Market Square

[ijmorlan]

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.

   

No, just giving them a choice.

Also, who says the car-level streets are the most important streets? What do you mean by “streets”? Where the pedestrians are? Is being rained on a definitional feature of the “streets”? I’ve alluded to this by mentioning the concept of having two totally separate levels for motor vehicles and others (which admittedly isn’t doable in an existing downtown, certainly not Kitchener’s). In that concept, I would think of it as removing cars from the streets.

Sometimes people talk about making downtown car-free, usually giving this as a positive improvement. If we then put a roof over portions of the streets, are they no longer streets? How is Conestoga Mall different from a car-free downtown area in a way that is relevant to my preference for not getting rained on?

My objection is to the reflexive rejection of weather-protected spaces. Sometimes I get the impression people think the problem with large malls is the roof — if you just ripped the roof off and let the rain in, they would suddenly be great urban environments. That is obviously an exaggeration, but I think we’re owed an explanation as to how weather- and motor-vehicle-free environments must inevitably be bad for pedestrians. Although in view of redevelopments like the Shops at Don Mills, I wonder if it is even an exaggeration?

[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.

   

No, just giving them a choice.

Also, who says the car-level streets are the most important streets? What do you mean by “streets”? Where the pedestrians are? Is being rained on a definitional feature of the “streets”? I’ve alluded to this by mentioning the concept of having two totally separate levels for motor vehicles and others (which admittedly isn’t doable in an existing downtown, certainly not Kitchener’s). In that concept, I would think of it as removing cars from the streets.

Sometimes people talk about making downtown car-free, usually giving this as a positive improvement. If we then put a roof over portions of the streets, are they no longer streets? How is Conestoga Mall different from a car-free downtown area in a way that is relevant to my preference for not getting rained on?

My objection is to the reflexive rejection of weather-protected spaces. Sometimes I get the impression people think the problem with large malls is the roof — if you just ripped the roof off and let the rain in, they would suddenly be great urban environments. That is obviously an exaggeration, but I think we’re owed an explanation as to how weather- and motor-vehicle-free environments must inevitably be bad for pedestrians. Although in view of redevelopments like the Shops at Don Mills, I wonder if it is even an exaggeration?

I'm not talking about roof vs no roof, or rain vs no rain. I'm talking about people walking primarily inside buildings (as described on the previous page) rather than on the sidewalks.

[robdrimmie]

My objection is to the reflexive rejection of weather-protected spaces.

I think there is a reflexive rejection, but I don't think the reflexive rejection is about weather protection, it's about the risk of making private versus public spaces. I don't have a great reference, but I also think that Jane Jacobs was a strong advocate of people being active at street level - "Streets and their sidewalks -- the main public places of a city -- are its most vital organ" is the most representative quote I found after a short search.

For what it's worth, I think a strong covered pedestrian network through porticos is a wonderful idea. I think it's easy to see the effect that precipitation has on activity in Downtown Kitchener, especially between like 11am and 2pm. I think porticos would make it a lot easier for people to continue to pop out for a coffee or lunch, even in inclement weather and I think they would make the street level more consistently active.

[Bjays93]

I'm not talking about roof vs no roof, or rain vs no rain. I'm talking about people walking primarily inside buildings (as described on the previous page) rather than on the sidewalks.

What makes sidewalks more important. 

If the main mode of pedestrian traffic is lively, and theres a very distinct street life and atmosphere. What does it matter if it's not on sidewalks?

[KevinL]

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.

This is what lets the downtowns of Toronto and Montreal have 'underground cities' of interconnected retail space, as well as the regular surface offerings - they have enough occupation density to support both.

I don't think Kitchener is anywhere near that yet.

[rangersfan]

So this Market Square project....

[Bjays93]

So this Market Square project....

It's a seemingly great project, but don't you think we should get back to more pressing issues, like say pedestrian bridges? 

[Momo26]

There are so many ideas floated to enhance DTK. There are so a lot of obstacles to face. One of my colleagues recently had a shelter open in their 'backyard' and have already experienced theft on their property...

So I can appreciate the arguments with respect to the indoor walkways/sky bridges etc creating further segregation.

From a logistical perspective does having sky bridges make the most sense? Are enough businesses/condos participating? Are they forced to participate?

What about the former idea of simply making King - let's say from Victoria to Frederick covered or semi covered, pedestrian only? Seems a far cheaper option

[jamincan]

I think Ottawa's experiments around Rideau Street have a lot of relevance to this discussion. What they implemented in the 80s (and then abandoned) is not necessarily what is being discussed here, but it's an interesting example of how interventions in the streetscape are complicated and don't necessarily have the effects you might initially expect.

http://urbsite.blogspot.com/2014/03/ride...ansit.html

[panamaniac]

There are so many ideas floated to enhance DTK. There are so a lot of obstacles to face. One of my colleagues recently had a shelter open in their 'backyard' and have already experienced theft on their property...

So I can appreciate the arguments with respect to the indoor walkways/sky bridges etc creating further segregation.

From a logistical perspective does having sky bridges make the most sense? Are enough businesses/condos participating? Are they forced to participate?

What about the former idea of simply making King - let's say from Victoria to Frederick coveted or semi covered, pedestrian only? Seems a far cheaper option

There's a new shelter in town?  Where?

[panamaniac]

I think Ottawa's experiments around Rideau Street have a lot of relevance to this discussion. What they implemented in the 80s (and then abandoned) is not necessarily what is being discussed here, but it's an interesting example of how interventions in the streetscape are complicated and don't necessarily have the effects you might initially expect.

http://urbsite.blogspot.com/2014/03/ride...ansit.html

Yeah, the bus mall on Rideau St was a mess.  Unfortunately, it's still a mess with the structures gone.  They did, however, remove one of the two pedestrian overpasses that linked the Rideau Centre with the (yawn) Hudson Bay store, so that was good.  Frieman Mall, however, which passes through the Bay to link Rideau St with the Market, is very well used.  Over in Centretown, the existing underground links between a number of buildings are very under utilized.

[DK519]

There are so many ideas floated to enhance DTK. There are so a lot of obstacles to face. One of my colleagues recently had a shelter open in their 'backyard' and have already experienced theft on their property...

So I can appreciate the arguments with respect to the indoor walkways/sky bridges etc creating further segregation.

From a logistical perspective does having sky bridges make the most sense? Are enough businesses/condos participating? Are they forced to participate?

What about the former idea of simply making King - let's say from Victoria to Frederick coveted or semi covered, pedestrian only? Seems a far cheaper option

There's a new shelter in town?  Where?

I know the old Tim's on Lancaster/Frederick is a shelter overnight from 8pm-8am now.

[westwardloo]

There's a new shelter in town?  Where?

I know the old Tim's on Lancaster/Frederick is a shelter overnight from 8pm-8am now.

Probably the same residents that are opposing the redevelopment of that site.

[panamaniac]

There's a new shelter in town?  Where?

I know the old Tim's on Lancaster/Frederick is a shelter overnight from 8pm-8am now.

Interesting use of the space.  I wonder what the capacity is?  In general, I think emergency shelters should be smaller rather than larger, although the administrative costs tend to drive things toward larger facilities.

[DK519]

I know the old Tim's on Lancaster/Frederick is a shelter overnight from 8pm-8am now.

Interesting use of the space.  I wonder what the capacity is?  In general, I think emergency shelters should be smaller rather than larger, although the administrative costs tend to drive things toward larger facilities.

I think they're calling it a "warming center" or something like that.

Not serving meals or providing beds but just a place for people to hang out inside.