04-10-2016, 09:06 PM
(04-09-2016, 07:08 PM)dubya Wrote: Saying its only 50 m on either side sacrifices 100 meters of urban public realm and we should in no way be compromising our street facing urban realm. I won't give reason as to why as there are reams of content out there to do it for me... a sampling of recent articles found on the matter scanning my twitter feed for 3 or so minutes:
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/03/six-s...reetfight/
http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/04...=SFTwitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZijyXVlWuak&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/12/pu...=SFTwitter
http://www.archdaily.com/580467/inclusiv...ce=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://thewalrus.ca/tv-cities-for-people-not-just-cars/
Cheers for the material. I had read and watched some of those articles, but not all. I agree with you in principle here. We should insist on a positive walking environment along this important stretch- it's not wrong to say that not all of the ~150 meters are retaining wall, but all is inactive- landscaping, retaining wall- or hostile (driveways). Add to that the underpass, which will likely be very well-executed but nevertheless fairly uninteresting, and we're dealing with a long stretch which is uninviting to people on foot.
I like the idea above of the vehicle access being off Wellington. I wonder why that wouldn't be considered.