Mountain Man
Senior Member
I'm happier with what we have right now compared to "the balls" proposal that was there lol.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
How many bars or pubs the strip can support is hard to say. There can be saturation, but if a business is a desired place to go, it will always be supported. Personally, I would prefer a resto/pub over a jewelry store, especially if it has a rooftop patio. That's just my personal preference.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I would be curious to understand more about non-peak travel and restaurant/bar destinations like 17th Avenue.
All our traffic modelling, transit system etc. is predicated on normal commuting (9 to 5pm) that has never been the reality for most trips people make in a day, let alone when the peak disappears due to a pandemic, let alone for places that were never 9 to 5pm oriented - like 17th Avenue. Everything we do and plan for the street seems to be flying fairly blind and disconnected from words like supply, demand, capacity, need etc.
As far as I know a complete lack of data on things like:
- How many people visit each night?
- How many people work there each night?
- How do they get there? Where do they come from? What's the locals (Beltliners etc.) vs. tourist (e.g. suburbians) breakdown on different nights/seasons?
- How many people walk on the north sidewalk every day v. south side?
- What is the "capacity" of 17th Avenue - both in terms of transportation system but also how many restaurant seats, tables etc. are actually available? Is it growing? Changing? Shrinking?
A notable example of how lack of understanding of how the street works is the terrible implementation of the pop-up patios along it.
They have reduced what was already poor accessibility and narrow sidewalks to an unusable mess for anyone not able bodied. The pop-up patios were predicated on the that the restaurants need more space outdoors (I believe the argument, but it was hardly data-driven) *and* we need to maintain bits of parking and travel lanes (with little evidence given to why beyond typical pro-car, pro-parking biases). The number of pedestrians or accessibility to sidewalks were never considered in the equation - I think partially because the data doesn't exist. The result is the wild setup of inaccessible ramps, barriers and a ugly mess.
I am all for pop-up patios and more of them, but the implementation was a mess and the lack of any real acknowledgement of just how many pedestrians use the street is a constant issue. More data would be great to start quantifying it.
Golfing guy
Active Member
To me one of the most successful streets (albeit a pedestrian only road) is 5th ave in Playa del Carmen in Mexico. It goes on for many km’s and it’s a great mix of restaurant/bar/retail/hotel/residential etc. I would love if 17th ave could one day get there. Even if they got rid of car traffic all together
I know the ave in Playa you mean, and it is a really good strip. Maybe 17th needs to go pedestrian...or at least lose a lane or two. I mean if they took away the existing parking lane and had no parking on 17th and expended the sidewalks to take over the lane where the cars were parked, that would make a massive difference. It would allow plenty of patio space, and pedestrian space at the same time. One traffic lane on each side would allow for taxis and transit.
ThujaPlicata
Active Member
This might be getting off forum topic - but when I lived in Vancouver a decade ago I remember that the Granville strip in the downtown area was buses only during the day and pedestrians after a certain hour at night. I like the idea of having a pedestrian only street but I have always known, from personal experience of living in Toronto and Vancouver, that Calgary has a strong connection to personal automobiles as the main source of transportation therefore our streets and sidewalks reflect that.
I walked by Stephen avenue the other day, a pedestrian oriented hub - it has many bars and restaurants throughout and even with the free c-train zone one block away still seemed less desirable to go than 17th or fourth. I live in Mission and I would 100% approve to have the main street blocks of 17th Avenue and 4th Street be busses and pedestrian only.
I walked by Stephen avenue the other day, a pedestrian oriented hub - it has many bars and restaurants throughout and even with the free c-train zone one block away still seemed less desirable to go than 17th or fourth. I live in Mission and I would 100% approve to have the main street blocks of 17th Avenue and 4th Street be busses and pedestrian only.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
I think one of the bigger issues with our mainstreets is that we don't have a sizable local population to support them, hence we see so much infrastructure around key areas still accommodating towards vehicles. Granville is supported by a dense population of local dwellers. The same goes for many of the other mainstreets such as South Granville, Broadway, etc. Calgary's mainstreets don't have a sizeable population around them to support permanent, year-round, pedestrian-oriented infrastructure or other accommodations. We still need to attract folks from the suburbs to support businesses in areas like Stephen Ave, Kensington, Marda loop etc. Vancouver's West End has a density of 23 000 people/ km2, Calgary's beltline has 9500 people/km^2 (if we subtracted out Stampede Grounds). However, we are making progress in areas like the Beltline, where in another 10-15 years, streets like 17th ave will begin seeing the sort of daytime and nighttime traffic seen on streets like Davie or Robson.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Here's hoping the possibility of converting empty office towers is realized, more residents in the inner city has long been a problem here.
darwink
Senior Member
We'll see - the residential conversion economics isn't so hot. The City $75/sqft subsidy, I have my doubts that it will spur extra conversions. And imagine trying to finish the Barron Building today when you have to compete against subsidized buildings. In many cases demolition and replacement is a better option $ wise.
GoVertical
Senior Member
Dismantling the Olympic Arch:
Last edited:
CBBarnett
Senior Member
This is largely true. Also important to acknowledge that 17th Avenue is the only Main Street that's anywhere close to a local population and density to support itself at all. Between the Beltline, LMR, Cliff Bungalow, Mission you have about 35,000 people. Add in low density Upper Mount Royal, Bankview and Sunalta and we end up with ~45,000 nearby-ish at densities ranging from 8,000 - 12,000 people /km2.
But it's a bit catch-22: we only claim we can't support robust pedestrian infrastructure because we believe the street relies on suburban car traffic to survive. Therefore we have already started our path dependence based on an assumption. We can't expand sidewalks permanently or make them consistent - must preserve parking and fund road capacity upgrades instead to get more people to drive down. Pop-up anything must take over pedestrian space - can't touch through-traffic. All this is only based on assumptions, not how people actually get to the 17th nor how they get around when they are down here.
And about that infrastructure - I would definitely support pockets of a fully European-style car-free, pedestrian realm in our city. Unlike Stephen Avenue, 17th Avenue actually has significant density nearby to drive daily traffic. Such a move would be ultra attractive and boost the area to the next level as a place to visit and live.
But that's not what I am talking about. What I really am asking for is sidewalks to be considered at all.
The sidewalks of 17th Avenue are probably the highest pedestrian traffic streets in the city (I can't confirm because we don't count) and they are also in garbage shape. They have random widths usually too narrow for moderate (let alone peak) traffic, and always covered in debris and signage - and that's before we threw a bunch of pop-up patios and construction fencing on them hap hazardly. What was an inaccessible mess to anyone in a wheelchair, with a stroller or carrying larger objects is now a completely unusable street, all because pedestrians and sidewalks have no practical priority in how the street is used or designed.
You shouldn't need 20,000 people /km2 to "deserve" a consistent, usable sidewalk width on a destination retail street.
Last edited:
gsunnyg
Senior Member
Yea, I agree, in terms of infrastructure, low density definitely shouldn't be an excuse for pathetic infrastructure renovations like 17th ave. The City has constantly shown how short-term their vision is. I was more so giving a reason as to why we can't completely convert our mainstreets overnight to streets that favour entirely to pedestrians. We still need things like parking for people visiting from outside a walking distance. But you're right, it's shouldn't justify as to why our mainstreet sidewalks are the width of sidewalks seen in front of a suburban home. Good urban design incorporates accessibility for all people.
darwink
Senior Member
Also important to remember that with loading zones, fire hydrants, driveways, setbacks for intersections that street parking isn’t providing much parking at all compared to the lot on the NW corner of Western HS and the huge underused underground lots under shoppers, bestbuy, Canadian tire, and the old London drugs.
I think could easily switch to three lanes with skip the dishes, transit and cab laybys with a few parking stalls accommodated to maintain the parking illusion. 17th between 4th and 8th is already functionally 2 lanes plus randomness.
I think could easily switch to three lanes with skip the dishes, transit and cab laybys with a few parking stalls accommodated to maintain the parking illusion. 17th between 4th and 8th is already functionally 2 lanes plus randomness.
I say go even further and reduce it down to two lanes, with the the laybys. The laybys can be in places where there won't be patios to maintain consistent sidewalk width.