Market Square

[taylortbb]

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/977...n-january/

They have some photos of the space, it's the best Market Square has looked in ages. Apparently Conestoga has gotten more ambitious, and is also going to have IT programs downtown, and is now talking about 3500 students total.

[westwardloo]

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/977...n-january/

They have some photos of the space, it's the best Market Square has looked in ages. Apparently Conestoga has gotten more ambitious, and is also going to have IT programs downtown, and is now talking about 3500 students total.

Going to be great to see the addition on up to 3500 people in the downtown core during the day. Hopefully this will encourage additional unique restaurants to open up. I still have mixed feeling about this as ultimately I would love for market square to be torn down and start from scratch, but obviously that will probably never happen with two significant tenants. One can only hope that conestoga college, the record and Europa work together over the next decade to completely transform the exterior of the building and not just the interior. In the process they tear down those useless/ ugly sky bridges as they are more or less pointless.

[panamaniac]

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/977...n-january/

They have some photos of the space, it's the best Market Square has looked in ages. Apparently Conestoga has gotten more ambitious, and is also going to have IT programs downtown, and is now talking about 3500 students total.

Going to be great to see the addition on up to 3500 people in the downtown core during the day. Hopefully this will encourage additional unique restaurants to open up. I still have mixed feeling about this as ultimately I would love for market square to be torn down and start from scratch, but obviously that will probably never happen with two significant tenants. One can only hope that conestoga college, the record and Europa work together over the next decade to completely transform the exterior of the building and not just the interior. In the process they tear down those useless/ ugly sky bridges as they are more or less pointless.

Restaurants, schmestaurants (    ) ,  I want to see stores and services!  
And yes, those overpasses are ugly and useless !! LOL.

[Bjays93]

Going to be great to see the addition on up to 3500 people in the downtown core during the day. Hopefully this will encourage additional unique restaurants to open up. I still have mixed feeling about this as ultimately I would love for market square to be torn down and start from scratch, but obviously that will probably never happen with two significant tenants. One can only hope that conestoga college, the record and Europa work together over the next decade to completely transform the exterior of the building and not just the interior. In the process they tear down those useless/ ugly sky bridges as they are more or less pointless.

Restaurants, schmestaurants (    ) ,  I want to see stores and services!  
And yes, those overpasses are ugly and useless !! LOL.

Interesting you think that. I dont mind the skybridges and think that there actually should be more of them. Most larger cities usually have some sort of footpath network downtown. 

I'd love to see them expand and create a mini path system reminiscent of what they have in Toronto. 

They should also connect the lrt stop at fredrick right to the one overpass imo

[westwardloo]

Restaurants, schmestaurants (    ) ,  I want to see stores and services!  
And yes, those overpasses are ugly and useless !! LOL.

Interesting you think that. I dont mind the skybridges and think that there actually should be more of them. Most larger cities usually have some sort of footpath network downtown. 

I'd love to see them expand and create a mini path system reminiscent of what they have in Toronto. 

They should also connect the lrt stop at fredrick right to the one overpass imo

To access what? I would much rather see people walking on the street, which creates a more urban feel in my opinion. If KWC was one city like Winnipeg with one downtown I could see something like that happening. But there just isn't enough density downtown to justify. If they looked like the bridge from the bay to the eaton centre in Toronto I could see wanting to save them.

[ijmorlan]

Interesting you think that. I dont mind the skybridges and think that there actually should be more of them. Most larger cities usually have some sort of footpath network downtown. 

I'd love to see them expand and create a mini path system reminiscent of what they have in Toronto. 

They should also connect the lrt stop at fredrick right to the one overpass imo

To access what? I would much rather see people walking on the street, which creates a more urban feel in my opinion. If KWC was one city like Winnipeg with one downtown I could see something like that happening. But there just isn't enough density downtown to justify. If they looked like the bridge from the bay to the eaton centre in Toronto I could see wanting to save them.

Everything. As far as I’m concerned if downtown was properly planned one could walk from Centre in the Square, through the Regional Headquarters building, to the Library, then on through the Police Station and old courthouse to the new courthouse. From there it’s just one more bridge to Market Square and the existing links. Over time, additional links could be added. For example, Duke Tower could be added in.

Furthermore, every new development on King, Charles, and Duke Streets should be required to have a covered portico parallel to the sidewalk, and they should link up with the porticos of neighbouring properties. Over time you would eventually build a continuous rain-free environment covering much of downtown.

To my way of thinking, I’m only wrong if people actually prefer walking outdoors. But in places where these systems are built, they are often immensely popular. I understand that retail space on the Toronto Path system is the highest value (per square metre of floor space) in the entire world, including places like downtown New York and other such insanely expensive places (sorry, no cite; if anybody has access to reliable confirming or contradictory information I’d be interested). My only complaint is that they tend to be isolated from the outdoors, which is often a pleasant place to be; I would prefer, where possible, for interior and exterior routes to be parallel to each other so moving between them it very easy, and so the same geographical intuition works in both realms. Part (not all) of the Winnipeg skyway system is like this: there is a 2nd-floor route running for several blocks along the same side of one street. It’s easy to understand where one is, one can see the street, and it’s easy to move back and forth between the street and the elevated walkway.

There is nothing magical about being at motor vehicle level and exposed to the weather that makes for a good experience.

[Bjays93]

Interesting you think that. I dont mind the skybridges and think that there actually should be more of them. Most larger cities usually have some sort of footpath network downtown. 

I'd love to see them expand and create a mini path system reminiscent of what they have in Toronto. 

They should also connect the lrt stop at fredrick right to the one overpass imo

To access what? I would much rather see people walking on the street, which creates a more urban feel in my opinion. If KWC was one city like Winnipeg with one downtown I could see something like that happening. But there just isn't enough density downtown to justify. If they looked like the bridge from the bay to the eaton centre in Toronto I could see wanting to save them.

You have to start somewhere, even if that just means connecting the existing footbridges with dtk for example. It's going to be the tallest building in the city, and with the conestoga campus opening up in market square, going directly from dtk into market square would be rather convenient. 

You could connect to city hall as well. 

The goal is just to start connecting buildings in general, like even manulife and charlie west. As they are right next to eachother creating a direct connection should be relatively cheap and would be super convenient, especially if there will be restaurants in Charlie west, that could service the people working in the manulife building

[panamaniac]

Restaurants, schmestaurants (    ) ,  I want to see stores and services!  
And yes, those overpasses are ugly and useless !! LOL.

Interesting you think that. I dont mind the skybridges and think that there actually should be more of them. Most larger cities usually have some sort of footpath network downtown. 

I'd love to see them expand and create a mini path system reminiscent of what they have in Toronto. 

They should also connect the lrt stop at fredrick right to the one overpass imo

There's history there ... 

[westwardloo]

Ok connecting all of downtown kitchener with conditioned space is a fancy and not a good one. Th fact that Toronto and new York's under ground walkway works is irrelevant for downtown kitchener to punch holes in the sides of buildings to build one. They have a signifcant population that warrants it.Also I am pretty sure the retail number you are thinking of is because the Eaton centre is technically part of the PATH system. Winnipeg has the system a little because they have the population to warrant it, but mostly because it is freezing and windy in that city. They are also not made up of 3 "downtowns" and 2 "villages".

Skywalk have a lot of urban planning issues as well:
- accessibility is a big one. 2 flights of stairs or elevators at every exit 
- less pedestrian on the streets make drivers more likely to drive faster
- less people on the streets make the streets more dangerous, over pass themselves are more dangerous as there are less possible routes of escape
-less people/ more dangerous streets will encourage less retail investment in the core. 

Skybridge networks are an Idea dreamed up by GM in the 30's to separate pedestrian from the streets so that cars could rule the urban environment. They are not a good idea for a city the size of kitchener. There is no chance a network you describe will ever happen, so why have 2 useless ugly reminders of the poor urban planning that happened in this city during the 60-80's that basically destroyed downtown.

[ijmorlan]

Ok connecting all of downtown kitchener with conditioned space is a fancy and not a good one. Th fact that Toronto and new York's under ground walkway works is irrelevant for downtown kitchener to punch holes in the sides of buildings to build one. They have a signifcant population that warrants it.Also I am pretty sure the retail number you are thinking of is because the Eaton centre is technically part of the PATH system. Winnipeg has the system a little because they have the population to warrant it, but mostly because it is freezing and windy in that city. They are also not made up of 3 "downtowns" and 2 "villages".

Skywalk have a lot of urban planning issues as well:
- accessibility is a big one. 2 flights of stairs or elevators at every exit 
- less pedestrian on the streets make drivers more likely to drive faster
- less people on the streets make the streets more dangerous, over pass themselves are more dangerous as there are less possible routes of escape
-less people/ more dangerous streets will encourage less retail investment in the core. 

Skybridge networks are an Idea dreamed up by GM in the 30's to separate pedestrian from the streets so that cars could rule the urban environment. They are not a good idea for a city the size of kitchener. There is no chance a network you describe will ever happen, so why have 2 useless ugly reminders of the poor urban planning that happened in this city during the 60-80's that basically destroyed downtown.

Um, it’s freezing and windy here too, and sometimes rainy in the summer. These sorts of networks make sense in places like San Diego too, although whether they’re enclosed and climate-controlled is much less relevant. How many downtowns are in the Region is irrelevant; the question is what would make any area (not just downtowns) easier to get around on foot.

Accessibility is actually improved by a properly-designed skybridge network. Instead of having to navigate road crossings, people can just walk around in an enclosed space. Any building with a skybridge will be the sort of building that has elevators, so wheelchair accessibility is there. Of course, nobody would use an elevator at each end of each bridge; instead, just walk from one bridge to the next on one level. As with anything, the design has to be proper. In particular, all bridges connecting to a building should, in general, be on the same floor, and preferably on exactly the same level. Where the exact same level isn’t possible, gentle ramps should be used. Only as a last resort (probably related to significant ground level changes) should a required elevator be used to get from the level of one bridge to another. Of course, in this situation, the regular sidewalk will be problematic for wheelchair users due to grade.

Road design can take care of driving speed.

The sidewalks would still have some people on them. I don’t buy that moving half the pedestrian traffic of King St. up a level would change the safety of King St. As to the bridges themselves, they are interior spaces presumably monitored by security.

As to who supposedly invented the idea, I don’t care who came up with the idea. Skybridges could have been an obsession of Hitler and I would still believe in the benefits of roofs and walls to keep out the weather.

In any case, it’s only in bizarro world that separating pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic could be viewed as anti-pedestrian.

What we need is less ideology and more sensible design, and in a dense area it’s weird to insist that everybody always go outside to get from one building to another.

As to my idea, I agree as suggested it is unlikely to happen, but the reason is that people don’t even look for opportunities to link buildings up. We don’t even have porticos as a standard feature. I actually agree that skybridges and tunnels to have to be designed carefully to fit into the non-interior parts of the city and to avoid some of the potential problems that you bring up (but mistakenly associate with the whole concept of being able to get places indoors, rather than with specific designs), but porticos are an unquestionable benefit.

One more suggestion, which is irrelevant to existing downtowns but absolutely could have been done in a place like what is now downtown Mississauga: if, instead of providing a skybridge network as an alternative to street level, we decide that pedestrian street level is 5m above motor vehicle street level, I think most of your objections vanish entirely. At that point, you have two levels: on one level, cars and other motor vehicles travel, while on another, people walk and bicycle around. Then it doesn’t matter if cars travel too fast for compatibility with pedestrian traffic because there are none. It doesn’t matter if restaurants, for example, can survive on the motor vehicle level, because in effect that’s the basement and we don’t complain that basement restaurants have trouble surviving elsewhere.

[jamincan]

One more suggestion, which is irrelevant to existing downtowns but absolutely could have been done in a place like what is now downtown Mississauga: if, instead of providing a skybridge network as an alternative to street level, we decide that pedestrian street level is 5m above motor vehicle street level, I think most of your objections vanish entirely. At that point, you have two levels: on one level, cars and other motor vehicles travel, while on another, people walk and bicycle around. Then it doesn’t matter if cars travel too fast for compatibility with pedestrian traffic because there are none. It doesn’t matter if restaurants, for example, can survive on the motor vehicle level, because in effect that’s the basement and we don’t complain that basement restaurants have trouble surviving elsewhere.

That reminds me of the raising of Chicago.

I know one criticism of these spaces is that they are typically private which has a number of implications for free movement, speech etc.

[ijmorlan]

One more suggestion, which is irrelevant to existing downtowns but absolutely could have been done in a place like what is now downtown Mississauga: if, instead of providing a skybridge network as an alternative to street level, we decide that pedestrian street level is 5m above motor vehicle street level, I think most of your objections vanish entirely. At that point, you have two levels: on one level, cars and other motor vehicles travel, while on another, people walk and bicycle around. Then it doesn’t matter if cars travel too fast for compatibility with pedestrian traffic because there are none. It doesn’t matter if restaurants, for example, can survive on the motor vehicle level, because in effect that’s the basement and we don’t complain that basement restaurants have trouble surviving elsewhere.

That reminds me of the raising of Chicago.

I know one criticism of these spaces is that they are typically private which has a number of implications for free movement, speech etc.

Thanks for the link. I hadn’t heard of that particular project. I’ve heard of places where the existing ground floors were decreed to be the basements and the second floor the new ground floor, with various adjustments made to sidewalks and everything else, but not of actually jacking up the buildings.

Or maybe the account I read was a garbled one.

In any case, very interesting.

I agree about the “private space” criticism. For just having some skybridges, with ground level still a public space, I think it’s important but not critical, just like how I am not completely comfortable with the private nature of enclosed malls but don’t consider it a pressing problem. For the idea of completely separating the motor vehicle and pedestrian level, I would consider it mandatory that the pedestrian level be public. I would also consider it important that it have a lot of outdoor space in it. While I believe in the freedom to choose indoor travel, I also believe in the freedom to choose outdoor travel and would make that choice myself on many days. I also think we should consider having more indoor public spaces owned by the city.

[Bjays93]

That reminds me of the raising of Chicago.

I know one criticism of these spaces is that they are typically private which has a number of implications for free movement, speech etc.

Thanks for the link. I hadn’t heard of that particular project. I’ve heard of places where the existing ground floors were decreed to be the basements and the second floor the new ground floor, with various adjustments made to sidewalks and everything else, but not of actually jacking up the buildings.

Or maybe the account I read was a garbled one.

In any case, very interesting.

I agree about the “private space” criticism. For just having some skybridges, with ground level still a public space, I think it’s important but not critical, just like how I am not completely comfortable with the private nature of enclosed malls but don’t consider it a pressing problem. For the idea of completely separating the motor vehicle and pedestrian level, I would consider it mandatory that the pedestrian level be public. I would also consider it important that it have a lot of outdoor space in it. While I believe in the freedom to choose indoor travel, I also believe in the freedom to choose outdoor travel and would make that choice myself on many days. I also think we should consider having more indoor public spaces owned by the city.

I agree with this. Having indoor public spaces is fantastic. 

I lived overseas for several years in Hong Kong and they've worked this out fantastically. Theres a multitude of above street level outdoor spaces as well as indoor ones. 

There's also ample shops along these corridors, not in the same density as malls, but it allows for the area to retain a vibrant feel, which was one of the expressed concerns. 

There is also plenty of foot traffic on the ground level as well. 

I know it's not a perfect example given how dense and small hong kong is and how much pedestrian traffic it has but nonetheless it's an example of a well executed footpath system

[tomh009]

Interesting. We have a lot of discussion about street walls and street interaction, and how Market Square is awful (just like other malls) because it's inward-facing.

And yet, here we are, talking about taking pedestrians off the streets (in an ideal world) and having them stay inside the buildings only. Which, to me, does not make for a vibrant downtown. But maybe that's just me.

   

[jamincan]

Indoor pedestrian network seem to work where there is sufficient pedestrian traffic that they are necessary. The volume of pedestrian traffic is enough that two parallel pedestrian realms are viable.

People avoid a vacant space just as much as they avoid an over-crowded space for various reasons. This does mean, though, that in downtown areas where pedestrian traffic is limited, there is concern that further eroding the density of foot traffic will lead to a decline in ground-floor businesses and the overall health of the downtown area. I think it is often a chicken and egg situation, though. The history of sky-bridges has often been tied in with separating downtown business people from the street level so they don't have to interact with the "less-desirable elements" found there. They walk to their office from the carpark, eat in a food court, and then return to their car - all in private space - never once interacting with the neighbourhood. The desire for this separation is often a reflection of an already declining and struggling downtown area, though, and not necessarily the cause of it.

Kitchener is taking big steps, but is still struggling to revive its downtown streetscape and I think its a legitimate concern that having a parallel private and secure pedestrian network would hobble the progress it has made.