Comment 102044

By nick (anonymous) | Posted June 04, 2014 at 19:26:53

I totally get where you're coming from, Ryan. It seems so strange that the city would implement this type of design when best practices all around the world show that physically separated infrastructure improve safety and therefore the appeal and usage of the infrastructure.

However I must say it: can we just look at what we've accomplished and applaud it? Hear me out! Recently I've been taking a little break from RTH because of the anger, pessimism, frustration, and sarcasm that drips from almost every single planning and urban design related article RTH has published of late. This is not to say that these concerns aren't valid. As a planner myself, I get caught in the negative spiral that can happen when you're working in a non-responsive, backward political climate. But I think it's imperative that we strike some sort of balance, both personally and in our public writing. I've been doing a series of public consultations around the province related to transportation and we designed the charettes in such a way that we got people to first identify the assets/strengths, followed by the gaps which inevitably flow, and once that is established, we move on to opportunities or the "so what." I find the approach sandwiches the negative tenancies in all of us between what we have and where we can go now. This article, and many more in this area, are firmly in the gaps camp with some opportunities (but mostly gaps) and frankly it's exhausting and soul sucking and certainly doesn't inspire action.

My two cents. Maybe a comment for the editors too.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds