. The earlier concept of an atrium-type space blown open to the streets appealed to me. The problem downtown still remains -- what kind of retail can survive in an Amazon-heavy world? I think Katz is onto something with his experimentation in the Fan Park -- the more that there can be a continuous sustained interest in downtown the more readily people will be to "throng" there and the more steady will be the retail environment.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top