yeggator
Active Member
I think curb bulbs should be a mandatory feature at every crosswalk on neighborhood roads.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
I would love to see more of a mainstreet approach to new commercial developments in suburbs as well as boulevards.
yeggator
Active Member
thommyjo
Senior Member
It’s a very average example, but ok for its time. A handful of small scale retail around a traffic circle isn’t quite it. But again, good for its time relative to what Edmonton was building.
True main streets and real density concentrated around the Main Street, plus central parks/plazas and gathering spaces is what we need.
archited
Senior Member
cmd uw
Active Member
Not necessarily. It depends on the 'scale' of main street that you want. Not all good main streets need to be blocks upon blocks long. Ritchie Market is a good example of this small scale urbanism.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Maybe. But in the context of greenfield, when they will be building a significant amount of new retail, having that all be car dependent power centres is not ideal. Where projects like west district and university district in Calgary better show a more greenfield style of retail being integrated to a more walkable and mixed use Main Street.
The little retail nodes in our mature suburbs are awesome. But I wouldn’t see those as a solution to congestion or shifting transportation towards our 50% active modes goal.
To actually see 20% of trips in a new suburb not be by car, we need density to be integrated with retail. And retail to be walkable, not parking lot hell.
Look at all the density in windemere currents. I have a friend who lives in the signature towers. He DRIVES to groceries or the bar. Why? The walk is unpleasant and far. Change that development to have a Main Street with condos and apartments above, then big box stores in the back still (Home Depot, Cabrals, Walmart), and it actually becomes a decently walkable area for 1500-2000 people in those Apartments.
jason403
Active Member
Maybe people don't like walking as much as you believe.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Time to go travel the world my friend.
jason403
Active Member
Oh, I have. People in other places tend to walk out of necessity. Not many people prefer walking, other than in ideal conditions. Edmonton is not car dependent, it's car preferred.
Hence why you are always so frustrated developments cater to cars.
Hence why you are always so frustrated developments cater to cars.
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
Car preferred would be if walking was a viable option but people chose their car anyway. For the vast majority of our city walking is not a viable option, so car dependent is the correct term, even if that is what most people prefer.
thommyjo
Senior Member
People prefer what you make safe, efficient, affordable, and enjoyable.
People in other places don’t walk because they’re forced to. They do so because it checks the above boxes.
Cars are only efficient in cities due to a lack of properly invested in alternatives. Transit, bikes, and walking will always be more affordable. Enjoyability is pretty subjective, but it’s fair to assume many trips are more enjoyable by cars for a good amount of the year in Edmonton. Then safety is a bit complicated, but making transit and active modes safe is key. Driving often seems safe, but as we know there are crashes and injuries daily with deaths being much more common than many like to accept.
All that to say, cities are what you build.
David A
Senior Member
I have seen in other cities and here too congested traffic where it can actually be faster to walk or take the train to get around. As cities get bigger the congestion gets worse and you can only build so many lanes of traffic.
Many people don't like walking if they have to try cross several lanes of fast moving traffic or go through huge parking lots to get to the store they are going to. This is most suburban development now. However, we can make it more pleasant and appealing to get more people out of their cars and less congestion on the roads will be better for everyone.
archited
Senior Member
Cars still have their place. We don't have to go back to the horse and buggy days. I would rather go pick up my stereo components from a Mom & Pop than to order it from Billionaire Bezos who would package it in an oversized box full of wasteful packing material and underpay everybody along the chain that got the items to me under that option. I think it is more of an equation that has to be set right than one that has to tilt in the other direction altogether. I get that cars are as expensive as the first house that I bought and there is that too... not to mention that fewer and fewer people are able to afford houses. This subject has so many nuanced "others" that this argument will go in dozens of different directions before it resolves, if it ever does. A snap of the fingers won't see an end to it -- we have to go at it by degrees.
thommyjo
Senior Member
We have 12,000kms of vehicle lanes. We could “tilt the other direction” for 20 years and driving would still represent the most space allocated to it, annual maintenance for it, total capital investment into it, etc.
Setting the equation right will means decades of investing more into transit, walking, and biking than driving. Yet every year our investment into roads outweighs all others by a huge margin.
There’s no risk of returning to car and buggy days. But maybe we can start by ensuring every area that has safe driving infrastructure also has sidewalks, bike paths, and transit.