3426 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Wheelies is another kilometer from there. Beyond Discovery the area is a total wasteland that locals don't even trek across.

 

If I walked up to Romeo's after being directed to a "North Park" I'd turn right around and walk back or make my way to some place familiar. We're infusing far to much hope into this and expecting people will naturally want to explore way, way beyond where they were told to go. That might work for the odd urban enthusiast but your average tourist will only lose patience.

[Rob Randall]

Again, it's not all about tourists. It's also about the hundreds of new residents we welcome every year.

 

Look, people can see if a place is worth going to. My super-secret technique of city exploration is this: if an area is interesting I keep going. If it stops being interesting I go in another direction that looks more interesting.

Edited by Rob Randall, 23 March 2018 - 11:36 AM.

[DavidL]

^I don't understand what you find funny about it. Is the technical language confusing? The complaints about our current wayfinding is that it's inconsistent. This adds clarity.

 

It may seem crazy to alert tourists to areas outside the Government Street bubble but I see long-term marketing and branding potential.

 

Perhaps I have an over developed appreciation for the absurd.  I read it again.  Still funny.  I am having fun imagining how the people who engaged in the public consultation on the wayfinding strategy were able to find it.  Were they angry about the lack of signposts to get them there?  Were members of the public left out when they couldn't wayfind their way there?  Did the people who wayfound their way there have some sort of advantageous directional bias that allowed them to succeed when others got lost?  Is there a committee that determines what should be wayfound and what should be wayignored?  What about the visually impaired.....

[VicHockeyFan]

Perhaps I have an over developed appreciation for the absurd.  I read it again.  Still funny.  I am having fun imagining how the people who engaged in the public consultation on the wayfinding strategy were able to find it.  Were they angry about the lack of signposts to get them there?  Were members of the public left out when they couldn't wayfind their way there?  Did the people who wayfound their way there have some sort of advantageous directional bias that allowed them to succeed when others got lost?  Is there a committee that determines what should be wayfound and what should be wayignored?  What about the visually impaired.....

 

 

That is funny.    The document is really something to read, to be honest.  I see that no part of the document discusses if the entire project is worth the money spent on it. 

[jonny]

How much was the consultant paid for that strategy?

Edited by jonny, 23 March 2018 - 11:49 AM.

[Mike K.]

Oh yeah, it's bureaucratic gold.

[jonny]

^I don't understand what you find funny about it. Is the technical language confusing? The complaints about our current wayfinding is that it's inconsistent. This adds clarity.

 

It may seem crazy to alert tourists to areas outside the Government Street bubble but I see long-term marketing and branding potential.

 

To me, it's more the general government bureaucratic wastefulness of drafting a strategy on putting up a few bloody signs. We hear all the time that government doesn't have enough resources for this or that, but they had the time, staff and money for this? They had to engage with stakeholders to put up signs? Some flashy document had to be put together for this? This isn't some memo that was put together over a morning, somebody spent weeks on this. City staff likely sat through several meetings about this "strategy". 

 

Now that they have a strategy, they'll have to update the damn thing. I mean, c'mon...

 

It all seems a bit over the top and begs the question: does the city have too many staff and too big of a budget? Like, what did the city not do so they could put together this "way-finding strategy"? Hosing off the sidewalks and enforcing fundamental laws and bylaws, I suppose?

[Rob Randall]

I see that no part of the document discusses if the entire project is worth the money spent on it. 

 

But how do you even quantify that in terms of dollars?

 

To me, it's more the general government bureaucratic wastefulness of drafting a strategy on putting up a few bloody signs. 

 

But we've seen when they don't put the effort into doing the research the end result is a dog's breakfast. This is not the type of project you sort of make up as you go along.

[Mike K.]

But that's exactly what they did! The wayfinding signs point to locations that are inconsequential/meaningless and their distances are kinda hokey.

[VicHockeyFan]

I go back to what Mike said, a solution looking for a problem.   We talk about a LOT of stuff here, I've never heard a lack of signs around downtown pointing to North Park as one of them.

 

On topic, I myself have said we need to do better with:

 

The Mile Zero sign embarrassment, bring in a good one for social media times, I said have a big map of North America, people will point to their home when taking photos with it.

 

Beacon Hill Park. Let's direct more people there, it's cool.  But since it has no commercial aspect, it's not on the radar for many.  Does it have its own rack card at the Tourist Info Centre?

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 23 March 2018 - 12:37 PM.

[Mike K.]

Where's the logical place to check out in North Park? It's the commercial strip or Royal Athletic Park. Neither are on the signs.

 

In Fairfield it's Cook Street Village, but instead we direct people to Budget rent-a-car. It's almost as though these signs are meant to encourage people to walk tiny hops and skips out of fear that nobody will want to walk the 2km to CSV.

[jonny]

A solution in search of a problem is really the only way to put it.

[VicHockeyFan]

In Fairfield it's Cook Street Village, but instead we direct people to Budget rent-a-car. It's almost as though these signs are meant to encourage people to walk tiny hops and skips out of fear that nobody will want to walk the 2km to CSV.

 

I'd be cool with little signs on posts on the way to CSV.

 

I know that MANY times, I've sat talking to a tourist at the bar and they say they are going to Craigdarroch Castle at some point.  I'll profile them for age/health, then often say "if you are up for it, it's a pretty cool walk up there.  Go up Fort, and walk up one side, come back down on the other side of the road.  You might enjoy the Fort St. shops.  That's solid info (where do I pick up my cheque?).

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 23 March 2018 - 12:42 PM.

[Rob Randall]

But that's exactly what they did! The wayfinding signs point to locations that are inconsequential/meaningless and their distances are kinda hokey.

 

I thought aastra proved the distances were correct to the metre.

 

I've sat talking to a tourist at the bar and they say they are going to Craigdarroch Castle at some point.  I'll profile them for age/health, then often say "if you are up for it, it's a pretty cool walk up there.  Go up Fort, and walk up one side, come back down on the other side of the road.  You might enjoy the Fort St. shops.  That's solid info (where do I pick up my cheque?).

 

I hope you tell them one of the best art galleries in western Canada is right on the way.

[aastra]

Mike's zeal for freerunning is legendary* but most people would be inclined to take slightly less direct routes.

 

*not actually Mike and not entirely recorded in Victoria, either

[aastra]

These sorts of wayfinding initiatives seem to be happening everywhere, and there are a fair number of controversies, too. Signs are ugly or too big or getting vandalized or the information is not useful or the information is not correct or the wayfinding project was too expensive, etc.

 

To my eye some of the distances seem unnecessarily precise, but that's no big deal. I agree that highlighting locales like Burnside and Rock Bay as if they were somehow equivalents to locales like Chinatown or Fisherman's Wharf could be confusing.

 

But let's try looking forward. A year or so from now, after Rock Bay is fully built-out and gussied up and a legitimate attraction unto itself, that pointer could be really handy for many people.

 

So exactly what would be involved in making an update or correction to one of these markers?

[aastra]

VHF's Mile Zero idea is a good one.

[Nparker]

...But let's try looking forward. A year or so from now, after Rock Bay is fully built-out and gussied up and a legitimate attraction unto itself, that pointer could be really handy for many people...

     

And you know that North Park is the Disneyland of the future.

[Nparker]

VHF's Mile Zero idea is a good one.

I thought we were getting this? 

[VicHockeyFan]

These sorts of wayfinding initiatives seem to be happening everywhere, and there are a fair number of controversies, too. Signs are ugly or too big or getting vandalized or the information is not useful or the information is not correct or the wayfinding project was too expensive, etc.

To my eye some of the distances seem unnecessarily precise, but that's no big deal. I agree that highlighting locales like Burnside and Rock Bay as if they were somehow equivalents to locales like Chinatown or Fisherman's Wharf could be confusing.

But let's try looking forward. A year or so from now, after Rock Bay is fully built-out and gussied up and a legitimate attraction unto itself, that pointer could be really handy for many people.

So exactly what would be involved in making an update or correction to one of these markers?

Let’s have changeable things then. It would be fun if new stuff was rotated in each year too.