---

: @EvergreenCanada : City Builder term of the day : Inclusive city : A city in which all residents are included in the decision making and development process, and where all feel they belong. https://t.co/aCBUxBvTPh pic.twitter.com/horfeN27fv

— NanaimoCommons (@NanaimoCommons) May 25, 2019

---

Urban design : "Creation of city features including public space, infrastructure, transport, landscapes, community facilities.” To be clear urban design isn’t just about how it looks it’s about how city-building elements work together in mutual support. https://t.co/QpAYy6WYQT

— NanaimoCommons (@NanaimoCommons) May 24, 2019

"Modernization of this urban public space is not at core a technical problem, not a problem of engineering or landscape architecture, tho both of those are essential once the vision and design have been established. It’s at core a problem of urban design." https://t.co/QpAYy6WYQT

— NanaimoCommons (@NanaimoCommons) May 22, 2019

---

: @EvergreenCanada : City Builder term of the day : Regenerative city : A city designed to eliminate negative environmental impact + help restore balance w/ natural systems. Regenerative cities are low-carbon and rely on renewable energies not fossil fuels https://t.co/aCBUxBvTPh pic.twitter.com/ixqt9tPdkU

— NanaimoCommons (@NanaimoCommons) May 24, 2019

---

Nanaimo Downtown Mobility Hub Project : I fear what might be hiding in the weeds

Click image for enlargement

You know what the best thing about this plan is? Identifying this 800m zone at the heart of the city. Ground zero for our urbanization. Get this right and the payoff, evidenced by the experience of other cities, is huge : social, economic, and environmental.

I look at the aerial photo of this zone and find it crazily exciting. If our plan truly reflected the inverted pyramid of mobility priorities from the Transportation Master Plan it would inspire and capture the imagination of the local public, and catch the attention of other cities across the country.

As the plan is now, it and the inverted pyramid of priorities set side by side makes it clear something’s seriously out of whack.

"You can’t add other modes to an already overbuilt private car network. Car infrastructure has to be reduced to accommodate safe equitable walking, accessible mobility for disabled, bicycling, and transit for every age and shape and size of human."

The plan is weakest where it has to be strongest : the pedestrian network. The actions called for are too few, too small and will have little impact.

If the inverted pyramid, codified in City policy, had meaning in the real world, here’s some things that would be evident in the pedestrian network part of the plan :  

• travel lane width reductions (proven to reduce vehicle travel speeds)
• lane eliminations (road diets, resulting in more equitable share of the street);
• elimination of “beg buttons” at every City-controlled intersection in the urban core (pedestrians should never have to seek permission to cross on green);
• elimination of right turns on red lights (research shows high incidence of pedestrian and cyclist  injury and death);
• sidewalk extension lines including zebras across every intersection in the 800m urban zone.

Pedestrian crossing locations : only 4 in the 200m zone, 2 in the 400 m zone, 9 in 800m zone.
Mid-block pedestrian crossings : There are 2 on city controlled streets (one on Terminal MoTI jurisdiction) Skinner St ?? Mid-block zebras should be mandatory with few exceptions on every block of a certain length.
Pedestrian walkway connections between blocks. Sounds great but I have no idea what’s meant by this.
Accessible connection upgrade. There’s one. Have disabled activists confirmed that that’s all that’s needed?
Enhanced pedestrian realm. Details please. This should be one of the primary focuses of the plan. Times up for empty homilies.
Intersection Pedestrian Operation Improvement I assume this means “beg buttons.” In a walkable urban zone the pedestrian should never seek permission to walk on green.

Genuine walkability is achievable in this zone and the interventions to do it are low cost and quick. Mystified why staff resist. I’ve a strong sense that the public support for this urbanization has grown far beyond that of staff’s.

We pause for this editorial : I suspect the process got off on the wrong foot, didn’t understand the nature of the task itself. We’re looking at some of the biggest and most important public space in city. Fixes and modernization of this public space are not at core technical problems, not problems of engineering or problems of landscape architecture, tho both of those are essential once the vision and design have been established. It’s at core a problem of urban design and the technical process has to be preceded by a process of visioning and design lead by a professional urban designer with first hand experience in establishing walkable urban centres inclusive of the most vulnerable street user.

So… The pedestrian network part of the plan is disappointing. But it’s benign, will do little good but at least will not make things worse.

As for the other parts of the project plan, bike network good idea and trendy just now. Pains have to be taken to ensure it doesn’t damage the fragile pedestrian realm. These bike lanes have to be carved out of the over-built car infrastructure. I’m concerned that’s not explicit here.

The parking study’s an ok idea, I’m sure staff are versed in the research and writing of UCLA urban planning prof Donald Shoup. Properly managed it’s possible to reduce its supply freeing important downtown real estate for more productive uses.

There are two areas where I have reason to fear what might be hiding in the weeds : the transit plan should be a separate study not rushed as here and absolutely not to include a traffic roundabout between downtown and our waterfront. Roundabouts are dangerous and uncomfortable for pedestrians and cyclists and there’s no place for one in a walkable urban core.

And lastly the key intersection redesigns. The big ticket item, 100s of thousands of dollars I imagine, and if they end-of-the-day are car-centric infrastructure, I worry with good reason, having watched these processes over the years, they could harm the human scale walkable downtown. We need help especially on this section of the project plan.

One more passing thought : there is mention here of property acquisition for road widening. Those days are over, time now to repurpose the downtown street network to be more productive for more citizens. And the term “jaywalker” should never show up in a city planning document.

Who's not in the room?

The transportation consultant Jarett Walker reminds himself to start every meeting with “Who’s not in the room?”

There was someone not in the room where this downtown mobility project was in development. This person also was not in the rooms when the Terminal-Nicol project or the Transportation Master Plan or the Downtown Waterfront Lands master plan work was done.

This person, a professional with associated credentials and experience, self-identifies and is identified by others based on her work as an urbanist. The urbanist, as with the other disciplines around the table, notably the traffic engineers, adds to the outcome of the project not just with technical skill but also with a unique sensibility.

In other cities it’s evident that the urban planning department is staffed by urbanists and that they are able to hold their own against the dominant silos who as Brent Toderian says, tend to think they have a veto over other departments. There's no evidence that even if an urbanist is confidently represented in our planning department that she is able to bake urbanism into this project. Nanaimo should be directing resources to its urbanization big time. It’s urgent.

Better City-Making Means Breaking Down Silos—Here's How

Without an urbanist influence from early in process, the urbanist perspective and critique that I bring is unwelcome. It’s too late and it’s just the opinion of one citizen. I get that. But in the absence of that urbanist influence it becomes all the more important to seek the perspective and critique of the professional who is an urbanist.

Consider: two plans of the highest quality over the last 10 or so years were lead by former VIU VP Dave Witty, the Downtown Waterfront Lands, and Victoria architect Franc D’Ambrosio, Downtown Urban Plan and Guidelines. Peer review doesn’t come with much higher praise than the D’Ambrosio-lead Downtown Urban Plan and Guidelines which won a Royal Architectural Institute of Canada National Urban Design Award in 2014.

There isn’t as far as I can see a self-corrective mechanism within our City Hall to test plans to ensure they achieve the highest possible level of excellence.

Plans have to be vetted by people like Franc D’Ambrosio, Brent Toderian, Jeff Speck (he’s in Vancouver over the next few days as you may know), the Jan Gehl organization Cities for People, Gil Penalosa’s 8 800 Cities… Franc D'Ambrosio continues to take an interest in and is protective of our wonderful downtown. We need to bring him back to help us.

---