08-14-2018, 06:54 AM
(08-13-2018, 08:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Sorry, I should clarify, I wasn't suggesting closing Hall's Lane entirely, just closing it at Gaukel, and making it two, dead end, two way streets, I agree closing it entirely isn't feasible, it's an important access, but it doesn't necessarily have to be continuous. Whether or not it's worth the effort is a reasonable question, it's very low traffic, but it is still a negative IMO. It would be worth evaluating both options.
As for a 12 meter stub, are you referring to the parking lots right at Halls Lane? I'm not sure why it would be required, those parking lots directly abut Halls Lane, with not even so much as a curb separating them. You could reconfigure them to access Halls lane with a hack saw and a can of paint.
I'd say if those properties were being redeveloped, the parking could be removed entirely in favour of a larger park, but that's another can of worms.
The greenway has to cross Charles and Joseph, neither of which I think is a candidate for closure, so adding one more crossing that has way less traffic than any other single lane of traffic isn’t going to make much difference to the feel. I would handle the Hall’s Lane crossing with no curbs, just bollards to keep the motor traffic on its course.
The 12m stub is to connect to those parking lots right there. I agree they probably could be reconfigured with more or less a bucket of paint but I want to avoid getting into a discussion of how feasible that is. It probably makes no difference but my sense is that whenever a discussion about something like this gets going with city planners they reveal themselves to have extremely inflexible minds and minimizing the number of discussion points feels like something that might help. Although if their response to my idea to install a pedestrian refuge on the Spur Line at Allen and at Union is any indication, there is no point in simplifying — they’ll bring in some diversionary irrelevance no matter how simple the discussion. And you’ll note that nothing has been done at either location — neither my idea nor their counter-proposal.
Sorry to be cynical, but I think it’s well-earned.
If those properties were re-developed, the parking would probably be built upon, along with the rest of the respective properties. Parking would likely move underground.
Does anybody know the status of that narrow strip of land immediately next to the Manulife HQ running from King back to Hall’s Lane? It occurs to me that could become a mini park. It won’t be very useful for anything else once the land next to it is built up.