Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Planner2008
I'm worried about 1 thing, where is our parking going to be if we widen sidewalks and add bike lanes? Converting existing One ways to normal two way traffic makes sense, from an economic and environmental perspective. Merely for the reason of drivability (don't have to drive 2 blocks for the next access in the direction you are heading), alternative bus routing, visibility for existing businesses and varied parking options.
|
This was extensively discussed
earlier in this forum when the idea of switching from one-way to two-ways came up. The reasons you bring up aren't necessarily as absolute as they sound - sometimes they would help, sometimes not. I mention some research on my posts there, but if you have anything else to back up what you're suggesting, please share.
(Incidentally, as you know Victoria is mostly one-way within the Downtown (Gov't St, Pandora St, Yates St, Fort St etc)
(Photo: me)
with two-ways at the periphery (Wharf St, Quadra St, Blanshard St etc). As are most Downtowns in Canada - a mix.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Planner2008
It's amazing some of the small alleys, which I could almost touch both walls with my arms outstreched!!! They had businesses in them, we could certainly gain ideas from Victoria!!!
|
By small alleys you mean like Fan Tan Alley? I get my haircuts at the Chinese barber shop in there - great place to watch the passing parades:
(Photos: me)
Might be hard to replicate that as many businesses would demand front parking access... or even if they didn't, developers would just build that way anyway (eg Broad St Crossing). Are there any buildings in Regina with an alley that could do this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Planner2008
I want to see way more patios. And path options. And another thing, which Victoria has caught onto is the back alley's and passageways. we could certainly gain ideas from Victoria!!!
|
Yes, definitely more paths - in and of themselves they become attractions no matter where they lead. Eg Victoria Galloping Goose Trail (my
commute to/from work):
(Photos: me)
Rooftop patios could work too - would go along nicely with green roofs, eg Victoria Douglas St:
(Photo: me)
Even if not patios, just having restaurants setting up tables right on the sidewalk would do - no need for separated patios. Eg Victoria Chinatown:
(Photos: me)
That Tim Hortons in Broad St Crossing could've been set up like this, for example. Just a bylaw saying "No surface parking Downtown" and "Build to the corner" would've done it.
And simple things like banners: simple, because it's the colour and motion of the banners that makes the ambience, not what the banners actually say. Eg, instead of those "shop/dine/etc Downtown", just plaster the streets with colour and patterns that will
mean Downtown, rather than just state obvious advertising messages. Like
(Photos: me)
Similarly, large green fluttering victorious banners would've been more appropriate for Albert St than small motionless "The Green Mile" signs in a dull staid serif font.
And instead of back alley graffiti, poetry:
(Photo: me)
And instead of cracked concrete, paving stones and art:
(Photo: me)
And on transformer boxes and storage containers, more art:
(Photo: me)
One thing Victoria does too is
design guidelines. (Anyone who has read my posts before I'm sure saw this coming.) More than just guidelines for the city in general, there are even specific rules for almost every neighbourhood in town ("Designated Development Permit Areas"). It's a way to ensure subdivisions do not become generic cookie cutter copies of one another. (Maybe having a
Mayor who is an architect is helpful too.)
I really like this one though:
Quote:
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Area 26, INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1. Under sections 1 and 2 of B. C. Regulation 69/97 enacted under the Local Government Act and section 919.1(e) of the Local Government Act, the entire City is designated as Development Permit Area 26, Intensive Residential Development.
2. The purpose of this designation is to establish objectives and guidelines for the character of intensive residential development, including the siting, form, exterior design and finish of buildings and landscaping.
3. In this Development Permit Area, “intensive residential development” means rezoning to permit:
(a) Single family dwellings on lots that have an area of less than 460m2, and
(b) Duplexes.
4. The designation is justified by the following objectives:
(a) Reinforcement of the traditional character of many of the City’s neighbourhoods by the integration of new and existing dwellings;
(b) Accommodation of small scale, adaptive, and gradual land use change to revitalize neighbourhoods, rather than large scale, and sometimes disruptive, change;
(c) Provision of opportunities for increased choice, higher quality, and improved affordability, of housing;
(d) The establishment and maintenance of “good neighbour” performance standards, including standards for privacy, landscaping, parking and density.
5. Guidelines that apply for the purposes of section 2 are:
• Design Guidelines for Small Lot House adopted by Victoria City Council on September 12, 2002;
• City of Victoria Neighbourliness Guidelines for Duplexes adopted by City Council on November 28, 1996;
• Advisory Design Guidelines for Buildings, Signs and Awnings, 1981.
6. (a) Subject to subsection (2), the provisions of Development Permit Area 26, including the Guidelines referred to in section 5, prevail over the provisions and Guidelines set out or referred to in the Official Community Plan for any other Development Permit Area if they are inconsistent.
(b) The provisions and Guidelines set out or referred to in the Official Community Plan that are concerned with the preservation of heritage property prevail over the provisions of Development Permit Area 26 and the Guidelines referred to in section 5 if they are inconsistent.
|
That's right, the
entire City for increased density, and rules about density that prevail over all other guidelines... and rules about heritage preservation that prevail over that. Not to say that modern buildings can't go up, eg smack in the middle of the remaining original industrial inner harbour boat yard:
Even in new construction suburbs (the Victoria-area version of South Albert St) you see the density at work:
(Photos: me)
The point: I can't help but keep asking the rhetorical question - why does Regina not have design guidelines? The outcomes are so much better when you have them - and it's not like the City doesn't know they could do this. Just a matter of Googling around and seeing what the rest of the country's cities are doing.
Prev
Linear Mode
