The idea that plain old sidewalk treatments could receive luxurious stone finishes and art has great appeal to me. Budget is always a concern, but Robson, Granville, Georgia, Broadway and other high streets (in other cities too) deserve special treatment, and this can be accomplished a few blocks at a time with elements that the people can appreciate, like better benches for one. I found it revealing that there was such a positive reaction to the replacement of bus shelters city wide with ones with a better design. The streetscapes are so bland that any little thing seems to make a difference.

Further, to steal 2 metres from parking lanes to bump the sidewalk out into small occasional plazas is perfectly do-able, but they require better finishes than the current effort. I would also suggest that small lots, or lot fragments, could be purchased to accomplish similar goals, like creating pocket parks, especially at transit stops and stations on primary roads.

I don’t see how you are going to get parking lots away from retailers or their landlords. And the so called “centre” of Richmond is so big I cannot ever see it become “walkable”. I am very hopeful that something good will happen along the River Road area eventually, and even the Oval seems to have the potential for creating a good riparian place. But the new BCIT “campus” seems to be actually hostile and indistinguishable from airport industrial. Access to the Middle Arm has been actively reduced on that side.

Jan Gehl is becoming more well known in the world, which is a very good thing. Though I think that great buildings contribute to making great cities, the greater contribution is urban design. I really like his P3s (public, people, places).

Richmond has poor soil conditions for towers above 12-15 stories, and there is some conjecture out there that even they are starting to sink into the very deep alluvial soils. Also how they will react in an earthquake (the leaning towers of Richmond).

According to Gehl, it is an advantage to focus not on height, but on what happens at street level, and he advocates high quality finishes and public art, things akin to “exorbitant luxury” to the engineers, completely ignoring the significant economic impact of creating beautiful streets teeming with people.

In that light, there’s lots of potential in Richmond to consider the vast parking lots on No 3 Road (and others) as something other than ugly urban liabilities. They are flat, in prime locations, and could be converted relatively easily to pedestrian plazas and street-oriented shops and cafes. With rapid transit, council could entertain lowering its parking requirements in nearby new residentail developments and burying smaller parkades within the volume of buildings rather than hanging them off one end like a carbuncle (underground parking is not feasible).

I agree with everything recorded, and the above comments. It’s appalling that few politicians are even remotely interested in the potential of their own cities.

Lansdowne’s major issue has always been the oversized parking lot that never fills, not even at Christmas. The fact that they could give up a chunk for a station shows that. It even served as a park and ride for the B line for a while. The owners bitterly resisted the City’s wish to show a route north south through the site in one version of the transportation plan.

But since all the parking belongs to the owners of the land at all points – and drivers are chivvied from lot to lot by Rusty’s towing – no one is going to walk far if they got to town by car. And for most Richmond residents, that will be how they chose to travel for a long time to come, I think.

Maybe No 3 will start to look better once the new road along the old CP Van Horne sub is built