Is that a McRooftop patio?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
kora
Active Member
are they allowing a drive thru from 17th Avenue?
I believe the entrance comes in off of 16th, but exits onto 17th.
I thought the drive thru entrance and exit were both still on 17th, but allowing for a much longer queue of cars than before, at the expense of some parking.
I'll have to look back through the thread and confirm.
I'll have to look back through the thread and confirm.
whatchyyc
Active Member
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I am trying to think of a precedent from Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver where a new drive thru was allowed on their most popular walkable main street. Less than 25% of the site is for the use, everything else is car capacity and 24/7 vehicle idling queuing space in our densest and most walkable neighbourhood. I recall the planning department recommended against this one and Council overruled?
I mean they even added those tactile strips and a sweeping sloped apron that takes up over half the sidewalk area. The access road off of 17th Ave is 7.2m wide, 3.6m per lane. That's wider than the travel lanes on 17th. Nothing says walkable main streets like sweeping corners to encourage high speed turns and cushy wide vehicle and parking lanes.
Shiny and new fades after a year or two, garbage land use planning will remain for decades. I really like McDonalds but this is a terrible outcome.
I mean they even added those tactile strips and a sweeping sloped apron that takes up over half the sidewalk area. The access road off of 17th Ave is 7.2m wide, 3.6m per lane. That's wider than the travel lanes on 17th. Nothing says walkable main streets like sweeping corners to encourage high speed turns and cushy wide vehicle and parking lanes.
Shiny and new fades after a year or two, garbage land use planning will remain for decades. I really like McDonalds but this is a terrible outcome.
kora
Active Member
There are plenty of "urban style" McDonalds everywhere in the world with no parking or drive thru. Surprised this one got approved in this format.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
This will still block the sidewalk and will still cause traffic on 17th. Even though it's prettier than the previous, it's a big FAIL in my mind.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
darwink
Senior Member
The main thing is the drive through isn't new.
The franchisee said they wouldn't rebuild if not allowed to have a drive through, and they just keep the even worse current one for the foreseeable future.
A big step backward and a fail on the part of the city. It shows the city still kowtows to the car crowd, as this should never have been allowed.
They probably would have kept it for some time, but not near as long as it will now that they have a new building. The old building was falling apart and might have lasted another 10 years before the franchisee finally packed it in.
darwink
Senior Member
they could have renovated in place. No change in footprint, no permits needed.
FCC1982
Active Member
Just to reinforce the stereotype - I just passed one city worker hand digging a small hole in a sidewalk opening while three others stood around the hole observing. 
I'm guessing they needed the new permit to do the second floor?