What does DTK need?

[dtkvictim]

I guess now they can re-open gaukel street? Maybe they could sanction that stretch of gaukel for a tent city.

Gaukel St was all dug up yesterday for what looked like utility work.

[taylortbb]

I guess now they can re-open gaukel street? Maybe they could sanction that stretch of gaukel for a tent city.

Gaukel St was all dug up yesterday for what looked like utility work.

Yep, Kitchener Utilities is doing a gas main replacement. Gaukel St isn't going to be re-opened though. The city is permanently pedestrianizing it (the reason Charlie West got its address changed from 24 Gaukel St to 60 Charles St W), and they don't want to re-open it to cars only to close to close it again. The sidewalks are fully open on both sides now though, it's just the roadway that's fenced.

[dtkvictim]

Gaukel St was all dug up yesterday for what looked like utility work.

Yep, Kitchener Utilities is doing a gas main replacement. Gaukel St isn't going to be re-opened though. The city is permanently pedestrianizing it (the reason Charlie West got its address changed from 24 Gaukel St to 60 Charles St W), and they don't want to re-open it to cars only to close to close it again. The sidewalks are fully open on both sides now though, it's just the roadway that's fenced.

The sidewalks are open, though unless it's changed in the last few days and I didn't notice, the traffic/pedestrian lights are still annoyingly still covered.

I'm wondering what you've heard regarding pedestrianization? Last I spoke to a property owner along that stretch, they were opposing pedestrianization to maintain access to their parking (and didn't seem to think pedestrianization would happen from their talks with the city).

[taylortbb]

I'm wondering what you've heard regarding pedestrianization? Last I spoke to a property owner along that stretch, they were opposing pedestrianization to maintain access to their parking (and didn't seem to think pedestrianization would happen from their talks with the city).

I'm relaying what I was told by Momentum. Not the Momentum sales staff, but (without getting too specific) someone that has directly spoken with the city about this. The city actually asked Momentum to rebuild Gaukel St fully pedestrian, but they of course declined (a million dollars in free work for the city wasn't popular, wonder why). But Momentum did significantly revise their plans for landscaping/etc along Gaukel St on the expectation of it being pedestrianized.

[ijmorlan]

I'm wondering what you've heard regarding pedestrianization? Last I spoke to a property owner along that stretch, they were opposing pedestrianization to maintain access to their parking (and didn't seem to think pedestrianization would happen from their talks with the city).

I’ll be annoyed if pedestrianization doesn’t happen. There is no parking that requires Gaukel St. to remain open, other than possibly a quarter block to connect the laneway to the parking entrances. That part could just be done as a woonerf — put bollards along King and Charles to prevent any vehicular access from there, and allow vehicles to access that block of Gaukel only from the laneway.

[dtkvictim]

I'm wondering what you've heard regarding pedestrianization? Last I spoke to a property owner along that stretch, they were opposing pedestrianization to maintain access to their parking (and didn't seem to think pedestrianization would happen from their talks with the city).

I’ll be annoyed if pedestrianization doesn’t happen. There is no parking that requires Gaukel St. to remain open, other than possibly a quarter block to connect the laneway to the parking entrances. That part could just be done as a woonerf — put bollards along King and Charles to prevent any vehicular access from there, and allow vehicles to access that block of Gaukel only from the laneway.

The parking in question is the lot behind the Public Utilities Buildings and the spots behind Pizza Pizza. So a quarter block is correct.

I think the lot behind the Public Utilities Building could have been reconfigured to be accessed from Halls Ln, but that discussion probably should have happened alongside Charlie West (maybe they could have been convinced to pay for that instead, presumably a much smaller cost).

That quarter block also has a decent incline, so it's probably at least the least practical portion to pedestrianize (though I still hope the entire length is done).

[ijmorlan]

That quarter block also has a decent incline, so it's probably at least the least practical portion to pedestrianize (though I still hope the entire length is done).

What does the incline have to do with it? Pedestrianization basically just means changing the proportion of the street dedicated for cars from 80% (or whatever) to 0% while widening the (combined) sidewalks from 20% (or whatever) to 100%.

[dtkvictim]

That quarter block also has a decent incline, so it's probably at least the least practical portion to pedestrianize (though I still hope the entire length is done).

What does the incline have to do with it? Pedestrianization basically just means changing the proportion of the street dedicated for cars from 80% (or whatever) to 0% while widening the (combined) sidewalks from 20% (or whatever) to 100%.

In terms of having a (nearly) car free passage from Victoria Park to City Hall, I'm fully on board.

But to me, pedestrianization also entails making it into a place. I don't think you'll have any seating/tables/patios on that incline. But maybe my imagination just isn't strong enough to see what could be done with it.

[ijmorlan]

What does the incline have to do with it? Pedestrianization basically just means changing the proportion of the street dedicated for cars from 80% (or whatever) to 0% while widening the (combined) sidewalks from 20% (or whatever) to 100%.

In terms of having a (nearly) car free passage from Victoria Park to City Hall, I'm fully on board.

But to me, pedestrianization also entails making it into a place. I don't think you'll have any seating/tables/patios on that incline. But maybe my imagination just isn't strong enough to see what could be done with it.

OK, that makes sense. It’s not super wide, so I think it would be OK if it were just a really wide sidewalk, but I agree it would be hard to put a patio there. And certainly in general it’s nice if the new space is not just “no cars” but also an actual destination in its own right.

One possibility would be to (roughly speaking) make the current car area into large steps (maybe 6m deep, or different sizes), so each one becomes a separate area accessed from the sidewalks. More work, but might have some interesting possibilities. I think the steepest part is near King, away from the area that might be kept driveable as parking access.

[ac3r]

In terms of having a (nearly) car free passage from Victoria Park to City Hall, I'm fully on board.

But to me, pedestrianization also entails making it into a place. I don't think you'll have any seating/tables/patios on that incline. But maybe my imagination just isn't strong enough to see what could be done with it.

I always say that in order to make downtown into a place to go, we need more retail and purpose built places. Restaurants don't cut it and what is down there which doesn't serve food isn't sufficient. I say this with years of experience in urban planning too. Immediately focusing on trying to attract local businesses and so on its usually doomed to fail as they don't have the draw.

The majority of people in the region don't think of downtown as somewhere to go for much and that a shame. It still hasn't shaken off its reputation of "drug addicts, petty crime, weed and pawn shops" and no matter how many bike lanes and silly patios they install, that's going to remain until downtown becomes a place normal people go for things. Which means attracting mainstream retailers downtown (whether we like it or not). An H&M or Zara for young people to buy clothes, rather than go to the mall. Maybe a big cinema. A grocery store. Cell phone shops. Places to buy household items (like a Homesense). Mainstream stores - for better or for worse - are cheaper and that's what people want

Cities with bustling downtowns need these things to attract people. Local businesses are fine and desirable, but you also need the mainstream ones to get people to choose downtown to shop rather than malls and big box store plazas. Then, the more people regularly down there, the more they eat out and discover local businesses, then the more they choose to go down there and start utilize everything down there.

[Momo26]

100% agree with ac3r's remarks above @ need some big draw household names in DTK and that the restos alone are not doing it.

Again I agree with the names you mentioned....Bring in a nifty Anthropology (think downtown Oakville), an H&M (think Queen in downtown Toronto), an anchor Canadian Tire (how is that Home Hardware? In Uptown fairing?), a Lululemon, Homesense. It's too bad that Shretiers(sp) upscale furniture place moved to pseudo-Belmont area.

I'm actually really pleased to see Starbucks returning (even though I'm partial to some of the other cafes downtown). It brings some legitimacy to downtown.

That grocer Marchè seemed promising but holy hell, it's overpriced. Like common look at the city you are in.

It's true...no one wants to visit. Is there even going to be skating at 'Carl Zehr' square?

[the_conestoga_guy]

100% agree with ac3r's remarks above @ need some big draw household names in DTK and that the restos alone are not doing it.

I think that there's a real discussion to be had about whether or not we "want" to draw people downtown. Intuitively, it makes sense that we want to support our local downtown businesses by maximizing the number of patrons coming through. But there's the push-back from local residents who don't want the compromises that come with extra traffic and parking. There's also the considerable push-back against entertainment options like moving the arena downtown.

I think that we need to be focusing on two things to create a quality downtown: increasing the population of downtown residents, and building a good downtown transit hub. Bonus points if we can build our AAA active transportation networks and minimize passing-through traffic from cars.

Once these are in place, I think we'll organically see investment from private businesses like Canadian Tire or Lululemon.

[ac3r]

100% agree with ac3r's remarks above @ need some big draw household names in DTK and that the restos alone are not doing it.

I think that there's a real discussion to be had about whether or not we "want" to draw people downtown. Intuitively, it makes sense that we want to support our local downtown businesses by maximizing the number of patrons coming through. But there's the push-back from local residents who don't want the compromises that come with extra traffic and parking. There's also the considerable push-back against entertainment options like moving the arena downtown.

I think that we need to be focusing on two things to create a quality downtown: increasing the population of downtown residents, and building a good downtown transit hub. Bonus points if we can build our AAA active transportation networks and minimize passing-through traffic from cars.

Once these are in place, I think we'll organically see investment from private businesses like Canadian Tire or Lululemon.

Huh? Why would you not want to draw people downtown...? Of course we do! And big brands are a good way to do it. Local businsesses are great and everything, but not everybody cares, wants or needs to shop at them. Sometimes you just need to grab some clothes at a Zara or want to eat a McDonald's burger. You can do that in literally every big city in the world but you have to literally drive your car (or waste an hour on a bus) to go to the suburbs to do something so basic in Waterloo Region. And no, investing in transit hubs, bike lanes and other frivolous nonsense like that isn't going to bring many people downtown. Things people need will.

So long as we have a downtown that consists primarily of nothing but small local businesses and a few shops that close by 6PM, then the vast majority of people living in Waterloo Region aren't going to bother to come downtown (which is especially worsened with the zombie junkies that are living all over the place now). But I guarantee if you could wave a magic wand and have a bunch of popular stores open up, have some good entertainment venues, open up some mainstream food places, make the drug addicts disappear and so on, then people would likely flock down there. Your average citizen has really no reason to venture downtown and that is a problem.

[tomh009]

That grocer Marchè seemed promising but holy hell, it's overpriced.  Like common look at the city you are in.

Marché Leo's is way overpriced? For what products? My assessment was that when comparing standard brands of products, the prices were basically the same as (non-sale prices at) Zehrs or Sobeys. They do have some more expensive brands, too, but that's comparing apples and oranges.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I think that there's a real discussion to be had about whether or not we "want" to draw people downtown. Intuitively, it makes sense that we want to support our local downtown businesses by maximizing the number of patrons coming through. But there's the push-back from local residents who don't want the compromises that come with extra traffic and parking. There's also the considerable push-back against entertainment options like moving the arena downtown.

I think that we need to be focusing on two things to create a quality downtown: increasing the population of downtown residents, and building a good downtown transit hub. Bonus points if we can build our AAA active transportation networks and minimize passing-through traffic from cars.

Once these are in place, I think we'll organically see investment from private businesses like Canadian Tire or Lululemon.

Huh? Why would you not want to draw people downtown...? Of course we do! And big brands are a good way to do it. Local businsesses are great and everything, but not everybody cares, wants or needs to shop at them. Sometimes you just need to grab some clothes at a Zara or want to eat a McDonald's burger. You can do that in literally every big city in the world but you have to literally drive your car (or waste an hour on a bus) to go to the suburbs to do something so basic in Waterloo Region. And no, investing in transit hubs, bike lanes and other frivolous nonsense like that isn't going to bring many people downtown. Things people need will.

So long as we have a downtown that consists primarily of nothing but small local businesses and a few shops that close by 6PM, then the vast majority of people living in Waterloo Region aren't going to bother to come downtown (which is especially worsened with the zombie junkies that are living all over the place now). But I guarantee if you could wave a magic wand and have a bunch of popular stores open up, have some good entertainment venues, open up some mainstream food places, make the drug addicts disappear and so on, then people would likely flock down there. Your average citizen has really no reason to venture downtown and that is a problem.

I guess I didn't make the point that I was trying to make as soundly as I hoped. As downtown exists now, if we simply put a Canadian Tire there, people would likely drive to it instead of another one as long as its the closest. That's great for Canadian Tire, but it doesn't benefit the other local businesses and it congests the downtown roads with cars.

My hope is that we can expand the transportation infrastructure first so that it allows people to find alternatives to driving if they want to come downtown. Then, once the infrastructure is in place, and once there's a substantial number of people living downtown, private businesses will "want" to actually set up shop there. Because right now, those established brands are perfectly happy to stay in the suburban shopping centres.

To cite Jane Jacobs' "eyes on the street" theory, we should see reduced petty crime downtown if more people are frequenting there at all hours. Plus, the added tax revenues from the new businesses and residential property taxes could go towards expanding social programs for the unhoused.*

* Unless, of course, we decide to re-allocate budgets from other city programs to address this sooner