Ramona Street Design- Pedestrians or drivers?

Let's Talk About Lents » Lents Urban Renewal

Ramona Street Design- Pedestrians or drivers?

(37 posts)

Started 10 months ago by Jeffrey
Latest reply from Twelvizm

Tags:

1 2 Next »

Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

For months now a CAC committee has been discussing just how to spend several millions of dollars aimed at pedestrian improvements in the Lents Town Center. After asking for public input at the last LNA meeting and several recent events, a plan has been recommended that includes the redesigning of Ramona Street between 92nd and the Lents Town Center lightrail station and coming up with a concept that will transform it into a "festival street." [wording?!!] In any case, the purpose of a new committee will be to explore exactly what a redesigned Ramona Street might look like. What kind of features/fixtures should be included? What should it look like? What kinds of materials should it be composed of? How will it function? How will we find a balance between the needs of pedestrians and cars- in particular on-street parking? Etc. I plan on introducing a bunch of questions here- as they emerge from committee members and residents. The first- Is the priority given to pedestrians, drivers or do we need to find some other balance?

My answer?

Between pedestrians and drivers? I think that the balance should be clearly on the side of pedestrians. Between pedestrians and parked cars? That's another thing altogether. I'll explain!

To make this go a little quicker for me, let me quote myself from a recent email:

"A once vibrant and healthy Lents has obviously seen better days. The last 50 years or so have been pretty brutal. Even before the freeway and the couplet were built, Lents had started to struggle. I’ve read a little about Lents’ history and have started to compile newspaper articles about Lents which I’d be more than happy to share if anyone is interested! In any case, two of the most compelling articles that I’ve read, I wrote about recently on Ilovelents:

http://ilovelents.com/?p=159

In the first article which was written when the couplet was first being considered, store owners were expressing concern that the loss of on-street parking (with the building of the couplet) would be devastating for their businesses. They formed a coalition of businessmen to fight the couplet- but eventually lost. The second article revealed that their concerns were more than valid. A mere 3 years later, Lents was practically a ghost town. On-street parking is only one element that I’m concerned about- but it’s a really big one. On street parking is extremely important for small businesses- the kinds of businesses we hope to attract to the town center. I’ve heard plenty of people talk about opening up businesses in the town center- and the lack of on-street parking is almost always a sticking point. With parts of the plan, we gain on-street parking on Foster, but lose some on 92nd Ave with the widening of the sidewalks on the East side of the street. If a plan on Ramona Street eliminates on-street parking- ANY of it- that is an unintended consequence that will actually bring harm to the town center and our efforts to attract new businesses. The Ararat’s clientele already use the entire street on the weekends- if eventually they are competing with the other businesses we hope to attract, we’ll need all the on-street parking we can manage to either keep or create."

I think that the argument for preserving on-street parking is sound enough- which isn't to say that I favor cars over pedestrians. In the couplet, cars totally dominate pedestrians, and even on 92nd Ave things are way out of balance in favor of cars- and 92nd Ave is the street we're supposed to be trying to make more pedestrian friendly! Gyikes! Cars fly down 92nd Ave at night- probably at times exceeding 45 MPH!! The speed that cars should drive through the town center is 25 MPH- tops. If you ask me, at least! That is why I hope that part of this project will create a pedestrian crossing of some sort at 92nd and Ramona. My preference- a light. Since a light is unlikely to happen, we would probably be able to get bulb-out curbs and maybe an actual painted crosswalk. This is the least that we should have at every street between Duke and Steele St- again, if you ask me!

When it comes to Ramona, as a dead-end street (that lacks any through traffic) Ramona currently works well for pedestrians- despite missing about 80' of sidewalk on the North side of the bulb at the east end. God only knows how many people walk down Ramona to the lightrail station. It's a comfortable street to be on. So, in any case, since there is no through traffic, all the cars on Ramona are either travelling to one of the properties right on Ramona- or they are parking for one reason or another- hopefully the drivers are visiting a local business! On the weekend, lots of the cars parked on the street belong to people going to the Ararat. Sometimes there are groups going to the Karate school or the Odd Fellows Hall. Eventually maybe there will be more businesses in the town center- and they'll need parking too. Eliminating on-street parking has seriously hurt Lents in the past- and we need to remember that. So what I think is this- the automobile oriented uses on Ramona are as minimal as we can hope for. That isn't to say that a the balance can't be shifted towards pedestrians. It can be by intensifying pedestrian uses- without taking away any on-street parking.

Any other thoughts?

Jeff

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

Jeff...since you're around to observe, or maybe know based on talking with the building managers/owners...

Is the on-street parking use from the Karate School and Odd Fellows overflow from their parking lot being full? I have never, ever seen more than one or two cars parked in that lot. And, if they're choosing to park in the street over the empty lot, I'm wondering what we can do to encourage them to use the lot instead. There's a lot of available parking there that just seems to be wasted space right now.

Likewise, if we can make the lot more appealing, and the building owners agree, maybe we can work something out where Ararat patrons can use that lot, instead of the on street parking, in the evenings.

Also, keep in mind that we may be getting additional on-street parking with the 92/H development.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

Sometimes patrons of the Karate school and the Odd Fellows Hall park on the street electively- sometimes it's because the lot is full. I think you're right- that some sort of parking deal could be worked out between the Ararat and the Odd Fellow's Hall- but in general, the use of parking lots over on-street parking is something that I don't want to see overused in the town center. Why not? Because I want to see the core of Lents become a rich and vital area. I know- this might require a little more of an explanation.

There are lots of differences between urban and suburban- even between suburban and suburban "urbanesque" nodes. In general one difference is that in suburban areas people typically drive to do just about anything- while in urban areas things are close enough together that it's easy to walk between them. When the Assuredy Northwest project was proposed, I was pretty new to the neighborhood- so I wasn't too critical of it (and it is a nice looking building- and it's actually outside of what I've come to consider "downtown" Lents!) Even so, I would have been a little more excited if I had seen a couple of differences. One- I did suggest that they should add a couple of stories that would include some condos- so their employees could chose to live at work! I don't think that was a bad idea! The other thing was that I would have like to have seen a smaller parking lot- by far. The kind of building that would thrill me the most is a building that has a number of uses- like the Assuredy building- you can have offices over retail spaces! Better yet is when you have residential spaces over that! Better yet is when there is no parking lot- or at least only a small one. But how do you get the parking that you need? Set the building back 10 more feet and have angled on-street parking all around it. If you need to plan for more spaces than that- add a small lot.

Parking lots are notorious for spreading out the use of spaces and making places less walkable. If we're spending money to make Lents more pedestrian friendly- we shouldn't be encouraging the use of parking lots. You're right though- making better use of the ones that we have might be another thing. Still, even if a shared parking situation can be worked out at the OFH parking lot- what happens if all of a sudden someone is interested in leasing the house at the end of the street for some sort of business? They might be able to create a couple of parking spaces behind the house- that could perhaps be put to better use- but if there isn't on-street parking, the uses of this space would be greatly limited. What if in 5 or 10 years the owner of one of the apartment buildings (it would probably have to be a new owner) wants to start anew and build a mixed use building that would ideally require some on-street parking? If we take all- or even some of the on-street parking away today, we are seriously compromising the ability for tomorrow's businesses to make it- or possibly to even be built if availability of on-street parking is a factor that take into consideration when they are determining whether to build or not.

As a little exercise- imagine just about any of the vibrant areas closer into town and imagine that they relied more on parking lots rather than on-street parking. Alberta is a good example. If they tore down every third building to build a parking lot- it would be a far different street than it is now! As it is- if you live around there, you have a very walkable retail street- and there's enough on-street parking that businesses can survive because people from outside the neighborhood can find a place to park so that they can walk around and spend money! Yeah!! That's what I want for Lents. There's a reason that the notion of building the first parking garage in Northwest is so controversial! [laugh] Belmont, Mississippi- Hawthorne, Sellwood- these places are what they are thanks largely to on-street parking. Without that parking- they would die. If we want a chance to eventually be a vital and exciting place to be again, we have to preserve our own on-street parking- even thought there unfortunately might seem to be enough of it now- if we're lucky (or we work hard enough and do the right things) it won't seem like that for long.

I think that there are lots of things we can do on Ramona that allow us to keep our parking- maybe we can even make more of it! What if we actually eliminate parking on the North side of the street and make a bioswale over there- but make the parking on the South side angled? Will we lose or gain spaces? That would give us the North side of the street to perhaps widen the sidewalk, and add amenities- we'd just have to be sure that the Ararat would be able to park a semi-truck over there occasionally for deliveries. They have a small delivery truck that would need to be accommodated for parking outside and there's a much larger truck that picks up perhaps a couple of times a week- it's parked for perhaps a half an hour.

I'll talk more about angled parking if anyone is interested! They did some remarkable things with angled parking in Salt Lake City while I was there- including back-in angled parking! It was genius!!

Jeff

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

The ROW on Ramona is not wide enough to accommodate angled parking if we want to widen the sidewalks at all.

My concerns is really the opportunity cost. What are we giving up to preserve 9 or 10 on street parking spaces? We haven't really determined that because we haven't explored what we can do with that ROW in lieu of parking cars there.

We know we can add on-street parking in a number of places throughout the town center: 92/H; a new Reedway St block and other new streets we may add; eventually on Ellis. There is also great deal of on street parking that is currently not being used (Reedway and numbered cross streets) because, frankly, people will park as close as they can possibly get to avoid walking - which actually reduces their interaction with the town center environment. Can we overcome this by breaking up the longer blocks with new streets or pedestrian walkways?

We also have under-utilized existing parking lots. In an ideal world, sure these would be redeveloped. But, I think it's a sort of chicken-and-egg situation. The parking lots aren't going to redevelop until we create an atmosphere that is attractive to development. On street parking is one part of that recipe, but if you're giving up key pedestrian amenities to get on street parking, the recipe is incomplete. And, in the time frame it will take to have those lots redeveloped, we'll have added much more additional on street parking in the areas mentioned above. So, my gut feeling is that in areas adjacent to the MAX station, the pedestrian should take priority over the parking in the near term.

We also may be able to strike some sort of balance where we can do the curbless sidewalks in some areas, and retain the curb for parking in others. It's not a totally either-or discussion. But, I would like to see some sort of treatment that allows any business activity to expand easily into the ROW for special events or just summer outdoor dining etc. I would also like to avoid any sort of treatment that segregates the pedestrians from utilizing the full ROW. I would much rather see small lots behind buildings and the activity in the ROW than parked cars in the ROW and the activity hidden behind the parked cars and on patios behind the buildings.

When I was in Romania, there was a street with a similar configuration. Although in this case, the street dead-ended into the back of a giant building (only service entrances) rather than a freeway, but the effect was the same. This street had absolutely no sidewalks - just pavers right up to the doors and a valley drain.

For a whole month in the summer, they closed vehicle traffic on the street to anything but deliveries, set up a stage at the end for concerts and the restaurants and bars along the street opened up their doors and served huge crowds nightly - in the street. It was raucous, awesome, got people out of their houses/apartments and walking around, and really brought that neighborhood together. They named the event "Strada de Vara" (Summer Street).

Posted 10 months ago #
johnnotis

junior member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 6

Off the cuff, my feeling is that the current on-street parking should be left as-is. If you want to shut down the block and festival it up for a week in the summer, then you do so and use the parking real-estate for whatever bouncy castle, beer garden, massage tent thing wants to be there.

In other words, don't try to plan for a physical balance between parking and non-automobile uses. Just design the space so that it can work for either one with a little reconfiguration aka roping off.

90% of the time, the best use of the space is light on-street parking to support local businesses, plus pedestrian corridor for MAX - LTC access. The parking is already there, and a little sidewalk widening at the expense of narrowing the driving lane makes the necessary pedestrian improvement.

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

I think the difference is, I don't see it as shutting down the street for a week. I see an opportunity to bring ongoing, nightly activity out into the open - in the ROW. When you line every linear foot of the ROW (less access points) with curb for on-street parking, you push that activity to only the edges of the ROW, hide it behind parked cars and effectively diminish the effects.

Removing or relocating some of the parking also helps us get the sort of boulevard scale pedestrian facilities in the heart of the pedestrian area of the town center that we aren't able to do on 92nd due to the proximity of the existing buildings to the usable ROW /existing setbacks.

It really only takes opening up one side of the street for a clear sight line. Although, aesthetically, opening up both sides, or creating a sort of undulation in the visual line is more pleasing than the totally asymmetrical approach.

Also, in looking into some design options, curbless streets and on-street parking aren't mutually exclusive. You just utilize bollards in the areas where you want to segregate the vehicles from the pedestrian and stormwater facilities. For example, we could take out the curbs in front of the linear garden, leave the garden and just add bollards to keep cars from driving over it. And, it would probably look a lot prettier - more like a garden - if it just had pavers and some bollards along the edge. You could even plant some vining plants that could crawl along chains hung between the bollards. Another big plus is eliminating curbs is better stormwater design - it allows for the infiltration to be spread out more along the whole length of a swale or vegetated area, rather than channeled into the gutters and directed to occassional drains into the swales.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

I don't really thing that this is a chicken and egg situation. What we need to attract businesses and development is an attractive streetscape and on-street parking. When it comes to Ramona- I'll admit, the North side of the street needs some help! But lets keep talking parking! When it comes to parking, the antique store building at the corner has been limited as to what kind of people are really interested in it because of it's lack of on-street parking in the immediate vicinity. When it comes to a business making it there- parking spaces just outside the door, around the corner and across the street are the ones that are most crucial. Hopefully we'll be successful in re-establishing parking spaces along the NCP to make that space more viable. I have suggested trying to secure parking behind the building as well- I think that would help. This parking is much, much more crucial to a business making it there than parking a couple of blocks away. For a potential business in the house at the end of Ramona- if there was no parking on Ramona at all- almost no business there would stand a chance. If there was just less parking, their chances at success would just be compromised.

Now I'd like to say that I'm not against pedestrian streets- or even pedestrian only streets! But there is a simple truth to them that can't be ignored. The people HAVE to come first. There aren't many places in Portland right now where a pedestrian-only street is warranted. Take Alberta Street as an example. If you made Alberta Street into a pedestrian-only street, businesses there would be hurt and the place would struggle. Last Thursday is and exception. While driving the 72 a couple of years ago, Trimet made the surprising (and foolish) decision to keep buses on Alberta Street during Last Thursday. The reality was that on these nights there were enough people on Alberta to warrant not only keeping buses off of Alberta- but possibly all cars! Making Alberta a pedestrian street for this one night would have been a brilliant thing for the city to do! But only for Last Thursday. If the day came when there was enough pedestrian activity on Alberta every day and night to warrant closing it to cars for a time or for a certain stretch- that's the appropriate time to do it. If you do it before, the businesses will suffer and the people will end up going somewhere else. The pedestrians HAVE to come first.

Like the street in Romania, Ramona Street could be closed at times when it makes sense to do so- like we did for the Ramona Street Fair. Designing it to preclude parking at any time would be a huge mistake. I guarantee you that in the Romanian example, it wasn't a case of there not being enough pedestrian activity and them closing the street in order to create it- it was the opposite. They most likely closed the street because the people were there to warrant it. If that happened in Lents- I'd be thrilled! The best way to do that is to go ahead and create some better pedestrian amenities on Ramona- and throughout the town center area- and to keep as much on-street parking as we possibly can. If the street can be designed to be converted at times into more of a pedestrian street (or even a pedestrian only street) for events or when it was needed- that would be a good thing to do without a doubt.

The bottom line is this: (As attractive as your project is!)- building a pedestrian street just does not attract pedestrians. Businesses attract pedestrians. What attracts businesses is foot-traffic and parking- and both of these are crucially important. There are a lot of ways we could head with a Ramona Street project- including a lot of things that we could do while at the same time preserving the on-street parking if that is a priority! I will have a very, very hard time with any proposal that doesn't place preserving on-street parking high on its list of priorities.

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

Jeff,

I'm not suggesting that we eliminate 100% of the on street parking. However, I don't think that simply closing the street "at times" is adequate. I think 100% of the ROW needs to be designed to be attractive and usable by pedestrians 100% of the time in the case of Ramona - a street that dead ends and really has little use as a vehicle thoroughfare but a lot of potential as a pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare.

Having a few on street parking spaces is certainly a priority. But, I don't think we should compromise or reject an innovative, interesting and engaging design simply because it would mean we would have 10 on street parking spaces instead of 20. Especially when we can add more on-street parking around the corner, in the near future.

Just another green street isn't going to make us stand out or make a dead-end cul de sac next to a freeway in a dead retail core more attractive to someone locating a business, or a pedestrian.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

Actually- John brings up point that will prove to be important (probably.) How wide is Ramona now- could the two travel lanes (or the space that's considered two travel lanes) be reduced by a couple of feet to add to the width of the sidewalk on the north side of the street? Just how much space do we need for cars going the opposite direction to squeak by each other?

One thing that I know is that the narrower the lane- the slower cars go! Also- I think that it's been shown pretty conclusively that people drive slower behind cars that are angle-parked. Duh! What makes me shake my head is when they go and widen a neighborhood street (people seem to see that as an improvement!) THEN they have to go and install speed bumps to slow them down! That always makes me wonder- "why didn't they just leave the street narrower like it was!!"

If anyone knows how wide the lanes have to be- let me know. I'll go out there with a tape measure and see what we have to work with!

Jeff

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

There has to be 20 ft of clear area for a fire truck to get through. The travel lane width requirement is also dependent on the design speed, although in this case I think we can safely say that is less than 25 mph. But, I think that 10 ft per travel lane is as narrow as you can go on a neighborhood street. You'll have to verify that with Rich Newlands though.

Of course, if the street is curbless there may be ways we can fit the fire trucks if they're able to drive on the areas that were formerly segregated sidewalks.

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

Just used my handy-dandy magical map measuring tool and the satellite photo. Curb to curb it's about 32 ft. Edge of sidewalk to edge of sidewalk, 48 ft give or take.

I think that divvies up at 16 ft for sidewalks/parking strips (8 ft each side), 16 ft for parked cars (8 ft each side), and 20 ft for travel lanes - that's the existing conditions.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

Oops- I took too long to respond and I must have gotten logged off! I should write quicker. In any case- the street is 30' wide between the curb in front of my house. We should talk to Rich- it's too bad we can't do a lot of the things we used to be able to do- like have streets with one lane that goes both directions! [laugh]

What I said in the last post was essentially that I think that being able to close the streets at times IS adequate- and would allow us to have a space for events when we need it and have the parking we need the rest of the time. If for the first decade we have a Ramona Street Fair once a year- the street doesn't need to be closed the remaining 354 days. The more events we want to have- the more we can close it. The rest of the time- I would favor having the parking available for potential businesses.

Jeff

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

Jeff, I'm not advocating in any way to close the street to vehicles or eliminate all the parking. I'm just suggesting that adding wider sidewalks or creating more of a woonerf style street on Ramona, with a little less parking, might be better for both business and people than a standard street with 100% of the parking spaces that are currently there.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

A couple of months ago- I became interested in the woonerf concept as a way that we could approach the alleys we have in several places around Lents. They're a big problem as they are now- but if residents surrounding the alley were given a hand, they could design and build woonerfs out of the alleys- and make them a place where their kids could play and they could spend time with each other! I'd be all for woonerfs developed in these areas. The problem with the woonerf in its pure form in an area that's trying to redevelop and become more vital- is just parking. Woonerfs do generally have less parking than your typical urban street. That's one reason that they actually tend to be in more residential areas.

What's the closest thing to a woonerf that you know of in Portland?

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

Probably the internal streets at Belmont Dairy, and the treatment on Davis street in Old town. Both are very different types of projects. What would work for Ramona is closer to what they did on Davis Street, but a little more organic.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

I'm not familiar with the "internal streets" at Belmont Dairy- but I am with the festival street on Davis. The most notable- but admittedly irrelevant- thing that comes to mind about that locale is the controversial artwork! Artists really can create really, really unloved and idiotic artwork if they're left unsupervised- if you ask me! What IS relevant about this festival street is that the couple of hundreds of time that I passed it when I was working for Trimet it was virtually empty. I know that the House of Louie- a business that used to be one of the better and more popular restaurants in China Town is practically dead. It could be that the festival street had nothing to do with this- when Kris and I ate there not too long ago, it wasn't very good at all- and it used to be!

While I have been by this location a lot, I'd be more interested in finding our what people that live, work and own business around there think about it. It's hard to find valuable opinions online, on one hand I found this description of the artwork:

"These elegant pieces of public art grace the stone planters at each end of the Festival Streets and evoke historical momentos of the various cultures that contributed to building this neighborhood." No mention of upside-down woks or strangled dragons here!

Then there are things like this:

"The doodads [referring to fishheads and other "garbage"] are "gateways" to the new "festival street" on Davis between 3rd & 4th. "Festival streets" are a current urban design fad. Instead of an asphalt street with a raised concrete curb, the whole thing is done in sidewalk-like concrete, with car and pedestrian portions on the same level, separated by a row of decorative posts. This is supposed to make it possible to shut the street off and hold street fairs here, which apparently was impossible until we spent all that money. Never mind that there's been exactly one street fair here so far, a grand opening event staged by the city to show off just how festive a festival street festival can be."

I'm honestly sick of trying to find good information about the street- all I want to know is do people spend time there! Do people think that it is a "special place?" My guess is that it was an idea that was pitched that works someplace- because there are people there. That proves, of course, that it will be good no matter where you plop it down! From what I've seen, the Davis Street festival street isn't well used at all. The most people I've seen in it are in the drawing of it in some plans leading up to its construction!

What you're on with is the "organic." Organic development, to me, is development that take place over time and adjusts to the realities that exists. Organic doesn't happen when you come in, tear everything out and plop down something designed in a meeting(s) or in an office somewhere. Most successful "festival streets" probably developed in a more organic manner- over time.

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

When I talk about organic, I'm referring to aesthetics, not process. If we wanted to let the town center follow it's own natural course, we wouldn't ever bother to make any investment - that includes MAX, any street improvements, any building rehabs etc. The reality that exists in Lents is that it is unattractive to development. The investments that we are making - and will continue to make are adjusting the reality to bring what we would like to see in the town center.

I think you're totally mis-interpreting Jacobs. When she talks about neighborhoods developing over time, she isn't suggesting that people never make any large capital investment. What she is doing is comparing the sort 100 acre master-planned, single style developments you see in the early Moses era of Urban Renewal, and contemporary, in places like Las Vegas to neighborhoods that have a lot of individual projects, each with their own separate plan and process for development - thus their own personality.

Jacobs would completely approve of the project by project approach to capital investments that is currently occurring in the town center. The street scape is one project. Ramona is another, each building that is developed, redeveloped, renewed or revamped is it's own individual project. But, there is a huge difference between approaching development one project at a time and completely eschewing any planning or capital investment in favor of the status quo or cookie-cutter solutions.

Ramona is in the heart of the town center. It needs to look like a place that is the heart of a community.

If you have a problem with the art on Davis street, then try to think of art you like and bring that to the process. If you have a problem with certain street treatments, then try to think of interesting streets you like, and bring that to the process. What I heard in the committee meetings is that we're taking the time to have a separate process because Ramona street needs to be a place that stands out - not just another street.

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

BTW - they had an awesome block party on Davis the same weekend as the Ramona Street Fair. It was a hit and was very well attended - it even has it's own web site www.oldtownblockparty.com.

There's a lot of good redevelopment and interesting businesses locating on 5th, right by that section of Davis Street, like Backspace and the Someday Lounge...and Ping just moved in down the street. There's also a lot of new offices and retail moving in - there's the Bella Pearl Salon, the BTA main office, a bunch of architecture offices and art galleries. I have walked around that area a lot, and while the new redevelopment isn't right ON Davis (probably has more to do with the actual availability of the land/parking lot and the adjacent building) Davis street really does make a big contribution to pulling the fabric of the neighborhood together. It helps link the "Chinatown" area to the area that transitions into Old Town. And, pretty soon, the new Uwajimaya store will be moving in right by the Davis festival street: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121557543760370600

So, while it might seem lonely at 10 am on a Tuesday...it's a good street.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

Jacobs IS a big influence on me, I'll admit. What I believe is really a generalization of what I've learned from her- with more information picked up along the way. I agree with her about this- there are conditions that lead to vitality, and there are conditions that make an area tend to stagnate and die. When they built the couplet here- they really screwed... up bad! If I were some sort of god of urban renewal and I was set loose here- I would have done away with the couplet on the first day. There are other things that I would do- mostly aimed at slowing cars down, increasing on-street parking, and preserving most of our older buildings. I then would have appeared to the entire Farah family in a dream and .... you get the idea. I think if we would have managed a decade ago to make it easier to cross Foster in several places- and really made 92nd place a comfortable place to be as a pedestrian, we'd have a much different town center than we do today. Oh well. C'est la vie!

That's where we were all at when we applied for the MTIP grant to begin with! We made a hand drawn map of the town center and tried to figure out what we could do to help pedestrians without doing anything that would make it even harder to get Foster and Woodstock decoupled. Those were the days. Now we have money to spend, the decoupling is apparently never going to happen and.... I gotta get to bed.

We'll talk more tomorrow. What was the second question we were going to address?

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

Having slept on all of this, I've been able to come up with an "organic" analogy that should explain my position on this clearly. If you have a garden and none of the seeds that you plant grow- it's probably safe to assume that there's something wrong with the soil. If you want your garden to grow (and grow well) job one is figuring out what exactly is wrong with the soil- and developing an appropriate treatment.

After testing the PH of the soil, you might find that it's very acidic. If that's the case- the most important thing to do is probably to add some lime to the soil. If instead you focus on an aesthetic treatment that doesn't address the soil acidity problem- like installing a white picket fence- you might have a better looking garden, but your plants still aren't going to grow. If you were to apply a mere aesthetic treatment that actually, somehow made the soil even more acidic- that would be madness!

Granted, aesthetics are important in attracting interest in the town center. But there are more nuts and bolts things have been working against us. What we should do in this case is look at all the things that have made it hard to attract business to the town center- and come up for a treatment for Ramona that addresses as many of them as possible. Part of our problem has been inadequate on-street parking. Our solution on Ramona should therefore AT LEAST preserve the on-street parking that we currently have, and ideally would add spaces if possible.

What will we end up with if we take things like the need to protect our on-street parking into account when developing a "festival street?" It probably won't look exactly like the street scape that you originally designed. It might include elements of that design however. In order to come up with the best solution- we might have to work hard on looking at other factors that have played against us- and try to incorporate other fixes as well. Our solution might end up being very different from Dutch woonerfs, or any festival street that has ever been built. Maybe it will be something completely new. In any case, I'm open to ideas- but I'd have a hard time supporting something that just looked good but didn't contribute functionally to the everyday functioning of the town center- or in a way made one bad situation even worse.

I think that we can come up with a new- and organic- solution to Ramona Street. Part of the process should be to make a list of all the things that can be done to correct the conditions that have made redevelopment difficult in the Lents Town Center. Our solution should then address those issues the best it can. Part of coming up with plan for Ramona Street should be looking at what has worked other places- and why.

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the amount of parking needed on Ramona. Because we have so many other options and more appropriate places to add parking (and we are currently adding parking in the Foster Woodstock Project), I do not think that losing a few parking spaces is a deal-breaker for any specific treatment where the Ramona project is concerned.

I think we need to keep about 8-10 spaces on the street at a minimum. The rest is blank canvas, as far as I'm concerned.

If we want to do anything other than 8 ft sidewalks and a 20 ft roadway, we're going to have to unpark at least one side of the street up to the cul de sac. Because the best uses on the street will be geared toward pedestrians and cyclists, I don't see this as a problem. In fact, they just did a study in Toronto that suggests that adding wider sidewalks and bike facilities actually brings more business into the area than adding or preserving on-street parking - because people who walk and bike are more likely to spend more time in an area and spend more money.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

I'll read the study if you send it to me.

I agree that people that walk and bike are extremely important to accommodate. Cars not so much- I agree. Ones that come to the town center and park- that's a different thing. Eventually we might have to put a parking program in place if people start to use the town center as a park and ride. Having spaces taken up all day by people that are working downtown would be just as bad for local businesses as simply removing the spaces that exist. One park and rider has already started parking on Ramona daily. He drives a black VW Bug. How many more will there be?

The simplest economic model is that when people who live here use the local and small businesses we hope to end up with- the money stays in the neighborhood. When people come from outside the neighborhood and spend their money here- that is what actually brings money in! Both are important if we want a vital and healthy town center. We need people to come in from outside. If we get some things cooking here- some people will come here on lightrail- at least that's the hope. We still need to provide the best we can for people that drive. If we become less accommodating to cars thinking that lightrail will do all the work for us- we're simply negating what positive gains we would be making- trading riders for drivers. We need both.

In any case- I'll read the study, but I don't think that the message is going to be- "don't worry about on-street parking."

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

Here you go: http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/bike-lanes-parking.pdf

While they are talking about reallocating space to a bike lane on a major road (comparable would be 92nd) I think the study can apply to Ramona, if we consider that what we are doing is creating a major access point (trailhead, entry, event that signals arrival and entry point etc) for the 205 MUP by converting Ramona.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

The conclusion of the study:

"Streets constitute a major component of public space in the city. Planning and designing great
streets is a complex process which involves many proponents and various challenges: limited
budgets, competing priorities for space, fear of economic losses by merchants, and political
opposition. It is important to study the issues thoroughly so that decisions are based on the best
possible information, reflect the greatest public good, and achieve goals that all or most
stakeholders can support.

This study set out to analyze the constraints and opportunities, including the economic impact
of removing one lane of on‐street parking, for installing a bike lane on Bloor Street through the
Annex neighbourhood, between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street. Based on the data,
analysis and discussion, the evidence makes a strong case that Toronto should be looking to
install a bike lane on this section of Bloor Street. The spending habits of cyclists, their relatively
high mode share, and the minimal impact on parking all demonstrate that merchants in this
area are unlikely to be negatively affected by reallocating on‐street parking space to a bike lane.
On the contrary, this change will likely increase commercial activity.

The general finding from this study is that pedestrians, cyclists and transit users account for the
bulk of retail spending on Bloor Street West in the Annex neighbourhood. In fact, there is
evidence to suggest that efforts to attract more pedestrians and cyclists will have a more
positive economic impact on businesses than maintaining the existing parking on the street. On
this section of Bloor Street, the existing parking demand can be accommodated by a reduced
number of on‐street parking spaces combined with the existing off‐street parking spaces. It is
clear that many merchants in the study area do not view on‐street parking as key to their
business."

How does this apply to Lents? Is Bloor comparable to 92nd Ave- even if it isn't to Ramona? Actually, there might not even be a comparable street anywhere in Portland. Bloor is an existing, healthy and vibrant commercial corridor in a much more urbanized area than Lents.

"Bloor Annex is a very busy commercial corridor, with 55% of businesses serving more than 100
customers each weekday, and 75% serving more than 100 customers each weekend day."

"only 4% of businesses believe that more than 50% of their customers drive to their business, and almost three‐quarters of businesses believe that less than 25% of customers drive to their business.

Figure 15 shows that of the customers of businesses on Bloor (combined residents and visitors) only 10% arrive in cars- the remaining 90% either walk (46%) ride public transit (32%) or bike (12%). Once again- what they propose here makes sense HERE because the area is much more urban and thus many people here not only don't drive to do much of what they have to do day-to-day, most of them probably don't even have cars! This is much, much different than what we have here. How many people do you suppose walk when they go out to the New Copper Penny! I walk to board meetings there! Thankfully, I just live a block away on Ramona!

If in 15- 20 years we manage to get some higher density housing around the core of Lents- and we get to the point where even half the residents of Lents feel like they can meet their needs on foot or on a bike and don't have to own a car- the data in this study might start to have some bearing. As it is now- it is like comparing an apple with a engine transmission. We're a long, long way from where they are on Bloor Street. The study itself is interesting- but applying it to Lents really isn't useful at all.

Between now and the time in some distant future when this study is applicable- we need to help businesses get going in OUR reality. I think that even now some people walk or bike to the town center- or could if they had a reason to go there, but for a while anyway businesses here are going to be much more dependent on cars- than they are on Bloor Street in Toronto anyway. To a degree, we should be planning for a more pedestrian future now- which I think is what you're trying to do- but our meal ticket for the next couple of decades will no doubt be the car. My hope is that in 15 or 20 years- what you are proposing will begin to make more sense- and we'll be to a point where we will be much more comparable to the area in the study. Until that day comes- we need to be sure that customers of businesses have a place to park!

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

Actually, there is a very comparable undeveloped street in Portland, that is having major success in attracting new development by focusing more on cyclists and neighborhood, walkable retail. That's the Williams corridor. They are in the process of converting Williams to a more bike friendly street, considering reducing parking to have a bike lane that is unhindered by the fear of being "doored" and converting on-street parking spaces into bike corrals.

The result is that there are thriving neighborhood retail nodes along Williams. I'm most familiar with the Failing/Williams intersection. There's a coffee roaster, community commercial kitchen, an awesome veterinary clinic, Pix Pattiserie, a couple of cafes...

There used to be NOTHING there 6 years ago. I know, I worked down the street in a crazy old xray facility that smelled of mold.

Lents also has hidden gems of cycling facilities and I think we should be playing up those assets more. The difference is that our bicycle and major transit facilities are off-street, which is actually even better (seriously, we have bike HIGHWAYS) as long as we can find a way to draw people from those facilities into the town center area. Revamping Ramona to be an active entry and exit point for both cyclists and pedestrians is one way to do that.

More commercial activities - that require parking and actually benefit from high vehicle traffic volumes can be located along the couplet. The point is, we want high volumes of both kinds of traffic - sure- but we don't have to have both on every street in the town center for business to thrive.

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

Williams is much closer.

There's lots of things that we can do on Ramona- and in the town center in general- to make it more bike friendly. There are lots of changes that I'd endorse towards that end. Making reducing on-street parking a goal at this point in Lents is foolish- even if they are doing it in other places. We should first be asking ourselves- what can we do WITHOUT losing on-street parking? If we just assume from the beginning that we have to get rid of it in order to accomplish amenities for bikes- we are going to end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

In the last week, I've seen plenty of people walking to the lightrail station (actually I caught one of them littering- but that's a side story!) and I've seen- I think- one bike riding down Ramona and the bike racks at Crossroads Plaza still don't hardly have a scratch on them, unfortunately. I'd like to see this change. We need to talk about what we need to do for bikes and to get more bicycle activity in the town center. I've suggested to a friend of mine that the house at the end of Ramona might make a good bike shop- among other things. In any case- once there are more viable businesses in Lents- we'll probably start to have more bicycles. Maybe eventually we'll become a bicycling mecca with all the infrastructure we have. When that day comes- and the businesses here can survive off of the business they get from bicyclists- great. At that point we should look at what we have and see where we're coming up short. A bicyclist on Ramona Street right now? 95% of the time they have the street completely to themselves! If we were looking at 92nd Ave- we might have some work to do and maybe it would make sense to make some compromises there.

In any case- I'm probably not going to get to a point where I think that a reduction of on-street parking on Ramona is crucial to creating a welcoming and attractive Ramona street scape- but there are lots of things that I WILL consider. Why don't we discuss some of the other possible dimensions- and see where we actually agree?

I suggested angled parking on one side of the street instead of parallel parking on both- what if they were clustered and placed alternatively on both sides? The space that cars drive in then would meander- they do this with Woonerfs and this sort of arrangements slows cars down. A design of the street where water is directed towards the middle and then runs to the east end of the cul-de-sac and a bioswale has been suggested- any thoughts?

One thing that I wouldn't mind is a gateway at 92nd Ave. Also- if helping people actually CROSS 92nd Ave isn't a part of the plan- I'll be disappointed. If our treatment at 92nd helps calm 92nd Ave traffic- I'd be even happier!

Jeff

Posted 10 months ago #
Jeffrey

preferred member
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 105

In a trip through town today, I drove down Williams and I agree that on-street parking on Williams wouldn't be as much as an issue there. The parking currently exists still- but when it's eliminated, the side streets seem to provide ample parking. A lot of it was being used already- even on a Wednesday afternoon. The difference that I noted was that on either side of the Williams/Vancouver couplet- there are blocks of residential streets that offer a great deal of on-street parking. Maybe one of the reasons that Arden Berger and Meredith Fisher- the owners of the pharmacies that were driven out of business when the couplet was built- were really, really upset when on-street parking was eliminated to move cars quicker through the town center was that on-street parking was already severely limited here. We have what we have on 92nd Ave, we have Ramona- then we have Reedway. We're gaining some on Foster, supposedly, Ramona's parking contribution is cut off by the freeway- and that leaves Reedway. It isn't a lot. If we lose more on 92nd when the sidewalks are widened....

On-street parking is an issue here. We need more, not less.

I also drove by the festival streets in Northwest. Davis was largely vacant and on Flanders 3 police cars were parked and the police were arresting some guy! That's really anecdotal- and probably doesn't mean much. Nevertheless- I'd rather gather all the ideas- and problems, and potentials and work on something unique- and that's custom tailored to what we are faced with here- rather than do something like that anyway.

Jeff

Posted 10 months ago #
jntnfamily

new member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 3

Taking parking away from that small little block with businesses and families living in apartments along with some nice one family homes would be just wrong. Preserve the quality of life for those who already live there (esp those who have invested in homes there) and hopefully they will feel some pride in the 'improvements' that ARE made.

I live on the "OTHER" side of the freeway and it is so unsafe to walk to the Lents Town Center that without parking, I'll drive right on to another area. Long ago we were also patrons of the karate school on that block and with kids, parking across 92nd would probably have driven us to another school, too.

The area where the market is on Sundays is a nice outdoor gathering area.

To be honest, when I go to/from the Foster Rd MAX station, Ramona street isn't even in my sites nor am I likely to get there using the ramps/paths that are there.

Of course I am looking at the pedestrian improvement I personally would love to see, which is in providing safer pedestrian access across the freeway onramps on the East side of I-205 or a pedestrian bridge to get more of us SAFELY over there to patronize the businesses.

Closer in the town center, on 92nd it would be nice to see more safe pedestrian crossing areas painted on the street to slow down traffic and provide access to those businesses. It seems people want to get out of their cars and walk straight to their destination and are unlikely to walk all the way to 92nd and Foster to cross.

Also as a tax payer preference is not to spend a bulk of public money on one little block of residential property and a little business.

Posted 10 months ago #
jntnfamily

new member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 3

On another thought...if you want to attract folks from MAX, then someone should buy up that property right there between the base of the MAX stairs at Foster where there is a little lot. My husband and I also thought that that spot and also the open corner lot on 92nd and Foster would be perfect for a sit down bicycle friendly coffee house.

Really tho, my husband sometimes picks me up at that MAX and he would go in and buy coffee while waiting for me...and I may go in and buy coffee waiting for him. Once a MAX rider comes down those stairs, there is easy crossing to get under the 205 overpass, but no place seems to call to someone as "check this out" for getting out of the rain.

I also do see a lot of people get off the train and walk straight across Foster at the base of the stairs and not in a crosswalk. Seems they may be parking in the Copper Penny lot???

Another spot that seems to be a great asset that is underutilized is that boys and girls club area. THAT could be an excellent area for a neighborhood fair or gathering spot. I have heard NUMEROUS people even kids mention that and ask what that is, as you can see it clearly from MAX.

Many of the areas, in my opinion, that could improve the area seem to be privately owned businesses. How about some sort of financial incentive to improve those buildings to bring in new shops that people will want to go into?

Posted 10 months ago #
Cora

admin
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 141

jntn ....many of the things you mention are already in progress. In the next 2-3 years, there will be millions of dollars of improvements made to Foster, Woodstock and 92nd between 87th and 94th. The owners of the lot next to the Foster entrance to the MAX are actively pursuing a group to purchase and redevelop that property who will bring more activity to the town center. Those owners just happen to be the PDC. It's one of the major property acquisitions they made last year.

There is also a very large development project in progress for the 4 acre site next to the Boys and Girls club. There are already business assistance and storefront improvement programs readily available to any building owner or business that wants to move into the URA.

The Ramona street project is in addition to all this improvements, it's not an either or situation. We are ALSO making improvements to Ramona and that's a really positive thing. It will contribute greatly to the success of all the other projects and future projects we have going on in the town center. Any capital improvements we bring to the town center will greatly improve the quality of life for the whole neighborhood, by creating a community gathering place and the hub of a 20 minute style neighborhood.

It doesn't really help to spend a lot of time saying we should do one thing over another. Right now, if a project is funded and in the planning stage, the biggest help we can have from you is getting input on what you would like to see that particular project look like and accomplish.

Posted 10 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.