Bringing Car-free Streets to Vancouver

Anyone that has been to Copenhagen (and many other European cities) knows how great the pedestrian streets are. So many people walking and biking, sitting on patios and in cafes, such a great place for people watching. It's surprising that Vancouver doesn't have more streets like this, seeing as we are trying to become the world's greenest city. The redesigned Granville Street will go along way in starting such a movement here, but I think we need to look longer term. This is what I see as a future car-free network in downtown (in blue):

These routes are already great pedestrian streets in Vancouver - Robson, Davie, Denman and Granville. So great, in fact, that at times there is not enough room for all the people walking along it. Think of Robson on a warm sunny weekend day - people are bumping into each other making their way along. It only makes sense to take advantage of this fact, and give pedestrians more room to move. Let's face it, no one drives along Robson Street to actually get anywhere - so let's start a gradual transition to remove the cars.

I'm not saying that overnight we should shut the street down to cars. Doing that would leave us with what Granville Street was up until recently - a dead zone. Instead, like they did in Copenhagen, the closure should be very gradual.



1. Start by giving more space to pedestrians where it makes sense: at bus stops, intersections, mid-block crossings on longer blocks, and anywhere pedestrians always seem to bunch up. Many of these ideas were recently incorporated into a redesign of Main Street. This could also be considered a sort of traffic calming.


2.Then start taking away on-street parking spots, just a few percent each year. So few are taken that drivers don't even notice. Take those spots and turn them into pedestrian space.


3. Close a block here and there. Maybe only one or two each year, starting with those that make obvious sense. For example, at Robson Square, which is very narrow already. This gives drivers time to adapt to new routes, and eliminates major traffic issues. It also allows the city to deal with problems gradually, should they arise.



4. Over the course of about 20 years, a network of car-free routes forms, meaning people can walk or bike right in the city without cars in their way. Streetcars also work well into this plan, and could run along the centre of the streets.


In Vancouver, the obvious place to start is Robson Street. The section between Bute and Granville, in particular, is a perfect candidate for "pedestrianization". Start with bus and pedestrian bulges, and remove a few parking spaces at key points to widen the sidewalk (in front of Cafe Crepe near Burrard, for example). A "scramble crossing" at Burrard and Robson would make pedestrian crossing easier and move traffic more effectively.


Next, move onto Davie and Denman - the sidewalks on these streets are just too narrow for the number of people walking along most sections. Eventually join all four streets to form a network of pedestrian streets and over time close them off to cars. It may take 20-30 years, but other cities have proven it works and with great results.

Why the Site C Dam is So Wrong

The BC government announced yesterday that a massive, $6.6 billion hydro-electric dam (being called "Site C") on the Peace River in Northern BC is a go. At first glance you may think "hey, hydro, that's green power. Perfect!" And yes, hydro is and can be very green power. The main problem with Site C is its massive size.

BC Hydro Site C Web-page

Here's why the current plan for Site C is terrible...

• Dams of this size create reservoirs that cause massive destruction to the land and never really become the "lake" we are promised. We need only look at the effects from the W.A.C. Bennett dam that was built in the 60s to see that.
• This dam is going to flood over 5000 hectares of land, virtually all of it fertile land that either is currently or could be farmed. It makes no sense to flood fertile land in an age where food security and availability is becoming an increasingly critical issue. This land is as productive as the Lower Mainland because of the long summer days they get this far north.
• There are so many other ways to produce this much power: smaller dams like run-of-river systems, wind, geothermal, solar, tidal. We have all of these available to us (in virtually unlimited quantities) in BC, so why is the government stuck on a single massive project?
• We don't need more power, at least not this much. BC Hydro and the government will tell you that BC now has to import about 15% of its power, which is creative accounting. The fact is BC Hydro sells lots of green power at a premium to the US, and buys cheaper dirty power to make up for what we need. In addition, BC Hydro admits they plan to achieve 70% of future power needs through energy conservation. I think that number can be even higher - the problem in this province is that our power is far too cheap, leaving little incentive to conserve.
• The Site C dam is no where near where most of the power is being used. Approximately 13% of the power generated 1000's of km away in the Peace is lost during transmission. We should be looking at generating more power near to and within the Lower Mainland.
• Finally, there's the cost. $6.6 billion? Really? How can we justify spending this much when private companies are falling over each other trying to develop green power in this province at no cost to the taxpayer?
  

A great series of articles from The Tyee goes into detail on the downsides of building this dam - check it out!
Disturbing the Peace: The Case Against the Site C Dam

Making-over The Bay

A few weeks ago I stumbled across this picture that was taken in the 1930s/40s of the Hudson's Bay Company building (The Bay) here in Vancouver. I love old photos and historical architecture in general, but this picture struck me. It struck me because of how much the building had been butchered and defaced by poor design decisions in the time since. To compare, look at a picture from a similar angle taken today:


All the upper windows have been covered over. One column of windows has been transformed into ventilation grilles (which are dirty, of course).

The awnings over each street-level window and the large canopies over each entrance have been replaced by an ugly, oppressive overhang. Sure, the overhang is great for protection from the rain, but it's dark and uninviting beneath. Without the entrance canopies, who can tell where to enter the store unless you're walking right in front?


The light standards that used to line the parapet are gone. Even the signage is bad - a suburban fluorescent sign-box on the corner of the building.

These pictures taken at night also show the contrast between then and now:


The modern exterior lighting treatment is pretty great, I must admit. But the windows, the eyes of any building, are dead and lifeless. In the old photo, the building has a life, a soul, it's a place you might actually want to enter.

Fortunately modern architects have realized past mistakes such as this. Natural light has made a comeback, windows are a must, and they even open! The street-scape and pedestrian environment are key elements of any new building design today, much as they were when The Bay was originally built. I guess this post is an attempt to convince "the powers that be" to bring back the character of the original building, which is arguably one of the most beautiful in this concrete and glass city.

The new Granville Street

The more times I walk down the refurbished Granville Street here in Vancouver, the more I like some aspects and dislike others. The lighting is great as are the materials used for the sidewalks and street furniture. The extra wide sidewalks and bus-only sections on the northern half are wonderful. But the decision to park cars the way they have between Nelson and Drake is, well, dumb. Part of the goal of this refurbishment was to widen the sidewalks, and because of the parking the way it is, I think it has failed.


Granville Street Redesign: City of Vancouver



The idea was right in principle: that cars could park on half the sidewalk most of the time, and be banned for special events or busier times, leaving four clear lanes of traffic. In reality though, when the cars are removed, all the posts and plantings that are there to define the parking spots make it hardly walkable, adding no additional space to the sidewalks. In simple terms: FAIL.

Fortunately there is an easy solution: put the cars back on the road! Granville Street doesn't even seem to have the volume of traffic that warrants 4 full lanes, particularly with the one-way couplet of Seymour and Howe on each side. In addition, Granville ends at Smithe for cars, (only buses can go north beyond that point), so it's not a street that is used to get anywhere. So let's fix this: put the parking onto the roadway where it makes sense, and clear up all the clutter that is there for parking cars to make the southern-end sidewalks as great as the rest of the street.