Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
One common factor for both McTavish and Argyle is that their use as potential public spaces is greater than their value to vehicle traffic. They're also relatively narrow; narrow for large vehicles, but amply wide for everyone else assuming they're not relegated to a tiny strip of sidewalk.
A lot of arteries that carry heavy mixed traffic should have wider sidewalks and maybe a third path for smaller and slower vehicles (bikes, scooters, etc.). But they don't need to be 100% repaved. The central vehicle path can be cheap and low maintenance asphalt or plain concrete, and will not serve as a public open space.
Even if it were free to turn every street into a pedestrian-first kind of environment a lot of those streets would end up looking pretty empty. Motorized vehicles use a lot more space than pedestrians.
|
As our cities become denser and more geared to pedestrians streets like Argyle will be far more prevalent than they are today. Not every street needs to or should look like Argyle but there's nothing preventing us from installing quality paving like that on sidewalks.
I've always hated concrete sidewalks so it's a pleasant surprise that we're starting to see improvements to the public realm. Not nearly enough for my liking but you have to start somewhere.
Prev
Linear Mode
