Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Look at all the development this one killed:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7nYBpAofDkSYAkgz8
Follow the elevated section in either direction. It's really not that bad. The context there is different because its along an ugly stroad, so the pillars actually create a bit of a buffer to a nice wide ped ROW.
We've seen it hasn't really hurt development in Calgary, either
To the Calgary context, the corridors this follows are already pretty cold & bleak. 10 Ave is mostly bland concrete buildings and surface lots that expose the CP tracks.
2nd Ave is bland corporate lobbies with very few CRUs (Commercial Retail Units) once you're a block past Stephen Ave.
More than 50% of 2nd is already in shade for 22 hours a day for the darkest 8 months of the year. That's actually pretty much true 12 months of the year - for the summer its more like >40% for 21 hours a day (and more shade at high noon in summer isn't necessarily a bad thing these days). |
Neither the Metro Van example nor the 10 Ave / 14 St elevated track are really a good parallel to punching an elevated track through the downtown core.
You’re missing several long-term points about how urban environments evolve and why cities like Boston and Seattle eventually reverse these types of decisions. I mean yeah, sure, 10th and 2nd aren’t exactly shining examples of a walkable pedestrian utopia, but those corridors are probably two of the best examples of opportunity for revitalization. The area being relatively bleak as an excuse for why we should be okay with it just reinforces why we shouldn’t be, because we still have the opportunity to fix it before the Green Line effectively locks it in (short of enduring an even more massive cost to fix it later). 1950s Boston justified the Central Artery the same fatalistic way; its ugly and industrial, so what difference does it make?
As for shadowing, at least there’s
some sunlight, even if for short periods. An elevated alignment will kill the surviving daylight. CRUs don’t get developed until a place becomes desirable, and for a city looking to invest in revitalization of its downtown communities, this moves in precisely the wrong direction. If you’ve spent any time in Toronto, as much as I loved the convenience of the Gardiner Expressway as a driver (it kinda felt like zipping through a Need for Speed track), you know it’s a horrible piece of infrastructure at ground level which — between that and its steadily rising cost of maintenance — is why they constantly debate getting rid of the elevated portion somehow.
Making decisions today about building tomorrow’s city using yesterday’s urban planning decisions is what this boils down to, really. It’s looking at 1950s infrastructure with an undeserved fondness rather than learning from it.
You’re right about transitioning areas also being crap, but at least those are small pockets rather than one big long stretch of it.