Pedestrian realm, mid-block walkways and pathways in Victoria

The city says this is a key pedestrian connection. I suspect this was done without city permission. I will find out. This is not okay. Is this a Jawl building?

 

Depends if there is an easement/Statutory Right of Way registered for the Yates Centre pathway. Yates on Yates has an SRW agreement that stipulates it is open to the public between 7AM-10PM, but that agreement only covers 1.22m of the future walkway located on their property. They also have to install black security gates at either end.

 

FWIW, VicMap does not show an easement on the Yates Centre property.

I'm pretty sure it's a private walkway.

The city says this is a key pedestrian connection. I suspect this was done without city permission. I will find out. This is not okay. Is this a Jawl building?

 

Depends if there is an easement/Statutory Right of Way registered for the Yates Centre pathway. Yates on Yates has an SRW agreement that stipulates it is open to the public between 7AM-10PM, but that agreement only covers 1.22m of the future walkway located on their property. They also have to install black security gates at either end.

 

FWIW, VicMap does not show an easement on the Yates Centre property.

 

The Bay Centre experience taught us that you can have all the pass-through/walkway commitments you want but the property owner can erase them permanently at any time simply by claiming "security issues".

Edited by Rob Randall, 04 March 2019 - 09:33 AM.

It's a planned crossing as part of the cycling network, which will connect the future bike route on Kings Road. The "Dowler Dash" is already a very common crossing, and having a legitimate and safe crosswalk will benefit the neighbourhood. You've got future residential development on the west side along Douglas and the existing retirement home at Ross Place, which will now have direct access to the Quadra Village Community Centre at Kings and Dowler.

 

The oft-quoted planning cliche comes to mind: it's hard to justify a bridge by the number of people swimming the river.

^ That's why getting the easement/SRW is critical. CoV has such a legal document for Millie's Lane, so the property owners have to abide by the terms of that agreement. If there's no legal agreement in place for the Yates Centre property, then tough luck.

^But Bay Centre had a legal document, too. 

The Bay Centre experience taught us that you can have all the pass-through/walkway commitments you want but the property owner can erase them permanently at any time simply by claiming "security issues".

 

Why the city moved to larger, open walkways for a few years. Seems their moving away from that now, frustrating...

The Bay Centre remains a walkway but it’s now limited in the hours that it’s open. If we recall The Falls tried to close their walkway to the public (as silly as it is, being five meters from Douglas Street) but a VV’er called them on it and they were forced to keep it open during business hours.

But the City should have taken into consideration how its “bring it on” attitude towards street issues would impact some of the conveniences used by taxpayers. These walkways are magnets for illicit and indecent behaviour and it’s a landowner’s right to protect his property and the safety of individuals who work or live within the building.

^But Bay Centre had a legal document, too. 

 

This issue has been raised by council on a number of properties. Owners are citing security concerns and then restricting access to what would otherwise have been deemed as public spaces or rights of way. This will likely boil down to whether council has the guts to take on a land owner or developer.

Edited by spanky123, 04 March 2019 - 10:15 AM.

I suspect they will. Look at how long the saga with the Wave's mosaic dragged on. Eventually the City won out. The Falls was also found to have violated its amenity obligation and the pathway was re-opened.

...Owners are citing security concerns and then restricting access to what would otherwise have been deemed as public spaces or rights of way. This will likely boil down to whether council has the guts to take on a land owner or developer.

...The Falls was also found to have violated its amenity obligation and the pathway was re-opened.

So when the city insists on public access to a R-o-W after a private property owner has indicated there are safety concerns, who is liable when someone is seriously injured or even killed in one of these spaces?

It's a planned crossing as part of the cycling network, which will connect the future bike route on Kings Road...

So construct it when actual demand dictates. Taxpayers deserve to see an unbiased count of how many people need to use this area to cross Blanshard today not 10 years from now. 

So construct it when actual demand dictates. Taxpayers deserve to see an unbiased count of how many people need to use this area to cross Blanshard today not 10 years from now. 

https://twitter.com/...704566536921088

 

Counting who is crossing now is folly (but standard engineering practice)

It's too bad that the crossing at Kings Rd couldn't be an overpass, but I guess that's not in keeping with a cycling route.

I had never heard of the Pemberton Trail prior to this proposal.

 

Bellewood’s green space will also serve as a formal connection between Fort Street and the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria’s Moss Street facility situated to the north. Taking advantage of the areas walkability, one of Miller's amenity package priorities was to streamline pedestrian access to the popular cultural hub.

“We’re thrilled to be the first developer to contribute land to the Pemberton Trail, a pedestrian pathway that has served the Rockland community for many years but has lacked a designated extension to Fort Street,” Miller said. “Extending the pathway to the corridor through the property will provide an improved and unique pedestrian experience for those walking through the area.”

 

 

- https://victoria.cit...-gets-underway/

The city says this is a key pedestrian connection. I suspect this was done without city permission. I will find out. This is not okay. Is this a Jawl building?

The city says it a "key pedestrian connection", but does the property line say something else.

Anyone is willing to let a walkway remain public (even though it may actually be private), as long as there is no disregard for that private property.

I for one am more interested in finding out if this is something that got taken away from us because of the cities current policies? Something that will never be got back.

I lived in NYC- those extreme security measures on buildings do not get taken down.

We have slid down a slope now... no going back.

Why can't we go back?

Where was the ballyhooing when MOTI put in the midblock southbound Blanshard crossing between Save on Foods and Uptown?

It is a very similar circumstance at Kings - unless of course one doesn’t consider the residents of Blanshard court as deserving as anyone else in this city.

Where was the ballyhooing when MOTI put in the midblock southbound Blanshard crossing between Save on Foods and Uptown?

It is a very similar circumstance at Kings - unless of course one doesn’t consider the residents of Blanshard court as deserving as anyone else in this city.

It's only similar if all the residents of Evergreen Terrace (it hasn't been called Blanshard Court in about 20 years) each need to cross Blanshard Street at Kings 10-15 times a day, every single day of the year.

And if we're talking about deserving, perhaps the hundreds of additional residents soon to be living in both phases of Hudson Place deserve to be able to safely cross Blanshard at Herald/North Park.

Where was the ballyhooing when MOTI put in the midblock southbound Blanshard crossing between Save on Foods and Uptown?

It is a very similar circumstance at Kings - unless of course one doesn’t consider the residents of Blanshard court as deserving as anyone else in this city.

Its is amazing that no "ballyhooing" occurs when the public agrees with something isn't it?