Spring Garden Streetscape

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There are places for such things. Enabling anti-social behavior by putting benches on a sidewalk where street people have been a plague for decades is not one of those places.

Keith openly admits that he doesn’t go downtown. The panhandlers will be there regardless of whether there is a bench. They’ll literally sit on the cold sidewalk.

Making spring garden road more inhospitable to pedestrians will not deal with the homelessness, drug abuse and mental health issues in Halifax.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Keith openly admits that he doesn’t go downtown. The panhandlers will be there regardless of whether there is a bench. They’ll literally sit on the cold sidewalk.

Making spring garden road more inhospitable to pedestrians will not deal with the homelessness, drug abuse and mental health issues in Halifax.

I avoid downtown because the measures taken in recent years by HRM have made it unwelcoming and unpleasant to visit. This is just another of those measures. Is SGR doomed to become another Gastown?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Keith openly admits that he doesn’t go downtown. The panhandlers will be there regardless of whether there is a bench. They’ll literally sit on the cold sidewalk.

Making spring garden road more inhospitable to pedestrians will not deal with the homelessness, drug abuse and mental health issues in Halifax.

That's still not taking it far enough. The city should shut down every business and shop on SGR because it's the wealthy patrons of such shops that the homeless are targeting for handouts. If there were no businesses, PRESTO! - no more homeless panhandlers on SGR! Then people wouldn't want to drive their cars on the street because there's nothing there for them, making it a great corridor for bus traffic. The perfect solution!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That's still not taking it far enough. The city should shut down every business and shop on SGR because it's the wealthy patrons of such shops that the homeless are targeting for handouts. If there were no businesses, PRESTO! - no more homeless panhandlers on SGR! Then people wouldn't want to drive their cars on the street because there's nothing there for them, making it a great corridor for bus traffic. The perfect solution!

Isn't that what HRM has been doing for over a year with the streetscape project that is without end and continues to try to do with their latest anti-vehicle measures?

[SouthPawLaw]

This touches on a possible evolution of this program, and ideally, Barrington too. We need to make better roads for the cars coming but also take the roads that aren't working for cars and move them to what they are good for.

The NYC 14th St. is a great example of what SPG could be.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by SouthPawLaw

This touches on a possible evolution of this program, and ideally, Barrington too. We need to make better roads for the cars coming but also take the roads that aren't working for cars and move them to what they are good for.

The NYC 14th St. is a great example of what SPG could be.

The thing is, in NYC, they can take the cars off of 14th and put them on 1 through 13th and 15th and beyond. If we take cars off of Barrington where would be put them? In NYC they can choose to increase the frequency of their rail service or put another lane on FDR Drive or what have you to offset access by car. I'd be all for more pedestrian streets if we had viable options to get around. But we don't.

[SouthPawLaw]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

The thing is, in NYC, they can take the cars off of 14th and put them on 1 through 13th and 15th and beyond. If we take cars off of Barrington where would be put them? In NYC they can choose to increase the frequency of their rail service or put another lane on FDR Drive or what have you to offset access by car. I'd be all for more pedestrian streets if we had viable options to get around. But we don't.

The problem with Barrington is it can only get to be 2 lanes, especially DT. With the focus of transit on it, it makes no sense trying to force that many vehicles on so few lanes.

Hollis and water are both two lanes either way and can handle the bulk of DTs traffic, while Brunswick as well works along the western edge of DT, also able to be 2 lanes either way.

I should have added a caveat that Barrington DT could be aligned this way. Northern Barrington is more the car mover, but even with the removal of the Cogswell interchange, DT Barrington can still only be so wide and handle so much. It's proven being Car focused doesn't work for it, so maybe it shouldn't be.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by SouthPawLaw

The problem with Barrington is it can only get to be 2 lanes, especially DT. With the focus of transit on it, it makes no sense trying to force that many vehicles on so few lanes.

Hollis and water are both two lanes either way and can handle the bulk of DTs traffic, while Brunswick as well works along the western edge of DT, also able to be 2 lanes either way.

I should have added a caveat that Barrington DT could be aligned this way. Northern Barrington is more the car mover, but even with the removal of the Cogswell interchange, DT Barrington can still only be so wide and handle so much. It's proven being Car focused doesn't work for it, so maybe it shouldn't be.

You contradicted yourself by correctly stating that DT Barrington (say SGR to Cogswell) has a transit focus but later alleging it is car focused. It isn't particularly car focused because of the large number of diesel buses that clog it during the day.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Isn't that what HRM has been doing for over a year with the streetscape project that is without end and continues to try to do with their latest anti-vehicle measures?

No.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You contradicted yourself by correctly stating that DT Barrington (say SGR to Cogswell) has a transit focus but later alleging it is car focused. It isn't particularly car focused because of the large number of diesel buses that clog it during the day.

I understood the point of Southpaw's comment to be that DT Barrington is currently designed to prioritize private vehicles... but it's not functioning well as designed and probably should be made more transit priority.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You contradicted yourself by correctly stating that DT Barrington (say SGR to Cogswell) has a transit focus but later alleging it is car focused. It isn't particularly car focused because of the large number of diesel buses that clog it during the day.

I’m curious when was the last time you took a metro transit bus. I’ve been taking the express buses that go down University Ave over to Dartmouth. It is a quick trip, and never stopped in traffic.

[Nouvellecosse]

It's interesting to look at how different places have treated their main streets including the outcome of traffic filtering measures (limiting the spaces to certain types of traffic).

• Video Link

[coastalkid]

Lots of seating has now been installed along the full length of the street:

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's interesting to look at how different places have treated their main streets including the outcome of traffic filtering measures (limiting the spaces to certain types of traffic).

I watched the first 2 minutes until the narrator started talking about "superior urbanism abroad".

I note with interest the distinct lack of people and commercial activity on Market St in his current-day video as compared to the vintage footage. So my conclusion is that if you want to kill a street, he has the formula.

[SouthPawLaw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You contradicted yourself by correctly stating that DT Barrington (say SGR to Cogswell) has a transit focus but later alleging it is car focused. It isn't particularly car focused because of the large number of diesel buses that clog it during the day.

I was pretty clear about delineating between DT Barrington and North Barrington.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's interesting to look at how different places have treated their main streets including the outcome of traffic filtering measures (limiting the spaces to certain types of traffic).

• Video Link

It is a good channel as well as he asks about some really poignant issues that the 21st century city is going to have to deal with sooner rather than later.


It's become obvious that letting traffic have near free reign of the roads isn't working, for people or traffic. There's some good steps being taken but I fear they are half steps and not the 3-4 we need following, like dedicating specific grids around the city to be pedestrian, and transit shared. A single street does not solve a century of automobile dominance.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I watched the first 2 minutes until the narrator started talking about "superior urbanism abroad".

I note with interest the distinct lack of people and commercial activity on Market St in his current-day video as compared to the vintage footage. So my conclusion is that if you want to kill a street, he has the formula.

So wait... you only went 2 mins in and made your mind up? Good to know.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I watched the first 2 minutes until the narrator started talking about "superior urbanism abroad".

I note with interest the distinct lack of people and commercial activity on Market St in his current-day video as compared to the vintage footage. So my conclusion is that if you want to kill a street, he has the formula.

But it is superior urbanism aboard! Have you ever been to Europe?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

But it is superior urbanism aboard!

You say that like "urbanism" is a good thing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by SouthPawLaw

It's become obvious that letting traffic have near free reign of the roads isn't working, for people or traffic. There's some good steps being taken but I fear they are half steps and not the 3-4 we need following, like dedicating specific grids around the city to be pedestrian, and transit shared. A single street does not solve a century of automobile dominance.

I'm mostly good with your statement. I think it's logical to re-imagine some streets that aren't working well for whatever reason. I agree that more should be done to make the movement of people more effective and efficient for everybody.

I have to say that I cringe a little bit when I read commonly-used tropes like "automobile dominance". It reinforces narratives created by some groups to characterize cars/trucks and road use as some kind of conspiracy to keep people down by 'dominating' their spaces with 'evil' motor vehicles. It just seems a little dishonest, to be clear, and delegitimizes the argument a little (IMHO).

I wonder if many people realize that historically roads have always been built to move people and goods by the most efficient means available. The indigenous populations followed trails through the woods to get from one location to another. As time went on, tools and machinery were developed to make the trails larger, or create new trails, to move horses, and eventually wagons, oxcarts etc. through them. Road beds had to be built so that the wheeled conveyances could traverse them more easily. Railroads were built to move large amounts of people and goods over long distances, but were still not able to cover all locations where people/goods would have to be moved. Cars were invented and roads were changed to optimize car/truck use... because it was an efficient/convenient/cost effective way of moving people/goods.

So... no "dominance", just people being people, going with the times, using the best tools available to accomplish their goals. Now times are changing and as has happened throughout history, we will change things to work the best for us based on requirements of the day. I wish we could just look at things as an evolution, and not frame them in the sense of one group exercising dominance over another - I think the conversations would flow better in view of a better, more realistic perspective.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my thoughts on the matter.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You say that like "urbanism" is a good thing.

For people who live in cities it is a good thing.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm mostly good with your statement. I think it's logical to re-imagine some streets that aren't working well for whatever reason. I agree that more should be done to make the movement of people more effective and efficient for everybody.

I have to say that I cringe a little bit when I read commonly-used tropes like "automobile dominance". It reinforces narratives created by some groups to characterize cars/trucks and road use as some kind of conspiracy to keep people down by 'dominating' their spaces with 'evil' motor vehicles. It just seems a little dishonest, to be clear, and delegitimizes the argument a little (IMHO).

I wonder if many people realize that historically roads have always been built to move people and goods by the most efficient means available. The indigenous populations followed trails through the woods to get from one location to another. As time went on, tools and machinery were developed to make the trails larger, or create new trails, to move horses, and eventually wagons, oxcarts etc. through them. Road beds had to be built so that the wheeled conveyances could traverse them more easily. Railroads were built to move large amounts of people and goods over long distances, but were still not able to cover all locations where people/goods would have to be moved. Cars were invented and roads were changed to optimize car/truck use... because it was an efficient/convenient/cost effective way of moving people/goods.

So... no "dominance", just people being people, going with the times, using the best tools available to accomplish their goals. Now times are changing and as has happened throughout history, we will change things to work the best for us based on requirements of the day. I wish we could just look at things as an evolution, and not frame them in the sense of one group exercising dominance over another - I think the conversations would flow better in view of a better, more realistic perspective.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my thoughts on the matter.

I think we have to differentiate between "roads" used as mere means of conveyance between places and "streets" used as common spaces within a settlement. The roads you're talking about being built to efficiently move people and goods as efficiently as possible would be analogous to highways between cities and would have little to no relation to urban streets. Historically common spaces within urban areas have played multiple roles of public spaces hosting commerce and recreation with "efficient transportation" being secondary. Before the modern era, there were countless countless examples of streets filled with vendors, performers, and flâneurs, although the most famous example would probably be the medieval European bridges covered by shops.


https://www.ticketsflorence.com/blog/ponte-vecchio-the-old-bridge-in-florence

Nowadays it seems crazy to dedicate so much of the space of valuable infrastructure like a bridge to uses other than the movement of traffic, but that's just because our culture has moved toward thinking of both roads and streets as primarily intended for movement between places. Although we do the same thing in a sense in that we dedicate a huge amount of street space to the storage of automobiles. If we avoid equivocating between streets and roads, the term "automobile dominance" is an apt way to describe the profound shift that led from streets as places that were anchors for social life to streets as conveyances that were hostile as public spaces.