(04-30-2020, 03:40 PM)jeffster Wrote:

(04-30-2020, 10:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Oh FFS...stupid f***ing fence...

Honestly, we don't have fences like that on sidewalks, nothing more than spending money to make ped infra less convenient, more oppressive and more dangerous (from a social safety perspective)....who does this, and why are they so bad at their jobs.

Edit: Also the sidewalk transition is terrible, and the accessibility plates make zero sense.

Not understanding the long fence either. It's an inconvenience not only to those crossing, but also anyone that may drive to one store and wish to shop at another.

So the question is: was there a fence there before? That would seem to be the only legitimate excuse.

Just checked -- no fence.  I would have said that perhaps RBC wanted the fence there as a level of security, but a fence wouldn't need to enclose the walk way. So my other guess is that this is a safety measure, as the region bought the land that was separating the property the bank is on and the property that Part Source is on. Safety to pedestrians from walking on the lot rather than sidewalk.

Could also be some other legal reason I am sure.

(04-30-2020, 01:23 PM)jamincan Wrote: There are other examples of walkways adjacent to commercial properties that aren't fenced off, but there are also lots, probably the majority, of examples where they are fenced off. I agree with Dan that this is actually a fairly significant safety issue as it can prevent escape for a potential victim. In comparison, it's hard for me to believe that the risk to adjacent businesses is more than marginally higher. It's the sort of thing that would have been brought up immediately with public consultation.

(05-01-2020, 10:50 PM)WLU Wrote:

(04-30-2020, 03:40 PM)jeffster Wrote: Not understanding the long fence either. It's an inconvenience not only to those crossing, but also anyone that may drive to one store and wish to shop at another.

So the question is: was there a fence there before? That would seem to be the only legitimate excuse.

Just checked -- no fence.  I would have said that perhaps RBC wanted the fence there as a level of security, but a fence wouldn't need to enclose the walk way. So my other guess is that this is a safety measure, as the region bought the land that was separating the property the bank is on and the property that Part Source is on. Safety to pedestrians from walking on the lot rather than sidewalk.

Could also be some other legal reason I am sure.

Actually the existing parking lots are two separate pieces of property.  The owners of Parts Source a (stand-alone building) may not appreciate someone parking on their lot and then heading over to the bank or vice versa.

(05-01-2020, 10:50 PM)WLU Wrote:

(04-30-2020, 01:23 PM)jamincan Wrote: There are other examples of walkways adjacent to commercial properties that aren't fenced off, but there are also lots, probably the majority, of examples where they are fenced off. I agree with Dan that this is actually a fairly significant safety issue as it can prevent escape for a potential victim. In comparison, it's hard for me to believe that the risk to adjacent businesses is more than marginally higher. It's the sort of thing that would have been brought up immediately with public consultation.

Just curious, just asking a question but what scenario would you see where it prevents escape for a potential victim.  Again just asking, no offence.

(05-02-2020, 06:43 AM)creative Wrote: The fence could also protect from potential attackers hiding between/behind cars parked next to the fence!

(05-01-2020, 01:52 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The problem is bigger than "one" obstacle, the problem is everyone being complicit in the broken system.

(05-01-2020, 10:50 PM)WLU Wrote: The owners of Parts Source a (stand-alone building) may not appreciate someone parking on their lot and then heading over to the bank or vice versa.

(05-02-2020, 08:33 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-02-2020, 06:43 AM)creative Wrote: The fence could also protect from potential attackers hiding between/behind cars parked next to the fence!

You're being contrarian.

(05-02-2020, 11:49 AM)jeffster Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.

My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.

(05-02-2020, 12:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-02-2020, 11:49 AM)jeffster Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.

My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.

You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.

You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.

(05-02-2020, 01:48 PM)jeffster Wrote: This might be news to you, but sidewalks are NOT city property. This is why YOU have to shovel your sidewalk.

(05-02-2020, 01:48 PM)jeffster Wrote:

(05-02-2020, 12:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.

You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.

I think you need some anger management.

If you read my post, which apparently you didn't -- I said 1) it was built as a safety feature - young children tend to run away form there parents. Do we want parents chasing kids as soon as they're finished crossing the track?

2) This might be news to you, but sidewalks are NOT city property. This is why YOU have to shovel your sidewalk. And it's a dumb suggestion either way, because how the hell would cars go into their driveway? Parking lots? How could any business receive goods? I also said that it was fenced when city property hits private properties. Point to me any city property (a building or perhaps even a park) that is not fenced against a private property. I can't think of any.

Get your head out to the anti-pedestrian agenda you feel that the government has and car owners are horrible people for just a moment. It's not normal.