Pedestrianization of City Centres

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think pedestrian streets work if they connect two destinations people want to go to or are primarily lined with bars and restaurants.. Sparks Street fails on both counts. It is effectively a dead end on either side and has only a handful of bars and restaurants concentrated at intersections. I think Clarence would work. George is questionable.

Sounds like a good criteria and lines up with what I was proposing which probably wasn't clear. I mean closing the middle parts of George and York creating a continuous pedestrian only route through William street/and the byward market from Clarence to the LRT. Most of the north south route is already closed to traffic except strangely the actual (former?) site of the market stalls. I would just add closing off each end of George and York. Still let people park on both sides of York and access the garages and lots on either end of George but don't let them travel through. Close Clarence from the lot near Sussex until Dalhousie.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sounds like a good criteria and lines up with what I was proposing which probably wasn't clear. I mean closing the middle parts of George and York creating a continuous pedestrian only route through William street/and the byward market from Clarence to the LRT. Most of the north south route is already closed to traffic except strangely the actual (former?) site of the market stalls. I would just add closing off each end of George and York. Still let people park on both sides of York and access the garages and lots on either end of George but don't let them travel through. Close Clarence from the lot near Sussex until Dalhousie.

I like your suggestion. Keeping through traffic isn’t critical at all, and it makes sense to incrementally expand the pedestrian area.

I do think that any plan needs to include cycling routes, which are entirely absent right now, and I want to see them create the large plaza planned for the west end of York St. Maybe start with pedestrian-only May-October and go from there.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I like your suggestion. Keeping through traffic isn’t critical at all, and it makes sense to incrementally expand the pedestrian area.

I do think that any plan needs to include cycling routes, which are entirely absent right now, and I want to see them create the large plaza planned for the west end of York St. Maybe start with pedestrian-only May-October and go from there.

Cycling routes? As in ways to get into the market? I think there is access already on Rideau and Sussex as well as St. Patrick. I don't think we need a bike through route nor do they need to get door to door imho. Surely someone who bikes from Barhaven to go to the Heart and Crown can walk the last 300 meters no?

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Cycling routes? As in ways to get into the market? I think there is access already on Rideau and Sussex as well as St. Patrick. I don't think we need a bike through route nor do they need to get door to door imho. Surely someone who bikes from Barhaven to go to the Heart and Crown can walk the last 300 meters no?

The only semi-decent way to cycle to the market is from the north on Sussex/Mackenzie, otherwise you’re out of luck. Rideau has a lane for only one block on the north side of the street and you can’t actually get to it from any other cycling infrastructure. There are piecemeal bits of infrastructure here and there, but all of it has dangerous gaps/you can’t safely get to it. The pilot lanes on Wellington, for instance, have a gap at Lyon and end abruptly at Elgin. The Sussex lane is northbound only in the market, but only runs north of George, so doesn’t link to Rideau or Colonel By.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That just isn’t true. A traditional grid is 32% roads, a cul de sac system is 29% roads and a residential quadrant system is 26% roads.

https://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu...017/03/389.pdf

And that has to do with efficiency, how again?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I could not imagine a permanent closure of Wellington Street would have had a positive outcome.

There are no businesses on Wellington to destroy, so at least there's that?

But that's also why pedestrianizing Wellington doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

There are no businesses on Wellington to destroy, so at least there's that?

But that's also why pedestrianizing Wellington doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I am worried that a pedestrian Wellington would be dead because of that lack of retail activity. It's really just a row of monumental Government buildings, and not much else. If the Feds converted a few into museums (Portrait Gallery) instead of just more office space, allow a couple restaurants (I don't see how that's a security risk), maybe convert a building or two to residential, if the Indigenous groups have publicly accessible exhibits. Proper bike lanes and the tram would also help bring some life to the place.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I am worried that a pedestrian Wellington would be dead because of that lack of retail activity. It's really just a row of monumental Government buildings, and not much else. If the Feds converted a few into museums (Portrait Gallery) instead of just more office space, allow a couple restaurants (I don't see how that's a security risk), maybe convert a building or two to residential, if the Indigenous groups have publicly accessible exhibits. Proper bike lanes and the tram would also help bring some life to the place.

The problem with those government buildings is that they don't have public use. They are secure buildings for the most part. We lost an opportunity when we scuttled the Portrait Gallery idea.

I also can't imagine conversion to residential use because of the 'secure' nature of those buildings.

So, if we have problems re-animating Sparks Street with pedestrians, Wellington will be an even bigger problem. What is the purpose of pedestrianizing a street, that people don't want to go to anyways? Those going to Parliament Hill already have ample places to walk.

If we are going to pedestrianize anywhere, it needs to be locations where pedestrians already want to go to or we need to build new attractions that will increase pedestrian traffic.

The problem with most cycling infrastructure that we build is that it is so piecemeal that most leads nowhere. I know the city is broke, but we need to build some significant cycling lanes that actually link together. A lot of what we are spending money on, connects nothing.

[J.OT13]

I don't get the security issues. We can literally touch the PMO's office. We can go inside most Government Buildings (if only the retail part). We allow hundreds of cars and trucks pass by Wellington everyday without any sort of inspection. Why are people on foot frequenting restaurants, or living in an adjacent building, or subways and tramways if you believe some, so much more dangerous?

There's nothing that can be converted to residential on Wellington (now that Block 2 is spoken for), but what about Sparks? There are a few mid-century office building that could be suitable. Less so the long and narrow early 20th century buildings with a few exceptions.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't get the security issues. We can literally touch the PMO's office. We can go inside most Government Buildings (if only the retail part). We allow hundreds of cars and trucks pass by Wellington everyday without any sort of inspection. Why are people on foot frequenting restaurants, or living in an adjacent building, or subways and tramways if you believe some, so much more dangerous?

There's nothing that can be converted to residential on Wellington (now that Block 2 is spoken for), but what about Sparks? There are a few mid-century office building that could be suitable. Less so the long and narrow early 20th century buildings with a few exceptions.

Isn't security the main reason that the feds wanted to keep Wellington closed?

Do any of the buildings facing Wellington have a retail area, open to the public? The one exception being the visitors centre.

It seems that security in federal offices has been increasing steadily over the years, so can we enter any of those buildings these days, and if we can't enter any of those buildings, what is the reason for pedestrians being there?

If security is an increasing concern, won't the feds resist opening the ground floor for retail possibilities and public access?

Yes, we can convert buildings to residential, but are the feds willing to allow that sort of thing on the Sparks/Wellington block?

There is a big security difference between cars driving by a building or pedestrians walking by on the sidewalk or even touching the exterior compared to actually entering the building.

Cars can use a street as transit to a different location. Pedestrians will generally have a destination within a few blocks. If there is no destination within those few blocks, there will be few pedestrians.

The whole basis for pedestrianization is that there needs to be a destination for the public to walk to. There also needs to be a starting point for those pedestrians, whether from a residence, transit, a parking lot or a cycling storage facility.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And that has to do with efficiency, how again?

In a grid you are spending more on roads, sidewalks, snow removal, infrastructure, etc. to maintain a higher ratio of pavement to not pavement.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I am worried that a pedestrian Wellington would be dead because of that lack of retail activity. It's really just a row of monumental Government buildings, and not much else. If the Feds converted a few into museums (Portrait Gallery) instead of just more office space, allow a couple restaurants (I don't see how that's a security risk), maybe convert a building or two to residential, if the Indigenous groups have publicly accessible exhibits. Proper bike lanes and the tram would also help bring some life to the place.

That’s probably possible, but it is also a huge expense for relatively little gain.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

In a grid you are spending more on roads, sidewalks, snow removal, infrastructure, etc. to maintain a higher ratio of pavement to not pavement.

That's only half of the equation. The bigger factor is the density of homes, which determines the tax base supporting the pavement.

You're also ignoring connectivity, walkability and the easy of providing transit and other services. The curvy pattern generally means that people have to drive everywhere, meaning more wear and tear etc. and making services more expensive to provide.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

That's only half of the equation. The bigger factor is the density of homes, which determines the tax base supporting the pavement.

You're also ignoring connectivity, walkability and the easy of providing transit and other services. The curvy pattern generally means that people have to drive everywhere, meaning more wear and tear etc. and making services more expensive to provide.

If the lens is efficiency (cost per output) then driving does not make services more expensive to provide. It is cheaper to build one library branch serving 50,000 people than 10 library branches serving 5000 people. This is the reason why we have IKEA and Costco.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Isn't security the main reason that the feds wanted to keep Wellington closed?

Do any of the buildings facing Wellington have a retail area, open to the public? The one exception being the visitors centre.

It seems that security in federal offices has been increasing steadily over the years, so can we enter any of those buildings these days, and if we can't enter any of those buildings, what is the reason for pedestrians being there?

If security is an increasing concern, won't the feds resist opening the ground floor for retail possibilities and public access?

Yes, we can convert buildings to residential, but are the feds willing to allow that sort of thing on the Sparks/Wellington block?

There is a big security difference between cars driving by a building or pedestrians walking by on the sidewalk or even touching the exterior compared to actually entering the building.

Cars can use a street as transit to a different location. Pedestrians will generally have a destination within a few blocks. If there is no destination within those few blocks, there will be few pedestrians.

The whole basis for pedestrianization is that there needs to be a destination for the public to walk to. There also needs to be a starting point for those pedestrians, whether from a residence, transit, a parking lot or a cycling storage facility.

Other than DND, PMO's office, probably a few others, most buildings are accessible to the public. C.D. Howe, Esplanade Laurier, Place de Ville all have retail and food courts. The public just can't access the elevator lobby to access the office floors. James Flaherty, I've never tried to go in, but they have a restaurant on the corner of Elgin and Albert.

[Kitchissippi]

After having to trudge out to the Service Canada counter on Meadowlands several times on behalf of someone who has mobility issues, I really wish they would move to a location directly accessible by LRT. A flagship presence on Wellington would be great, either in the vicinity of Parliament or Lyon Station. I noticed most people going there are seniors for their CPP/OAS issues, younger folks on employment insurance, and of course those applying for passports, most of whom would likely use the LRT. I know I'm dreaming but the ground floor of the Wellington Building at Bank and Wellington would be an awesome spot for this. The ground floor of either East or West Memorial building on Lyon would be nice, too.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

After having to trudge out to the Service Canada counter on Meadowlands several times on behalf of someone who has mobility issues, I really wish they would move to a location directly accessible by LRT. A flagship presence on Wellington would be great, either in the vicinity of Parliament or Lyon Station. I noticed most people going there are seniors for their CPP/OAS issues, younger folks on employment insurance, and of course those applying for passports, most of whom would likely use the LRT. I know I'm dreaming but the ground floor of the Wellington Building at Bank and Wellington would be an awesome spot for this. The ground floor of either East or West Memorial building on Lyon would be nice, too.

That would be great. Open up one of those monumental buildings to the public.

we used to have a passport office at C.D. Howe, but that closed years ago. Don't know why it's so hard to have accessible service counters in the central area. Everything has to be in car oriented hellscapes.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That would be great. Open up one of those monumental buildings to the public.

we used to have a passport office at C.D. Howe, but that closed years ago. Don't know why it's so hard to have accessible service counters in the central area. Everything has to be in car oriented hellscapes.

Didn't Baird move it out there because suburbanites were tired of having to trek downtown with no parking etc. I think it's probably more convenient for more people there though agree it sucks for carless folks.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If the lens is efficiency (cost per output) then driving does not make services more expensive to provide. It is cheaper to build one library branch serving 50,000 people than 10 library branches serving 5000 people. This is the reason why we have IKEA and Costco.

True, but driving increases the wear and tear on infrastructure, so there is an offset.

We have IKEA and Costco because the cost of driving is subsidized by massive infrastructure investments. Those stores are essentially outsourcing most of their costs to the consumer/municipality.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That would be great. Open up one of those monumental buildings to the public.

we used to have a passport office at C.D. Howe, but that closed years ago. Don't know why it's so hard to have accessible service counters in the central area. Everything has to be in car oriented hellscapes.

I think that it was pure cost-cutting that led to the office being moved out to that location. Very backwards thinking, making everyone drive. People with cars can get anywhere in the city. Those without can not.

Very good point being made. There is lots of empty retail in the bottom of those buildings on Sparks. Why not use some of it for things like the Passport office. It's a block from the LRT, walkable to a large population without cars, and it's not like the spaces are being used now, so they could save some rent.