1062 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

The CoV should never have made it a mission to purposely introduce new isolated spaces to do drugs, or commit crimes or vandalism, or provide sexual services, or have privacy while sleeping, or whatever else. Heck, the push for these passages went into overdrive right around the same time there was that brouhaha about people relieving themselves downtown. Where was the sense in any of it?

 

At the time this was happening criticizing these walkways was seen as being anti-pedestrian and anti-urbanist. They've always been sketchy, and they've been problematic, and they've eventually become places to avoid, but that didn't stop the City from pushing for them. And now we have public amenities that are closed to the public, or half-block spaces for walkways that never lined up with projects on the other side of the block and eventually got walled off, like at The Metropolitan.

[aastra]

 

...criticizing these walkways was seen as being anti-pedestrian and anti-urbanist.

 

Seen as such by the passageway promoters themselves, sure. Meanwhile, there was a ton of specific criticism happening on this very board, and this board probably accounts for 98% of the legitimate pro-pedestrian/pro-urbanism discussion that has ever occurred re: the modern city of Victoria.

 

Summary:
anti-urbanists were blindly promoting the walkways, while pro-urbanists were asking hard questions about the walkways.

 

In retrospect, how would we say the controversy has aged? (Keeping in mind that the controversy was already pretty ripe even by the time Vibrant Victoria was launched.)

[Mike K.]

It's aged predictably.

 

The braintrust on this forum should get one of the mayor's awards for predicting the future. That's surprisingly easy to do in this town but it doesn't look like we have much competition (how about these gems: 25-storey buildings didn't ruin Victoria; uncontrolled camping in parks might just ruin Victoria?).