Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
One statement that seems less logical to me is the idea that the Queen Street Sobeys is not walkable because it has a surface parking lot. It is absolutely walkable, as is the downtown Superstore and pretty much every business with surface parking in the city. It's just that a large piece of land is reserved for car parking, that people are complaining about.
As Keith mentioned there are some cases, such as people with families and busy schedules, where buying grocery orders too large to carry home by hand (or on a bicycle) necessitates another option, such as taking their car to the store. The bicycle or walking situation is fine for single people or couples without kids, or people without mobility issues, but it kinda drives me nuts when folks try to shove their lifestyle choices down others' throats, rather than wanting to give options for people in circumstances different than their own.
I think urban format stores are fine. The example of Pete's is that they moved into an existing space that already had parking available, and getting from the store to the parkade is a bit of a journey. Not sure whether it's possible to wheel a cart full of groceries into elevators and into the parkade, or what you are supposed to do with the cart after you're done with it (you should bring it back to the store, but most people don't want to bother or take the time to do it). I've shopped there but have never purchased large quantities that can't be carried by hand, so I can't really comment based on personal experience.
A small point about parkades is that they are more expensive to build, maintain and operate than surface parking lots, and there is often cost passed on to the shopper in order to park their car there (though, IIRC, Pete's used to provide a parking voucher for people who made purchases in the store). I think another option that could be considered is rooftop parking where it is practical, such as that offered at Sunnyside Mall in Bedford. Roofs are typically wasted space anyhow, but of course there is increased cost in strengthening the structure, paving, etc. This isn't a practical considerations for buildings of more than a few storeys, however.
The idea I am providing resistance against is that apparently some feel that all stores that currently have surface lots (as they have for decades) are suddenly unpalatable and thus should be forced to convert to an urban format, with or without parking access (because, like, people should be forced to not use their cars). This should happen organically, when there's a business case for it (as, from someone123's post, it sounds like is the case for the Queen Street Sobeys). But to force the idea that these facilities are not walkable or that they are some kind of blight on the city seems a little disingenuous, as if to force one's lifestyle or aesthetic choices on others who have different ideas.
Mind you, this is expected on the skyscraper forum, so it's not surprising, just fodder for discussion.
|
It also drives me nuts when people try to shove their lifestyle choices down other people's throats. That's why I take issues with posts like yours. One of the major reasons that it's important to have better designed neighbourhoods is so that people can more easily choose alternatives rather than being coerced into auto-centrism. The idea that designing around cars is the practical option that's most people friendly is completely out of touch.
Take my elderly mother for instance. She is able to walk but is limited to very short distances due to ailments including severe arthritis. She used to bike and walk since she recognises the importance of being active from a health perspective but is much more limited now. She likes the freedom of using transit rather than having to reply on people to drive her places (isn't able to drive) and whenever she goes shopping she always tries to find stores that aren't stuck far back from the street. She once told me that people who are young and able-bodied just never consider how much walking is involved in getting to/from a bus stop and dragging across these huge parking lots. By the time she gets to the store she just wants to sit down and barely has the energy to do any shopping. As a result, I generally have to drive her around whenever she visits so i can drop her off at the door even though neither she nor I actually want this. Designing things to cater primarily to one mode does both encourage that mode and physically prevent some people from using alternatives. To ignore that fact is what's actually "disingenuous". I normally prefer to avoid such attacks on people's character or motives, but I'm only human and I have emotions.
it's the same thing in the other thread when you suggested that bike infrastructure was for the comfort of current cyclists and doesn't help anyone not able-bodied. The reality is the exact opposite. There are many people such as the elderly who would love to keep active and regain their independence, but simply don't feel safe. Suggesting automobiles as a solution for the mobility challenged is a view from incredible privilege seeing as not only are cars not affordable for many working people; they're even less affordable for many seniors. And many seniors have limitations such as insufficient vision or the need for medications that would prevent them from driving but would still permit them to use active transportation that doesn't require the same level of reflexes. There are many short and medium length trips that are inconvenient for transit unless a person's origin and destination are both on the same frequent route but that would suitable for active transport if we took the time to ensure such options were safe and convenient.
I remember a reading I was assigned for one of my university classes which made a point I found rather astonishing.
Quote:
|
But, as with any other religion, what counts is the ritual and not the result. Otherwise, this one would have already broken down because of this simple observation: the average motorized city-dweller’s speed is approximately twice a pedestrian’s. However, if the social time required to produce the means of transport is added to the traveling time, the average global traveling speed ends up being inferior to that of people of the Paleolithic age. Such an objectively laughable result would legitimately disturb the user and planner if objectivity constituted a criterion of judgment in this society. No such luck! And what might only provoke a smile becomes a cruel joke when one realizes that reaching this point necessitated upsetting the rural and urban landscape from top to bottom.
|
https://www.fifthestate.org/archive/325-spring-1987/aberration-the-automobile/
Cars are an incredible privilege that is either out of reach or an unreasonable burden for countless many and it's outrageous that people with such privilege feel so entitled to suggest that communities should be structured to pander to them while the needs of everyone else should be subjugated. This isn't just an issue for seniors or other people with mobility issues. It's an issue for
thousands of low income people in general. People who get completely lost when preposterous ideas of how cars are the most egalitarian option arise.
The most ridiculous thing, is that we're discussing a geographically small portion of the metro area. Downtown and the central neighbourhoods absolutely do not need to be designed to pander to those who prefer automobiles when these areas are already surrounded by other places that are. If people can go drive to Dartmouth Crossing to shop at Ikea or Best Buy, there's absolutely no reason for anyone using a car to complain about driving to the HSC to go to a Sobeys with surface parking.
PS in terms of the cost of parkades, in central areas with high land prices the cost of devoting land unnecessarily to vehicle storage must also be considered, as does the costs involved in lower density which include longer travel distances and for infrastructure to stretch further. A community is a system of many interconnected elements and it's impossible to get an accurate understanding by looking at any one aspect in isolation.
Prev
And I’ll acknowledge that I had a part in it too.
Linear Mode
