News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Spruce Grove city council approved three changes to its land use bylaw in July. Two changes are in the Copperhaven neighbourhood to allow low to medium-density residential structures. The other change is in the Legacy Park neighbourhood to allow medium to high-density residential structures.
 
MacLac said:
Yup! Yet it fails to be mentioned on their website?
Click to expand...
Is quite bizarre how they don't have anything about it. Agree with @Airboy wish they were more central but that NW area around Giroux has some good density even if most of the buildings are quite bland.
 
SMayo said:
The edge of St Albert is a bad spot for 2 15-20 story towers. Dense housing is great but only in environments that suite it.
Click to expand...
Density without walkability is an Edmonton special.

A09F7A2D-F314-4988-ACD7-4C9738B222E9.png
11C09818-CA08-4944-B5ED-3693DD2C0474.jpeg
 
Edmcowboy11 said:
With massive intersections like that aren't going away anytime soon, I'd almost want to suggest some pedestrian overpasses.
Click to expand...
You could spend the large amount of money needed to build pedestrian over passes, but that still wouldn’t solve the fundamental problem to it being a non walkable neighbourhood which is the fact that things are just physically really far apart.
 
The strip malls are also generally not walkable. There’s a bike path near that intersection which could connect pedestrians and cyclists.
 
jason403 said:
Crossing a large street that takes maybe 20 seconds is a problem for walkability? Just not buying it.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's more about the issue of our stupid drivers and the overall hostility towards pedestrians, because heaven forbid, you have to wait a few more seconds to slow down or even stop for a pedestrian.
 
There's an application out on this corner lot near Stadium; 11226 82 St. 2-3 CRUs and a Drive Through.
There's no signage, has anybody heard anything? Though when I looked up the applicant I think it's the same company that did the little whatever stripmall on the site just north of it.
I was really hoping to see something mixed use on this site especially.

11226 82 St NW.png
 
JuliallThat said:
There's an application out on this corner lot near Stadium; 11226 82 St. 2-3 CRUs and a Drive Through.
There's no signage, has anybody heard anything? Though when I looked up the applicant I think it's the same company that did the little whatever stripmall on the site just north of it.
I was really hoping to see something mixed use on this site especially.

View attachment 589179
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad to finally see something proposed for that lot. It's been an eyesore for decades, going back to when there was an old, decrepit building with a garage there.
Would I like to see mixed-use here? Sure. Am I disappointed it's only going to be commercial? Not really
 
_urbanite said:
Well I'm glad to finally see something proposed for that lot. It's been an eyesore for decades, going back to when there was an old, decrepit building with a garage there.
Would I like to see mixed-use here? Sure. Am I disappointed it's only going to be commercial? Not really
Click to expand...
Yeah I'll take what I can get at this point.
 
jason403 said:
Crossing a large street that takes maybe 20 seconds is a problem for walkability? Just not buying it.
Click to expand...

It's not about the actual distances, but the perceived distance, which can add up quickly with large intersections and large grained developments. Studies have shown that people literally feel like walking takes longer when they're in an environment that has large empty spaces, lack of fine grained buildings or visual interest, and is generally unfriendly to pedestrians. Not only that, but fine grained urban environments actually make people perceive their travel time as less than it actually is.

With an unpleasant urban environment, it can becoming a mentally daunting task to walk even relatively short distances as our brain perceives them as farther than they really are.

You can see this in section 3.8 of this report:

 
jason403 said:
Crossing a large street that takes maybe 20 seconds is a problem for walkability? Just not buying it.
Click to expand...
Let's look at a tale of two Safeways.
1724085664874.png

First the Windermere Safeway. 600m from the condos to the West as the crow flies. you have to wait at 2 crosswalks at the intersection of Windermere Blvd then cross 3 different parking lot accesses (where nobody is looking out for pedestrians); alternatively, you could walk through the parking lot. Virtually no shade provided. You could also walk through the small park/storm pond area, but you'd still need to cross 2/3 parking lot accesses. 830m walking distance.
1724085581626.png

Now, Garneau Safeway. Same distance as the crow flies, slightly shorter walk, but more importantly you're crossing narrower streets with large tree canopies and drivers that (at least should) expect pedestrians. Crossing Whyte is easy since you could use 109/Whyte which has short light cycles, or you could use 110 St ped/bike light. You could be coming from the East and have to cross 109 St (which yes is horrible and doesn't fit the surroundings) but there are many pedestrian lights or you could go up to Whyte and cross there. Slightly shorter walk than Windermere, but infinitely more pleasant.

This is to say that the large street isn't necessarily an issue for walkability, but that the design of the street as well as its surroundings can completely change the pedestrian experience.
Also very conveniently shows how ridiculous the true scale of these power centres and their surrounding neighbourhoods are.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top