Centre Mall -> The Centre on Barton

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The time to be critical of the redevelopment had come and gone years ago. Griping about it during the construction phase is a complete waste of time and energy.

We were critical of the redevelopment years ago. Now we're just trying to draw attention to its failings so we don't keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Originally Posted by markbarbera

It astounds me that this battle is still being fought years after the highway's completion. It has been built, and it is being used by thousands. Time to move on, folks.

And yet the exact same arguments that were used to support Red Hill are now being used by the same people to support Mid-Pen (and to a lesser extent the AEGD). Again, we're just trying to draw attention to its failings so we don't keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Originally Posted by flar

In short, the new Centre Mall is not better than what was there before for anyone except retailers.

What flar said. I'm tired of the diminished expectations in this town, the self-fulfilling sense that we should be grateful for whatever scraps fall our way.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

We were critical of the redevelopment years ago. Now we're just trying to draw attention to its failings so we don't keep making the same mistake over and over again.

The thing is, many of the criticisms you are making are not well founded. The redevelopment is much more pedestrian friendly than you care to admit, and is a step above any major retail mall concept yet to be built in the city. Yes, it does not follow the textbook design for developing an urban streetwall, but quite frankly the textbook design just does not fit at this location.

Now is not the time to give a credible critique of the project. The design process is long over, and the site is now being built. Judging it now by what you see of this work in progress is premature. Let's revisit this conversation a year after the construction ha been completed. At that point a more informed crtique of the site can be made. Any being presented now is based on very few facts, a considerable amount of conjecture, and a great deal of bias.

Quite a few opponents of this redevelopment are a little over-eager to be self-congatulatory on their abilities of self-fulfilling prophecy.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Limeridge Mall has no direct pedestrian access to it, neither did Centre Mall in its previous incarnation. Eastgate has very limited pedestrian access. Eastgate and Lime Ridge Malls are islands in a sea of parking, as was Centre Mall. The redevelopment is an improvement for pedestrian access. Not perfect, but definitely a step up.

Limeridge has sidewalks along Mall Rd from Mohawk and sidewalks along Upper Wentworth to the transit terminal and then from the terminal to the front entrance. From Upper Wentworth sidewalk to the main entrance requires one to cross roadways 3 times. That's 2 less than getting from the food court to Zellers and who knows how many from Barton St to Zellers.
Pretty bad when in 2008 we're building less pedestrian friendly projects than Limeridge Mall.
Not to mention, once you get inside the mall things are pretty pedestrian friendly. No cars that I recall or long walks in the rain.

[flar]

Mark Barbera, there are power centers all over the place, we've all been to them. They are not pedestrian friendly, they are designed for cars, this cannot be disputed. There is nothing that distinguishes the Centre Mall redevelopment from any other power centre.

They could have made it look like this along Barton:


Then we could say there was some consideration given to pedestrians. But instead, it looks like any other power centre that backs onto a highway.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The redevelopment is much more pedestrian friendly than you care to admit

Likewise, getting punched in the face only once a minute is quite a bit better than being punched in the face twice a minute. (No, I'm not suggesting that Centre Mall is literally akin to getting punched in the face.) The redevelopment is not pedestrian friendly in any meaningful sense of the term. The fact that it is merely possible to walk from one store to another (unlike the Meadowlands, in which even that minimal sop to walking is absented by retaining walls and culverts) does not make it pedestrian friendly when the primary orientation is entirely to the interior surface parking.

Originally Posted by markbarbera

quite frankly the textbook design just does not fit at this location.

Why on earth not?

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Now is not the time to give a credible critique of the project.

Live and don't learn, that's Hamilton.

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Any being presented now is based on very few facts, a considerable amount of conjecture, and a great deal of bias.

We know enough to know that the development will present Barton Street with the blank rear walls of one-storey retail warehouses punctuated by entrance/exit ramps for vehicles. Frankly, I think your high-handed "wait and see" attitude as at least as self-serving as my open contempt for a wasted opportunity to build an urban retail development in an urban setting.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Now is not the time to give a credible critique of the project. The design process is long over, and the site is now being built. Judging it now by what you see of this work in progress is premature. Let's revisit this conversation a year after the construction ha been completed. At that point a more informed crtique of the site can be made. Any being presented now is based on very few facts, a considerable amount of conjecture, and a great deal of bias.

In other words, "who are ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

This development is fugly. A year from now it will be fugly + filth + graffitti.

[BrianE]

I don't understand how anyone can defend this 'development' along Barton St. I drove by Centre Mall this weekend with my wife who has zero interest in urban planning or architecture and generaly doesn't put a high value on the outward appearance of buildings that she shops in.

This is her comment upon seeing the ass end of buildings fronting onto Barton St., and I quote:

"This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life."

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

We know enough to know that the development will present Barton Street with the blank rear walls of one-storey retail warehouses punctuated by entrance/exit ramps for vehicles.

Correction: The stores that will run along Barton are not retail warehouse format. In fact, they are primarily services like hairstyling salons, banks, a dental office, an optician, a shoe store and several smaller retailers. In fact, most retail shops along Barton are less than 1500 square feet - definitely not geared for warehouse retail. And there are no entrance/exit ramps punctuating the streetwall. There are, however, four access roads and ten pedestrian walkways that punctuate the north side of Barton.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by highwater

This development is fugly. A year from now it will be fugly + filth + graffitti.

The development is not even complete and you have already passed judgement on how it looks. Any development at this stage looks ugly. Let's see the final product and judge then.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

Why on earth not?

Because this is not a typical site for urban infill. The site borders on heavy industry. The site simply is not marketable for the kind of mixed-use developments you are suggesting. Have you any idea how difficult it would be to market a mid-sized office or condo tower that backs onto Dofasco and National Steel Car? Let's be realistic here, an urban development designed for downtown Oakville simply cannot fit here, certainly not at this stage of the city's life. To suggest otherwise is not being wholy honest.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

Limeridge has sidewalks along Mall Rd from Mohawk and sidewalks along Upper Wentworth to the transit terminal and then from the terminal to the front entrance. From Upper Wentworth sidewalk to the main entrance requires one to cross roadways 3 times. That's 2 less than getting from the food court to Zellers and who knows how many from Barton St to Zellers.
Pretty bad when in 2008 we're building less pedestrian friendly projects than Limeridge Mall.
Not to mention, once you get inside the mall things are pretty pedestrian friendly. No cars that I recall or long walks in the rain.

How is crossing roadways or being outdoors not pedestrian friendly? Wouldn't that make King Street or Locke Street unfriendly to pedestrians?

Even if we accept this highly debatable presumption you have made, consider this: Of the 100 retailers that will be in the Centre Mall redevelopment, 54 of them have direct pedestrian access from the public walkways of Barton Street, Ottawa Street and Kenilworth Avenue without having to cross any parking areas. For Lime Ridge Mall, there are zero retailers with direct pedestrian access of this kind.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The development is not even complete and you have already passed judgement on how it looks. Any development at this stage looks ugly. Let's see the final product and judge then.

So it's going to look like this when it's done?

Originally Posted by flar

You must think we're idiots.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by highwater

So it's going to look like this when it's done?



You must think we're idiots.

As i have already stated, that kind of development cannot be supported by the demographics of this block as it exists today. Perhaps sometime down the road, but to try to say that a development that is successful in downtown Oakville would be equally successful at this site is simply not based on the reality of the demographics.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Because this is not a typical site for urban infill. The site borders on heavy industry. The site simply is not marketable for the kind of mixed-use developments you are suggesting.

To clarify: Centre Mall is bordered by Barton St. E., Ottawa St. N., McAnulty Blvd and Kenilworth Ave N. on all these streets, the other side of the street is residential and commercial [edit: hat tip to markbarbera], not heavy industry (though industrial sites are kitty-corner to Centre Mall at its northeast and northwest corners).

In any case, as heavy industry continues to decline in Hamilton, the whole point of urban revitalization is to transform urban land use, not to be enslaved to it. Wherever our economic future lies, it's not in mid-20th century heavy industry, and it's certainly not in car-dependent land use. We should not make our planning decisions around infrastructure that has poor long term prospects.

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Have you any idea how difficult it would be to market a mid-sized office or condo tower that backs onto Dofasco and National Steel Car?

Not every mixed use development needs to be connected to condos or office towers. For at least part of Centre Mall - say, the businesses backing on to Barton St., which as you point out are not even box stores - a commercial streetwall with two storeys of apartments above would be a great way to intensify a neighbourhood that really needs more connections.

This would also cohere nicely with the existing urban streetwall on Ottawa St. N., which has been quite successful at sustaining a neighbourhood commercial centre, mixing boutique retail with neighbourhood staples.

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Let's be realistic here

In the sense in which you are using the term, "realistic" means "fatalistic". Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Every planning and land use decision we make will attract some investors and repel others. The more we continue down the road of sprawl residential and big box commercial, the more we will continue to define the city in those terms and attract more of the same, even as other cities differentiate themselves and attract both people and investors who value urban design reflecting an urban sensibility.

Cities that can attract the innovative, forward-looking money and brains will succeed. Cities that stick with the status quo will fall behind. It's that simple.

[raisethehammer]

it's plain to see this development is butt-ugly and will continue to be so.
Hopefully we get some colourful graffitti on these buildings so the streetscape has a bit of vibrancy to it instead of blank, beige walls.

[markbarbera]

Sorry, but the urban streetwall you describe already exists along most of Barton Street west of this redevelopment. This stretch is also wrought with serious vacancy problems and decay. If the streetwall concept is the panacea for urban renewal, what has it failed so miserably along Barton west of this development, and what makes you think extending this concept along the Centre Mall property line would be more successful than the existing streetwall in decline?

It is obvious that Barton Street cannot sustain its existing streetwall, let alone an extention to it. To propose otherwise may seem forward-thinking, but it really is just idealism divorced from socio-economic realityf this area's demographic.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

it's plain to see this development is butt-ugly and will continue to be so.
Hopefully we get some colourful graffitti on these buildings so the streetscape has a bit of vibrancy to it instead of blank, beige walls.

The walls will not be blank when completed. With any luck, any defacing by graffiti vandals will be removed promptly.

[flar]

^^Seriously now, what could they possibly do to these walls?

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

If the streetwall concept is the panacea for urban renewal

It's not the panacea, and I never claimed otherwise. It is, however, an essential characteristic of urban form.

[raisethehammer]

a $100 million investment into this site with a streetwall facing Barton - upper floor office space, some apartments and the 2-storey foodcourt - could have helped to spur re-investment into the existing streetwall west of here. Most of that streetwall is occupied, so let's not start acting like the Spec and making ridiculous claims.
Instead, big boxes plopped into the urban environment will have the opposite effect - it will re-enforce in the minds of 'developers' that the old storefronts are outdated and can't be retrofitted and the only way to invest in the city is to demolish old spaces and put up shite box stores.

I personally would love to see artists colour these ugly walls. And quick.