Centre Mall -> The Centre on Barton

[DC83]

Originally Posted by omro

I'm probably just being thick, but what exactly is being meant here in terms of a street wall?

My mind is conjuring an image of big wall against the street

Streetwall


Kevin Steele on flickr.com, http://flickr.com/photos/kevinsteele/97135280/

No Streetwall


apdz07 on Flickr.com, http://flickr.com/photos/apdz/454612870/

C'mon, guys. Business practices (aka greed) aside, everyone has to admit they could have designed the New Centre much, much better than what we're getting!

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

Key words being 'urban cores', something Barton between Ottawa & Kenilworth having never been developed pre-automobile popularity isn't.

That was then... this is now. It's not a 'downtown' core, but it is a commercial core. Commercial cores strive on pedestrian walkability... big box plazas are the complete oposite.

re: that G&M article, there are plenty of big box developments that are ped friendly and have no street wall. Americans build little fake village malls with a sea of parking around it.
Better yet, there are big box stores which build INTO urban fabric. ie: Toronto! A city that knows how to get it right (most of the time).

But there's no point in arguing b/c you've got your mind set.

[adam]

Maybe I'm wrong here, maybe the sea of a parking lot is a good thing because it can accommodate more spenders. Maybe the lack of pedestrian accommodation is preferable because it helps get people in to purchase and out ASAP. We wouldn't want people "loitering" because then they'll start causing problems. Strangers are evil and if they aren't buying something then get them the hell out of there.

Heck, why should I care about a community destination when we can sell more product? It'll skyrocket all the real estate in the area because other developers will want to use the same model of "get in / purchase / get out". As long as some company is making money and paying its workers peanuts, we should be happy with all the profits enjoyed by the select few. Afterall, its nothing different than what was there before, so its not a negative thing. As long as its not worse than what was there before, we should all be happy, because it could be much much worse.. And none of us want that, do we?

[BCTed]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I am curious, what retail concept could have been here that would have created jobs that were not principally minimum wage?

I asked a more or less equivalent question a few pages ago and did not get a straight answer.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by BCTed

I asked a more or less equivalent question a few pages ago and did not get a straight answer.

yes you did, but you refuse to read it.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

While reading the Globe & Mail on the ride home tonight and I thought there might be a few here interested in this article.

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/...propertyreport0909/BNStory/Business/home

You'll like it (but hate it's not Centre Mall), but still no streetwall.

it's nothing great, but honestly, anything is better than this shite we're getting at Centre Mall.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by DC83

C'mon, guys. Business practices (aka greed) aside, everyone has to admit they could have designed the New Centre much, much better than what we're getting!

Not based on today's marketplace. In a free enterprise system they do what's best to maximize their goal and profit. Like it, or not, they aren't into city or community building.

Originally Posted by DC83

That was then... this is now. It's not a 'downtown' core, but it is a commercial core. Commercial cores strive on pedestrian walkability... big box plazas are the complete oposite.

Not without a higher level of density. I found it interesting that G&M article mentioned that same point. BTW, I read that after my first post on density levels. That Kitchener development might be walkable, but it still doesn't give any streetwall (streetscape). I'm betting that development without an anchor (or two) will not do all that well. At least not as well as the Centre Mall redevelopment.

Originally Posted by DC83

But there's no point in arguing b/c you've got your mind set.

No I don't have my mind set, but Redcliffe has their development set.

[highwater]

Thanks for the article Fairhamilton. I hope this development does 'set the bar'. It seems like a good model for the Innovation Park, in fact it sounds exactly like the sort of development that the city's zoning intends, and that location would give it the density and connectivity that the Kitchener development lacks.

I got the impression from the article that the lack of density in the Kitchener example was due to the fact that it was not within walking distance of a residential area, so would be just as car dependent as a traditional power centre. This is obviously not true of Centre Mall. Redcliff should have done a much better job of adapting their development to the fabric of the surrounding neighbourhoods. Frankly, I don't think we should just lie down and accept that developers "aren't into city or community building". The article makes the excellent point that better quality developments command higher rents and produce better returns in the long run. So it isn't so much that Redcliff isn't into "community building", but rather that they aren't into long term planning and investment. It's a pretty crappy business model IMO.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by adam

Maybe I'm wrong here, maybe the sea of a parking lot is a good thing because it can accommodate more spenders. Maybe the lack of pedestrian accommodation is preferable because it helps get people in to purchase and out ASAP. We wouldn't want people "loitering" because then they'll start causing problems. Strangers are evil and if they aren't buying something then get them the hell out of there.

Where is the claim of a lack of pedestrian accomodation coming from? The site plan has many pedestrian walkways clearly marked out. Take another look at it, this time leave the jaded glasses off.

[DC83]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Where is the claim of a lack of pedestrian accomodation coming from? The site plan has many pedestrian walkways clearly marked out. Take another look at it, this time leave the jaded glasses off.

There are sidewalks, NOT walkways. Walkways would lead you somewhere. These are mandatory sidewalks infront of stores only.

edit: I failed to note the 3 speed humps infront of 'Retail Block C'. phewph, good thing they care.

[BrianE]

Originally Posted by adam

I argue that any economic growth for Zellers, Canadian Tire, etc does not benefit the community. All it does is create more minimum wage jobs. So my question to the other side is this: How will this new mall will benefit the community? I am at a loss here and need help understanding this.

Well right now I live closer to Centre Mall than I do Eastgate Mall and I've only been to Centre 3 or 4 times. Yet, I go to Eastgate every weekend for Groceries and shopping. Bottom line is, give me a reason to shop at Centre and I will, 2 of the times I've been to Centre I didn't buy anything, just didn't find anything I liked or needed.

I think once Centre is finished I'll go there to get groceries, maybe use the farmers market on Ottawa St. along the way. Maybe get lunch at the South Sea every once in a while. Maybe see some other stores that I might make regular stops at. Before this revitalization I would bet that a lot of the retail stores in the mall could hire one person to man/woman the register for an entire 8 hour shift. With people like me now choosing to shop there, I'll bet the big chains and shops along Ottawa will have to hire more people.

Young folks and others will find more employment at the new Centre mall, some of the smaller retail along Ottawa might hire more people. Sure they'll be low wage jobs, but everyone has to start somewhere.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by highwater

I got the impression from the article that the lack of density in the Kitchener example was due to the fact that it was not within walking distance of a residential area, so would be just as car dependent as a traditional power centre. This is obviously not true of Centre Mall. Redcliff should have done a much better job of adapting their development to the fabric of the surrounding neighbourhoods. Frankly, I don't think we should just lie down and accept that developers "aren't into city or community building". The article makes the excellent point that better quality developments command higher rents and produce better returns in the long run. So it isn't so much that Redcliff isn't into "community building", but rather that they aren't into long term planning and investment. It's a pretty crappy business model IMO.

I agree the residential density in that area of Kitchener is much lower than in the Centre Mall area.

But, I still maintain that the density within 2kms the Centre Mall area (approx. 20 minute one-way walking distance) is not sufficient to create a non-car centric development of that size. I live 2.6kms from Centre Mall, with stops for traffic signals that is a 1 hour round trip walk. Too far for most to pop out for some groceries.

In Kitchener, they are are hoping for better rents in the long term, but that hasn't been established yet. They are taking a risk. I've seen many of these developments, mind you not with the same mix of office space, that have been relegated to second tier status because they lack large anchor tenants. We'll see if they are successful in Kitchener. I hope they are, but I have my doubts.

[hammergirl]

Sears closes for the last time at the Centre Mall, tonight at 6pm.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by DC83

There are sidewalks, NOT walkways. Walkways would lead you somewhere. These are mandatory sidewalks infront of stores only.

edit: I failed to note the 3 speed humps infront of 'Retail Block C'. phewph, good thing they care.

there's not a single walkway anywhere on here.
I don't even think that most of those are sidewalks...I think they are just parking curbs.
You have to be an olympic balance beam expert to actually walk on them.
this development blows, plain and simple.
I don't understand why anyone would defend it.

[SteelTown]

The parking/sidewalk/landscape/etc layout most likely has another blueprint than you see above.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

there's not a single walkway anywhere on here.
I don't even think that most of those are sidewalks...I think they are just parking curbs.
You have to be an olympic balance beam expert to actually walk on them.
this development blows, plain and simple.
I don't understand why anyone would defend it.

I'll agree there will most likely not be walkways around the site. It will be like many other sites like this one, http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...pn=0.007629,0.013733&t=h&z=16&iwloc=addr.

I'm not defending the development, only I can't blame the developer for providing what apparently the vast majority of people want and frequently visit, period.

Change societies wants and the developers will change as well.

[adam]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Where is the claim of a lack of pedestrian accomodation coming from? The site plan has many pedestrian walkways clearly marked out. Take another look at it, this time leave the jaded glasses off.

Maybe I'm just dumb and blind, but all I see is sidewalks in front adjacent buildings. Try drawing a straight line between Retail Block C and anything on the bottom row of the blueprint. You'll be playing chicken with cars navigating this route.. that alone will prevent me from using this facility.

The place should have been designed with a parking garage (as already stated) and the rest just like an indoor mall but without the roof. Would have been very popular with people of all ages.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

there's not a single walkway anywhere on here.
I don't even think that most of those are sidewalks...I think they are just parking curbs.
You have to be an olympic balance beam expert to actually walk on them.
this development blows, plain and simple.
I don't understand why anyone would defend it.

The site plan is to scale, bird's eye view. What you refer to as curbs are actually at least three feet wide.

Originally Posted by adam

Maybe I'm just dumb and blind, but all I see is sidewalks in front adjacent buildings. Try drawing a straight line between Retail Block C and anything on the bottom row of the blueprint. You'll be playing chicken with cars navigating this route.. that alone will prevent me from using this facility.

There are two walkways linking Block C to Barton Street. One emanates from the east end of Block C, the other is at the west end and follows the path of the main walkway from Barton.

[adam]

This kind of development promotes a mentality that is not people friendly. It helps along the opposite of urbanization and takes up the most land possible without giving anything back in the long term. I couldn't even dream up a better example of an anti-skyscraper if I tried.

[BCTed]

Originally Posted by adam

The place should have been designed with a parking garage (as already stated) and the rest just like an indoor mall but without the roof. Would have been very popular with people of all ages.

I don't understand where the suggestion for a parking garage is coming from. Garages are very expensive to build and maintain and the cost of this whole development is somewhere in the $100 million range.

[BCTed]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The site plan is to scale, bird's eye view. What you refer to as curbs are actually at least three feet wide.

I have to confess that I am having trouble with the scaling on that diagram. The parking stalls look insanely narrow and there appear to be many thousands of them.

Those appear to me to be walkways as well, but I just cannot be sure. The "speed bumps" in front of Retail Block C that DC83 mentioned appear to be wider than the walkways, so they may be the extra-wide style speed bumps or they may be walkways themselves... I dunno.