Gore Park

[RePinion]

I don't think Market Street was ever the main thoroughfare for Manchester in the way that King Street is for Hamilton. English cities tend not to have "main thoroughfares" in the North American Sense. Their layouts are entirely different and tend not to rely upon "linchpin" streets. Surely Market street was indeed a major road, but it always had to compete with Deansgate, which, as a self-sustaining major avenue, tended to perform better.

That being said, your causality here is rather confused: pedestrianization did not spark the rejuvenation of Market Street; the massive reconstruction of the Arndale Centre did. If you have ever been to Manchester (I have had the pleasure of visiting once) you will see that Market Street is essentially just an outdoor extension of the Arndale. Without the success of the Arndale there would not have been a corresponding rejuvenation of Market Street and no pedestrian conversion (at least not a successful one).

Maybe if Jackson Square were to undergo a miraculous rebirth there might be some justification for your analogy between the two streets.

Again, this point is really quite petty and doesn't do much to bolster the overall argument for pedestrianization of King.

[the dude]

my opinions on the matter are fairly rigid and narrow. i believe that cars: kill street life; cause air and noise pollution; exacerbate climate change; are a blight on the beauty of cities; and so on. that said, pedestrianization must be phased in slowly. this should be a long term goal of ours in the city. another goal should be to provide better public transit options, i.e. trams. then and only then can we truly remove cars from our streets...heaven forbid, i know.

anyone been to venice? almost entirely carfree and one of the most magical cities on the planet. add cars to the mix and it's half the city it is now. numerous european cities have made portions of their city carfree. the list is too long to even mention. yes, sparks street sucks. not because it's a pedestrian mall but because the NCC has made a mess of it.

there's so much fear to the idea of removing cars from our lives. the panic is almost palpable on this forum and i suppose it's only natural. most people have never experienced a truly carfree place. let me tell you, nothing's more pleasurable. perhaps the issue is with king street. maybe it's not the best choice, which is why my vision of a future carfree area is located north of king.

[reddog794]

Ped Malls do work so long as they go somewheres. The reason Grafton St. Mall doesn't work is because it's a dead-end. This on the other hand would work, because it isn't blocked by an ugly, constipated, half brained, 60's urban renewal idea. Take a look at Bogota, in Columbia, and what investment in people infrastructure did for them.

[raisethehammer]

check out the photos on this article about Leeds, England.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=041

[I, Sinclair]

Glasgow has similar lessons as Leeds for Hamilton.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by RePinion

I don't think Market Street was ever the main thoroughfare for Manchester in the way that King Street is for Hamilton. English cities tend not to have "main thoroughfares" in the North American Sense. Their layouts are entirely different and tend not to rely upon "linchpin" streets. Surely Market street was indeed a major road, but it always had to compete with Deansgate, which, as a self-sustaining major avenue, tended to perform better.

That being said, your causality here is rather confused: pedestrianization did not spark the rejuvenation of Market Street; the massive reconstruction of the Arndale Centre did. If you have ever been to Manchester (I have had the pleasure of visiting once) you will see that Market Street is essentially just an outdoor extension of the Arndale. Without the success of the Arndale there would not have been a corresponding rejuvenation of Market Street and no pedestrian conversion (at least not a successful one).

Maybe if Jackson Square were to undergo a miraculous rebirth there might be some justification for your analogy between the two streets.

Again, this point is really quite petty and doesn't do much to bolster the overall argument for pedestrianization of King.

I have been to Manchester, and can say from my first-hand experience that Market Street indeed used to be a thoroughfare much like King Street. As anyone who has been to England knows, A6 is a major motorway (hence the 'A' designation). Had you driven along route A6 during your visit, you would know this to be true. And Market Street, a stretch of the A6 prior to pedestrianisation, indeed used to be the major downtown traffic route prior to its conversion. By the way, Deansgate is the major north/south downtown roadway, while Market was the major east/west road, so from a traffic flow point of view the roads served downtown Manchester in a complementary. fashion. East-west automobile traffic for downtown Manchester is now handled mainly via Swan, Miller and Chapel. Traffic flow has not suffered due to the conversion, and there are no reports of visitors who could not find their way downtown as a result of the conversion.

Prior to its pedestrianisation, the area was suffering from neglect, mainly from businesses relocating into Arndale. When Market Street was pedestrianized, it was not done simply to be an extension of Arndale. It is much more. It is designed to be a pedestrian feeder to the hub for Manchester's two main Metrolink LRT routes. In addition, it was designed to offer a consumer experience unique to that within the Arndale complex. It was also part of an overall strategy to make the city less dependant on automobile traffic. And it has been a resounding success.

I would not go so far as to say Manchester is an exact parralel to Hamilton, but there is certainly enough similarities to pre-renewal Manchester and Hamilton that our city can (and should) learn much from their renewal efforts, arguably the most successful urban renewal in the UK. Its main components were an unprecedented focus on transit (LRT specifically), combined with aggressive pedestrianization projects. Its catalyst was the Commonwealth Games. And the positive effect of these combined efforts on the City of Manchester can be described as anything but petty.

Hamilton is now facing the exact same opportunities as Manchester did a decade ago. We have the most transit-friendly mayor and provincial government in our city's history. We have the opportunity to aggressively pursue mass transit development and pedestrian zones just as Manchester did a decade ago. Moreover, we are within reach of a potential catalyst in the form of the 2015 PanAm games, just like Manchester had the Commonwealth Games as its catalyst. This is an opportunity not to be squandered.

[RePinion]

You're ignoring the traditional purpose of Market street here. Before the 1930s, Market Street was just as its name would suggest - a street market. In other words, Market Street, unlike King, for the majority of its history has been a pedestrian dominated street.

Here is a picture of Market Street in its prime, around the turn of the 20th century:



Certainly the appearance of Market Street changed over the 20th century, but I don't think King ever quite looked like this. I maintain that the two streets have traditionally served rather different functions for their respective cities. There is a major difference between an English high street and a North American thoroughfare. High streets are fundamentally commercial destinations, not transportation backbones (indeed, the latter can really only exist in grid patterned cities like Hamilton).

The A6 is only a regional road, as are all A designated roads in the UK. The major highways have M designations.

Prior to pedestrianization, Market street was in a decline not because of Arndale (which wasn't very popular with Mancunians prior to its reconstruction) but rather because of the depressed state of the Manchester economy (indeed, the entire British economy, and particularly the northern regional economy, had been in long decline). I do believe the revitalization of Market Street was directly contingent on the renewed fortunes of the Arndale post-1996. The level of retail in Arndale and outside on Market Street are exactly the same. People walk out onto Market and from Market into the Arndale Centre as though they were extensions of each other, for indeed, functionally, they are.

While I do happily acknowledge many fundamental similarities between Hamilton and Manchester (primarily in economic terms) it should be obvious that a policy of pedestrianization in a European city means something entirely different from a policy of pedestrianization in a North American city like Hamilton. Every major European city is fraught with areas traditionally dominated by pedestrians. Many of these, over the course of the 20th century, came to host auto traffic as well, but structurally they remained the same, making reconversion to pedestrian domination an easy and natural step. King has never been a pedestrian zone. Until there is an overwhelming amount of pedestrian traffic in the downtown core, I don't think it ever will successfully function as one either.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by the dude

my opinions on the matter are fairly rigid and narrow. i believe that cars: kill street life; cause air and noise pollution; exacerbate climate change; are a blight on the beauty of cities; and so on. that said, pedestrianization must be phased in slowly. this should be a long term goal of ours in the city. another goal should be to provide better public transit options, i.e. trams. then and only then can we truly remove cars from our streets...heaven forbid, i know.

anyone been to venice? almost entirely carfree and one of the most magical cities on the planet. add cars to the mix and it's half the city it is now. numerous european cities have made portions of their city carfree. the list is too long to even mention. yes, sparks street sucks. not because it's a pedestrian mall but because the NCC has made a mess of it.

there's so much fear to the idea of removing cars from our lives. the panic is almost palpable on this forum and i suppose it's only natural. most people have never experienced a truly carfree place. let me tell you, nothing's more pleasurable. perhaps the issue is with king street. maybe it's not the best choice, which is why my vision of a future carfree area is located north of king.

Despite my earlier comment about cars being a legitimate part of urban street life, I generally do agree with you about their overall negative effects on urban environment. I also agree that complete pedestrianization is a policy worthy of serious consideration, but one which should be pursued incrementally as the market demands rather than imposed as sudden change from above.

[markbarbera]

Interesting that you chose a picture of Market Street from the 1900's, long before the popular adoption of the automobile. To fairly compare it to Hamilton pictorally, here is photo postcard of King Street from the same time period:



Here is a picture of Market Street in 1938, showing its heavy automobile traffic even back then:



For a modern perspective, here is a picture of a portion of Market just beyond the pedestrian zone (taken last fall):



To clarify one more thing, 'A' series highways in the UK are akin to King's Highway series in Ontario. The urban context of Route A6 in England (formerly Market Street in downtown Manchester) is identical to Hwy 8 in Ontario (King Street in Hamilton). Motorways (i.e. the 'M' series) are divided highways and are the UK equivalent to our 400-series highways.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by RePinion

Surely Market street was indeed a major road, but it always had to compete with Deansgate, which, as a self-sustaining major avenue, tended to perform better.

Just want to say that you are all throwing around the term "main thoroughfare" very loosely with King Street. Yes, it bisects the downtown but in my mind is is a lesser thoroughfare than any of Main, Cannon or Wilson or even Hunter. If my goal is to efficiently navigate THROUGH the core, I would rather drive on any of those streets than King, especially during rush hour.

So: "Surely King St is a major road, but it always has to compete with Cannon and Hunter which act much better as efficient thoroughfares."

Originally Posted by RePinion

You're ignoring the traditional purpose of Market street here. Before the 1930s, Market Street was just as its name would suggest - a street market. In other words, Market Street, unlike King, for the majority of its history has been a pedestrian dominated street.

Likewise, Gore Park has always acted as the "public square" for large gatherings of people (i.e. pedestrians). Treating King as if it is a major thoroughfare makes this kind of use impossible.




And while King has definitely been open to traffic forever (i.e. it was never a closed market), historically it allowed for good pedestrian/traffic shared use:




King will be what we make it.

All of that being said, I think that the smartest move will be a complete 2 way conversion of King, but leaving it open to traffic. Make it no longer a westbound thoroughfare. Put cobblestone on the North leg between john and james -- this will give context clues to motorists that it is a pedestrian friendly area. Similar to hess -- it's open but you can tell it's meant mainly for pedestrians. You can use it, but if you are from town to learn fast that it is not a thoroughfare!

Host frequent events at Gore Park where the North Leg is closed for the weekend. Ramp up to full closure every weekend in the summer or something like that.

Close the south leg completely to traffic and have weekly outdoor market stalls there in the summer. Give it an ongoing purpose as a destination. Hell, put free parking all around the area if that will make drivers happy. But once it's successful, take the free parking away -- and if it's really successful then the north leg can be closed once people get used to the idea that it's not an efficient way to drive THROUGH the core.

[markbarbera]

As a point of further clarification, an earlier post left the impression that the Pedestrian Sunday pilot in Kensington Market in Toronto was a failure and has been abandoned. On the contrary, it has been quite a success. To set the record straight, Pedestrian Sundays will return again in 2008, starting earlier this year (May - assuming the snow is gone by then), and the pilot will expand to two other Toronto Streets: to Mirvish Village on Markham Street and to Baldwin Street Village.

[HAMRetrofit]

I think the pedestrianization process should start similar to Kensington. Cut off traffic first on specific days. See how it influences the street life. As it becomes more successful begin the pedestrianization. I think in general the area around Gore Park could also really benefit from street parking.

[DC83]

Coalmine, I've said it before and I'll say it again... You're a genius!

To me, what you posted is the only option that makes sense RIGHT NOW! Later on, depending on how successful a pedestrianized Gore Park is, THEN we can work on ped'ing the north-leg of King.

[raisethehammer]

great pics people! I love historic photos.
Put the tracks back on King St, get rid of the cars and watch it go....our past is key to the future apparently.

[RePinion]

I made clear in my above post that the picture I provided was not intended to be representative of Market Street throughout the 20th century. I was intending to show the street in its most traditional function: as a street market, something which King Street has never been. Despite the presence of Gore Park, I don't believe that King has ever been as pedestrian friendly as Market Street was in its prime.

markbarbera: I would remind you that no matter how deeply we might disagree about the past and present status of Market Street in Manchester, you still haven't made out anything more than a very shaky argument for complete pedestrianization.

While Manchester and Hamilton are interesting parallels, the cities today have little in common aside from an economic history of heavy manufacturing. Today, their respective economies, cultures, residential markets, and regional status are vastly divergent. It is possible that Hamilton may (hopefully) one day look something like Manchester, and be able to sustain the sort of civic projects that that city does, but until then, comparisons between the two cities are of only limited validity and assistance.

Coalminecanary: I couldn't agree more with your proposal. The cobblestones are an excellent means of signalling to motorists that the Gore is a pedestrian-priority area.

I'm sure everyone is rather tired of this topic by now ...

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Interesting that you chose a picture of Market Street from the 1900's, long before the popular adoption of the automobile. To fairly compare it to Hamilton pictorally, here is photo postcard of King Street from the same time period:

Interesting that in the picture of King you show above, the street is rather sparsely populated (particularly in comparison to the picture of Market Street I show above). This is probably how it would look if it were converted to a pedestrian only zone today haha ...

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by RePinion

markbarbera: I would remind you that no matter how deeply we might disagree about the past and present status of Market Street in Manchester, you still haven't made out anything more than a very shaky argument for complete pedestrianization.

With regards to Market Street, this isn't a disagreement of opinion. I have presented the facts on Market Street in Manchester, and you refuse to accept these facts. The fact of the matter is the pre-pedestrianised Market Street in Manchester had a traffic function practically identical to Hamilton's King Street, the only exception being that Market Street handled two-way traffic. The fact that you refuse to concede this fact does not change that fact. A quick scan of the internet brought me these wiki articles on the A6 and Market Street, collaborating this fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Street_(Manchester)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A6_road

If anyone else has first-hand knowledge and/or personal experience in Manchester, I would be extremely greatful if you would offer collaboration of these facts.

In exploring the pro's and con's of pedestrianisation, it is most prudent to seek out a close parallel experience, which is what I did with my Market Street example. You can claim this to be a shaky arguement, but that is simply your opinion, and one based more on personal bias than fact.

You dismiss my arguments in favour of pedestrianisation as shaky, yet you offer arguments against pedestrianisation with just as much, indeed, even less tangible evidence to support your arguments. The city has developed the options it is going to research, it will be conducting research on these options and will report back on their findings. Seeing as neither one of us sees much merit in the other's arguments on this topic, how about we agree to disagree and return to this conversation once their report is tabled?

Originally Posted by RePinion

Interesting that in the picture of King you show above, the street is rather sparsely populated (particularly in comparison to the picture of Market Street I show above). This is probably how it would look if it were converted to a pedestrian only zone today haha ...

Well, this last post by you was very insightful, constructive, objective, and well-thought out. The irony that you have recently accused me of pettiness in an earlier post is not lost, neither on myself nor on the other participants in this forum.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

With regards to Market Street, this isn't a disagreement of opinion. I have presented the facts on Market Street in Manchester, and you refuse to accept these facts. The fact of the matter is the pre-pedestrianised Market Street in Manchester had a traffic function practically identical to Hamilton's King Street, the only exception being that Market Street handled two-way traffic. The fact that you refuse to concede this fact does not change that fact. A quick scan of the internet brought me these wiki articles on the A6 and Market Street, collaborating this fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Street_(Manchester)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A6_road

If anyone else has first-hand knowledge and/or personal experience in Manchester, I would be extremely greatful if you would offer collaboration of these facts.

In exploring the pro's and con's of pedestrianisation, it is most prudent to seek out a close parallel experience, which is what I did with my Market Street example. You can claim this to be a shaky arguement, but that is simply your opinion, and one based more on personal bias than fact.

You dismiss my arguments in favour of pedestrianisation as shaky, yet you offer arguments against pedestrianisation with just as much, indeed, even less tangible evidence to support your arguments. The city has developed the options it is going to research, it will be conducting research on these options and will report back on their findings. Seeing as neither one of us sees much merit in the other's arguments on this topic, how about we agree to disagree and return to this conversation once their report is tabled?





Well, this last post by you was very insightful, constructive, objective, and well-thought out. The irony that you have recently accused me of pettiness in an earlier post is not lost, neither on myself nor on the other participants in this forum.

It may not be a mere disagreement of opinion, but it surely is a disagreement as to the interpretation of your "facts". The arrogance of your argumentative style is laughable as it amounts to nothing more than "I am right but you refuse to accept that I am right". You do present some disparate points of fact; my contention is that you fail to synthesize these into a credible argument. In other words, the parallel you seek to draw is, in my view, simply not borne out by the facts you seek to support it with.

The Wikipedia articles you cite above are unhelpful (I suspected you were relying on to Wikipedia to ground your argument, which in itself is quite funny).

The article on the A6 says nothing of substance other than that the road is a "major" one; it then proceeds to describe the road's progress from Luton to Carlisle. It mentions Market Street twice and says nothing meaningful about it. The article, in my opinion, does not support your assertion that the relation between Highway 8 and King Street is absolutely identical to the (former) relation between the A6 and Market Street. To draw this inference, it would be necessary to rely rather heavily on your own anecdotal evidence. However, given the increasingly bitter tone of your replies (signalling that you are now taking this debate very personally) I think it would be unfitting to accord your anecdotal claims any weight at all as they are apt to be grossly tendentious.

The Market Street article, likewise, offers little in the way of support. It does mention that Market Street "falls along the former route of the A6 road" but I have never disputed this fact. The nub here is that regional roads (or if you prefer, highways) connect to city streets in countless municipalities around the world. This does not mean that meaningful parallels can be drawn between any given number of these highway/road interconnections by virtue of this fact alone. In order to draw a meaningful connection, you would need to show that King Street and Market Street are substantively alike (which would entail a fairly probing consideration of their respective histories, layouts, etc.). In order to draw that conclusion, you would need to show that Hamilton and Manchester are themselves substantively alike.

In my mind, your assertion that King Street and Market Street are practically identical ultimately warrants about as much credence as the oft-heard claim that Bloor Street is the Fifth Avenue of Canada. Please. Hamilton and Manchester bear about as much semblance to one another as Toronto does to Manhattan (and I would suggest, probably even less).

Manchester is a major metropolis, often referred to as "the capital of north" or England's "second city". It has an urban population of over 2 million and a total metro population of over 4 million. Because it is so far removed from London, it truly is a standalone metropolis, functioning as the financial, corporate, and administrative hub for an entire region. Its transition from a manufacturing to a knowledge based or service economy is virtually complete. Its core residents are (to generalize) well-educated, affluent, progressively minded and self-consciously urban. The core of the city is rife with condominium developments and loft conversions. The city (like most English cities) is labyrinthine in layout and more conducive to transportation by foot or public transit than by car. Consequently, the city (like most European cities) does not suffer (and has never suffered) from the degree of car reliance witnessed in most North American cities.

I do not think it is fair (or intellectually honest) to attempt to draw a very close parallel between this city and Hamilton. They are remarkably dissimilar. That being said, it is possible that Hamilton will one day manage to achieve some of the accomplishments in urban development that Manchester already has under its belt. Perhaps Hamilton will one day manage to draw a large resident consumer base to its core. Perhaps it will densify its downtown to such an extent as to necessitate a large pedestrianized area. Until it does, though, and until the culture of the city changes rather drastically, any comparison you seek to draw between the two municipalities is apt to be facile.

Thus, I say your argument is shaky because you fail to offer anything in the way of positive argument. Your entire case rests on an ill-thought out analogy between a street in Hamilton and a street in a city which (in reality) bears almost no relation to Hamilton. Show me why pedestrianization is the better option for Hamilton given Hamilton's unique circumstances. Show me why complete pedestrianization is more likely to lead to the economic rejuvenation of downtown than partial pedestrianization. I don't think you can do this honestly and in a straightforward manner because the facts simply are not there, at present, to support these claims.

Your accusation of bias against me is craven and low. In court, this would amount to a serious ad hominem aspersion and I am inclined to take it as one here. Your only basis for this claim is that I fail to be persuaded by your argument (which I think can quite fairly be interpreted as a rather gross expression of ego on your part). I thought, at the outset, that you were interested in constructive debate, but apparently this is not the case.

Throughout our conversation you have ignored all of those points inconvenient to your argument, narrowing the debate to one very particular (and ultimately, I think, rather unhelpful) issue. I, on the other hand, have consented to focus on the one point least convenient to my argument. This is what debate in good faith is all about. I maintain that you have debated me in bad faith and that the quality of your arguments is profoundly weakened as a result.

Your call for support from other posters was also inappropriate. The debate was between you and I. If you cannot finish the argument yourself than you oughtn't to have started it.

[raisethehammer]

dang...I'm impressed.
I've never seen anyone use the word oughtn't on this board before!

[markbarbera]

LOL, rth! Some use the word "oughtn't" to sound more important, but it really just comes off as pretentious, doesn't it?

You'll have to excuse RePinion, he seems to have a personal vendetta against me ever since I commented on sentence structure in a previous post of his. I honestly thought we were entertaining a serious discussion here, but as can be witnessed by the tirade contained in his last post, his real interest in engaging me is to deliver a series of low blows and personal insults. Shame really, he had some interesting points, but his credibility is all but lost after that kind of display - accusing me of not supporting my arguments while he completely fails to do so himself.