While I was in Copenhagen earlier this summer, I observed an interesting recent street transformation on Norrebrogade, one of the main roads leading out of the city centre. The City had taken out a lane of traffic quickly simply by painting the pavement and letting people and adjacent shops use it for a variety of purposes (I believe this lane was once the bike lane, which has now moved into the next lane over). It’s being used for bike parking, loading docks, patios, seating, and displaying merchandise.
The only major adjustment was moving out the transit stops, which was itself done pretty simply.
It’s an example of the “just do it” philosophy of street transformation proposed by Danish planner Jan Gehl when he talked in Toronto in the spring, and being followed by New York City Commissioner of Transportation Janette Sadik-Khan in her rapid transformation of New York (notably Times Square). (Jan Gehl has been closely involved in Copenhagen’s tranformation and is advising New York). Rather than making street transformation a major construction project, they simply close down parts of streets in pilot projects with simple, cheap, flexible measures such as planters and paint. That way people can see see the benefits and that it works (and if it really doesn’t, it can be reversed) rather than imagining worst-case scenarios. Once the change has established itself, it can be solidified with real construction and new materials.
11 comments
Why Toronto can’t do this is a mystery to me…
I wonder what would happen if residents or businesses simply decided to do this spontaneously on their own and “take over” some on-street parking spaces?
I doubt the much predicted scene of chaos would ensue…
There’s a lot to be said for “just doing it” if there truly is a quick “rollback” path. Certainly it might have helped public acceptance on Jarvis and Lansdowne if time limited installations could have shown how the finished street would look (and I don’t buy that a temp install was so hard on Jarvis)
The Queens Quay West “temp install” was gone almost before we knew it though – it doesn’t bode well for such a concept, not least because the control freakery that goes with being a ward councillor leads to such virulent micromanagement in the city of Toronto, not to mention herding the cats that are city agencies and commissions like Roads, TTC and Toronto Hydro.
Not sure I would want to sit with no protection from traffic on a main road even at 40 km, or with my back to transport trucks backing in and out. Like the idea, wonder about the safety and exhaust.
I would definitely like to see Toronto apply similar thinking. Too often we get buried in report after report.
Exhaust and vehicle hazards would be a concern even with a full scale reconstruction like on Bloor Street. The sidewalk and planters are more of a psychological obstable to car drivers than a physical one. If a driver loses control, he/she will hit people on the sidewalk regardless of curb/fence/planters. This cheap and simple lane conversion makes an argument for changing our driving culture. More activity on the street forces us to be more careful at the wheel.
This is a great idea. It gets street transformations up and running in no time. It lets people rather than bureaucrats decide what is best for their streets. And it sidelines the cluttered, overdesigned tosh that passes for 21st century public space. For these reasons, it will never be done in Toronto.
Imagine what Denzil Minnan-Wong and his brain-dead suburban colleagues would say about this.
Note that there is a wide bike lane behind the zone, so there aren’t cars directly beside the chairs and benches – there’s a buffer.
I’m wondering what kind of opportunities there are for public input for “just do it” projects such as this. How are they assessed as a success? Are formal surveys taken, meetings conducted? It just seems to me that there could be a danger in using this process…what if a less pedestrian- or bike-friendly “commissioner of transportation” decided to take away a wide bike lane for another car lane and said “this is the way it’s going to be”?
Joel > in fact, Jan Gehl emphasized the importance of getting numbers and statistics about traffic reduction measures – part of the point of doing things in a quick and temporary way is to enable the City to analyze the results of the initiative (which often shows a positive result of more efficient use of roadspace). Definitely this measuring is an important part of this kind of process.
Well the car and truck traffic may be on the other side of the bike lane, but the exhaust won’t be. I don’t think I’d care for sitting on a patio on a busy street, even if there is a separation.
Everything is choking on bureaucracy and inertia nowadays. The Church St. reconstruction was supposed to co-ordinate City water main work, TTC track replacement and maybe even some Hydro work, and it’s on ice again for a second year. At this pace of civic achievement, plan for experiencing the Jarvis make-over on your motorized scooter.
I certainly get the sense from Gehl that he’s sincere about the necessity of good measuring. Sadik-Khan, less so. In the New York case, these transformations really seemed like an exercise in (benevolently) putting one over on people. Which, of course, is fine so long as the Director of Transportation is equally benevolent/right-minded.
(Reminds me of a comment Adam Vaughan made w/r/t to the increased powers for the mayor in the City of Toronto Act: sure, it’s all well and good if Miller’s in power, but imagine those powers under Tom Jacobek!)