Urban Design in Edmonton

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by mcc16

So if something is wrong it's acceptable as long as the majority is doing it and should be protected and encouraged so more wrong can be done. Ok, got ya... I'm just gonna step out of this debate.

I don't understand why you choose to live in a city where you consider the vast majority of people as being "wrong" in their choices, priorities & values.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

In any way? Maybe some people. Most of the units in Garrison Woods in Calgary have two car garages. Yet you can still design a nice more dense neighbourhood.

And the vast majority of Silver Berry has alleys & rear-facing garages. But that was conveniently ignored when ue started his little rant against the "inefficiencies" of a neighborhood he has an axe to grind against, despite those front-facing-garage-lined streets being a plus for density & efficiency in the area, allowing for more houses in a portion of the neighborhood rife with constraints that would have prevented a similar number of alley-served houses in the same space. But because that efficiency & improved land use comes at the cost of one of his personal bogeymen (the evil & oppressive front garage & its chilling effect on pedestrian traffic or some such) it's a negative, not a positive.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by feepa

if something is wrong? What is wrong? Please elaborate...

Urban = right
Not maximally urbanized = wrong
Catering to the wants/needs/values/priorities of non-urbanites = superdupermegawrong

C'mon Matt, keep up.

[mcc16]

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/..._lsa=6359-d835

Funny timing that I came across this article.

Wrong is not maximizing a cities potential. Edmonton is a city. A big one. It's getting bigger. No one is going to take your hummer away, or your motor home parking. But building suburbs smarter to encourage other forms of transport is a win win. And how could someone honestly say the only fix is more direct bus routes. How about building a neighbourhood smarter in the first place to maximize how many people can easily access these new saviour direct bus routes? theres so much fear that the agenda is for urbanists to take over the city and turn it into Hong Kong...while in reality it's people realizing a city of a million plus can't grow the same as a city of 500000. Have you been to the shit hole that is the los Angeles region????? Is that really what we want to aspire to?

And instead of encouraging people to move away, maybe we could listen to alternative view points. If someone thinks the status quo is completely acceptable and that we are doing everything completely right that why join a forum to discuss ideas to improve urban design...

[feepa]

Who is saying the status quo is acceptable? Who's saying we dont' need to change the way neighbourhoods are built?

Who's saying that we aren't already changing the way neighbourhoods are built?

Sometimes I just wonder if people like to get up on a soapbox and speak with out researching the actual changes that are actually going on. Change doesn't happen over night.

Lets go back to the example of Silverberry, since it seems the hot topic of example of what's wrong. What's so wrong with it? Nobody has really stepped up and identified what's wrong. It has walking paths that are far more direct to area amenities than the roads. It has great green space, and recreational paths. It is mostly back alleys, with a few forward facing garages on a few of the streets. What would you change? What would you do differently if you were to do it all over again?

"Wrong is not maximizing a cities potential." What needs to be maximized here?

[mcc16]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

I don't understand why you choose to live in a city where you consider the vast majority of people as being "wrong" in their choices, priorities & values.

Once again thank you for elaborating and expanding for me an idea that I never begun. Your argument that ...lots of cars...so build stuff...was wrong. Let me rephrase this one more time. I don't think we should limit car travel, but we should plan and provide for alternative options to encourage people to choose to limit their own car trips.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by mcc16

Once again thank you for elaborating and expanding for me an idea that I never begun. Your argument that ...lots of cars...so build stuff...was wrong. Let me rephrase this one more time. I don't think we should limit car travel, but we should plan and provide for alternative options to encourage people to choose to limit their own car trips.

Yes, I've identified what I think a solution is to encouraging people to limit their own car trips, by fixing transit milk runs, and replacing them with high frequency, more direct transit routes. Silverberry already exists, you can't just rip it out and start new. So how do you encourage people to take existing transit services that are slow, take the long way to get places, and are of low frequency, making them even less desirable?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Plus probably much cheaper to support those with mobility issues with subsidized Uber like services than try to make the existing transit coverage somewhat acceptable.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ Plus probably much cheaper to support those with mobility issues with subsidized Uber like services than try to make the existing transit coverage somewhat acceptable.

or DATS. https://www.edmonton.ca/ets/dats/about-dats.aspx

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by feepa

or DATS. https://www.edmonton.ca/ets/dats/about-dats.aspx

Not as cheap, but same idea. A lower cost would allow you to expand the eligibility criteria.

[noodlenoodle]

I'm thinking a hybrid of the DATS & old-school Strathcona Transit Dial-A-Bus that provided local service in Sherwood Park in my youth, running on modified versions of our community-centric bus routes could work out well to handle those that can't reasonably handle the increased distance to a higher-frequency network bus stop.

[Landlocked]

Originally Posted by mcc16

...encourage other forms of transport is a win win....

I think what's causing some polarized opposition is that the 'encouragement' is perceived to be continuous pressure degrading the services provided for the traditional form of transportation instead of just offering an attractive alternative.

It reads like two competing restaurants, one of which is successful and offers fast-served, delicious food that isn't exactly healthy. The other, less successful restaurant, offers food that takes longer to get to your table, isn't nearly as tasty, but is the much healthier option. Instead of improving the taste of their offerings and speeding up service, they just get their clientele to give bad reviews to the other restaurant while also trying to get a zoning change passed that'll get rid of their "enemy's" parking lot.

[noodlenoodle]

You've hit it on the head there Landlocked.

I spent the better part of the last 15 years being a carless, central-living individual trying to live the sort of urbanist ideal that many here ascribe to. I "ate at the healthy restaurant" every chance I could. I walked to & from work most days (a whopping 3km commute) & took the bus during inclement weather or on days I just wanted to get home.

Then I got transferred to a different job location so now I'm adjacent to NAIT vs across the street from Rogers Place. 50% longer commute. Still live in Oliver (I love my neighborhood, I love my condo), so that meant transit was no longer a viable option (100% longer transit time to go 50% farther, plus blocks of walking), thanks to the terrible routing of ETS. So I got my car & I realized how much I was missing out on due to my previous lack of transportation options.

Chores that took a couple hours a couple times a week like grocery shopping were now taken care of in one go once a week in the same amount of time. No longer was I beholden to ETS & their creative interpretations of their own posted schedules. The sheer quality of life improvements that my car has brought to me, as a central resident who still chooses the "healthy" option when I can made me far more aware & empathetic to those who drive as a matter of fact. I couldn't imagine trying to raise a family centrally without a car, not without sacrificing the children's quality of life to win an ideological victory. Whereas I'm now able to do a lot more thanks to my own improved transportation option, some families can only do what they want to do & live the lives they want to live through pervasive car-use & living in a suburb next to other families with enough similar values to form a real community.

I don't think we need to cede control of our built form entirely to the private automobile, but to try and ignore or otherwise minimize the real, tangible benefits that car ownership & pervasive use have for many individuals & acknowledging the basic demographics of the city we live in just seems hubristic at best & ignorant at worst. What's "wrong" by the standards of the urban-uber-alles contingent may very well be what those who are content to live in Silver Berry consider "right". It's all perspective.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by feepa

Who is saying the status quo is acceptable? Who's saying we dont' need to change the way neighbourhoods are built?

Who's saying that we aren't already changing the way neighbourhoods are built?

Sometimes I just wonder if people like to get up on a soapbox and speak with out researching the actual changes that are actually going on. Change doesn't happen over night.

Lets go back to the example of Silverberry, since it seems the hot topic of example of what's wrong. What's so wrong with it? Nobody has really stepped up and identified what's wrong. It has walking paths that are far more direct to area amenities than the roads. It has great green space, and recreational paths. It is mostly back alleys, with a few forward facing garages on a few of the streets. What would you change? What would you do differently if you were to do it all over again?

"Wrong is not maximizing a cities potential." What needs to be maximized here?

Ok I'm gonna touch on this one. Most of you are missing that this thread is about Urban Design. Now most of you are talking about density and being able to walk to where you need to, and being transit accessible. That is obviously very important, but it doesn't make urban design. Urban Design is about streetscape, attractiveness, ease of access, convenience, and design that actually makes people want to be on the streets instead of in a car.

Using the Silverberry example, the walking paths are there for people who make a conscious decision to walk, but it is by no means an attractive option that draws people into taking it. For that you need visual interest, visual stimulation, eyes on the street, design that comforts the user instead of making them feel vulnerable.

A walking path between two backyards isn't visually interesting or stimulating. In all likelihood no one else is there. It may help the user feel enclosed (narrow streets help a place feel intimate and protected), however this is negated when there's nothing accessible within it. It is simply a bridge between two destinations, which makes things feel a lot further away, and makes walking a less attractive. Same with walking across parking lots to your destination. An empty void is daunting and uninviting to your average pedestrian.

In Images in Motion by Peter Bosselman, he did various two minute walks through various spaces. Those with the widest open spaces (squares and parking lots) made him feel like he had traveled a lot further in those two minutes, and that those two minutes felt longer. Meaning that if you were to think about making that walk, even if the distance is not that long, it sure feels like it, and makes it an unattractive option.

So I think the point is being missed here. You can have the good densities and path connections, but it doesn't matter if the design is bad. You can even get the same amount of parking if that's a concern. Put the storefronts along the roads and corridors, put parking in the back, suddenly you have a space with visual interest, human interaction, and a more intimate feel. Obviously this alone doesn't make for good urban design, but it's certainly a start.

[Xelebes]

A walking path between two backyards is a necessity that need not be interesting. In fact, a lot of the things that are necessary for urban space are never interesting. The alleyways behind downtown buildings are not interesting but are necessary.

I think we have a problem when "interesting" is one of the first criteria points that we need to check off when doing basic design.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

A walking path between two backyards is a necessity that need not be interesting. In fact, a lot of the things that are necessary for urban space are never interesting. The alleyways behind downtown buildings are not interesting but are necessary.

I think we have a problem when "interesting" is one of the first criteria points that we need to check off when doing basic design.

Oh of course there will be parts of an urban environment that are necessary, but not exactly pretty. That's accepted, but when those parts are the only connectors in the urban network, then you have a problem. I'm sure on a satellite view Silverberry is just as well connected as the earlier example in Calgary (probably a similar density too), but I can guarantee almost anyone would rather walk through that neighbourhood than Silverberry.

Again, Urban Design is not simply about density and connectivity. It's so much more than that, and without well thought out design the other two don't matter. It's not about if you have the connections and corridors, but about how you make them.

[ue]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Oh of course there will be parts of an urban environment that are necessary, but not exactly pretty. That's accepted, but when those parts are the only connectors in the urban network, then you have a problem. I'm sure on a satellite view Silverberry is just as well connected as the earlier example in Calgary (probably a similar density too), but I can guarantee almost anyone would rather walk through that neighbourhood than Silverberry.

Again, Urban Design is not simply about density and connectivity. It's so much more than that, and without well thought out design the other two don't matter. It's not about if you have the connections and corridors, but about how you make them.

This.

I think you guys focused too much on my specific example, where due to the TUC, revamping that particular walking trail wouldn't be viable, rather than the overall concept. Most of these suburban walking trails slice right through the heart of these communities, making them very accessible to the majority of a community's denizens. It makes them ripe spaces to be better allocated to a wider breadth of amenities that are accessible to a wider range of transport modes.

As you say, some unattractive but useful environments are necessary. I'm not advocating for every single walking path to be transformed into a complete street (or even a shared street if it were narrow enough) like the hyperbolic comments of other forumers. I don't think that's realistic and if that were done, it'd likely to be overkill.

The point was also less about the walking path specifically. Like I said, it's a useful environment and has its place. I merely did a cursory glance at Silver Berry and noticed how the walking path went right through the community and into other communities north of it and how that central community space could be so much more. But, even if there wasn't a TUC on that path, I realize it wouldn't be realistic to do that unless people in Silver Berry really pushed for it.

The Silver Berry example was merely a critique of an existing, built-out suburban community and looking at ways to improve upon it with future greenfield development. The neighbourhoods south of Ellerslie, or west of the Henday, or out by the Palisades, or in Spruce Grove -- wherever -- new greenfield development can and should incorporate more sustainable design principles into their developments which still make the car very convenient, but allow for other options and greater amenities. One huge way to do this is to build a small, complete high street in the middle of these communities to take the place of community strip malls and in some cases, power centres. They would still have ample parking, but through a narrow, pedestrian friendly environment where buildings have minimal setback for the most part, with bike lanes and direct, rather than looping, bus routes (or LRT), it would start to resemble a more complete community.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by ue

One huge way to do this is to build a small, complete high street in the middle of these communities to take the place of community strip malls and in some cases, power centres. They would still have ample parking, but through a narrow, pedestrian friendly environment where buildings have minimal setback for the most part, with bike lanes and direct, rather than looping, bus routes (or LRT), it would start to resemble a more complete community.

This has been done in Toronto and Even Calgary. This is an example in Markham:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tor...!4d-79.3831843

Faux design aside, this does a really good with connecting the neighbour, creating an attractive, intimate space, and creating a space people would want to walk. It's not perfect, but it is a much better Urban Design than what we are currently doing, without any extra effort.

[ue]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

This has been done in Toronto and Even Calgary. This is an example in Markham:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tor...!4d-79.3831843

Faux design aside, this does a really good with connecting the neighbour, creating an attractive, intimate space, and creating a space people would want to walk. It's not perfect, but it is a much better Urban Design than what we are currently doing, without any extra effort.

Yeah, Cornell in Markham is a textbook example of what I'm thinking of. It does seem to have issues with creating a true community heart with services people will go to and fill vs the big box stores and malls on the arterial roads and a lack of street furniture, but overall it is excellent. I'd say Garrison Woods succeeds a bit further, but it's also not a true greenfield development and is more centrally located.

[feepa]

Here's the edmonton equivalent.

http://www.brentwooddevelopments.ca/...o%3d&tabid=106