Dear Mssrs. Holder and Hatton,

This letter is to comment on your second open house regarding the reconstruction of Bank St. This letter is a followup to a letter I wrote you after the first Bank Street open house. I am a resident of the Glebe and so my comments will focus on the area between the Queensway and the canal. I am sorry that these comments are a day late and trust that you will be able to consider them despite this.

I am extremely concerned that your plans continue to divide Bank Street up incorrectly. The Glebe extends from the Queensway to the Canal. There should be no boundaries whatsoever between the Queensway and the Canal in any plan. The Glebe is indivisible and residents will fight any Bank Street plan that is proposed with any divisions in aesthetic elements between the Queensway and Bank Street. The Queensway underpass is a logical and non-jarring location for an aesthetic change. North of the Queensway is Centertown. South of the Queensway is the Glebe. This has been acknowledged by residents of Ottawa for years, and your plan does not recognize this. I urge you to make this change to your thinking immediately.

As I expressed in my first letter I feel that the business community is vital to the feel of the Glebe. The Glebe is a village within the city which is organized around pedestrian access to local businesses for the requirements of daily living. These businesses are supported by pedestrian Glebe residents but, importantly, also by other patrons who do drive into the Glebe, park and then join in the pedestrian environment.

Lane Width: I continue to be concerned about losing extra lane width in the outside lanes on Bank Street. I feel this space is important to the continued prosperity of local businesses as it supports local cycling access to the businesses, and makes it feel safe to park and exit a vehicle on Bank Street. While I am pleased that your recommended “compromise” option does provide some additional space in this lane I wish we could preserve all of the space that we have today.

Lighting Options: The preferred lighting option presented seemed the best to me. The problem is that if the hydro poles are not removed then we will have a pole forest with the preferred lighting option. That would be totally unacceptable. As I stated in my last letter I have no beef with the poles in and of themselves; it is apparent to me now, however, that the best options for maximizing sidewalk space and for attractive lighting require the removal of the hydro poles. The proposed light fixture appearance was satisfactory.

Postering: If the hydro poles were removed I hope that the city would designate many of the poles as authorized for posting of notices and announcements. The current poles provide a good opportunity for community and cultural notices which I enjoy as a Glebe resident.

Street Furniture: I liked the alternative furniture plan for the Glebe which MUST BE IMPLEMENTED FROM QUEENSWAY TO CANAL! I did prefer the wooden bench from your proposed option, but the other furniture pieces in the alternative were better. So my best scenario would be the alternative furniture with the proposed bench swapped in. If this is not possible then I would support the alternative furniture set as presented at the meeting.

Sidewalk design: I would like to see trees planted, and I would like to also see the brick sidewalk provided. I did not like having to choose between brick sidewalks and trees. Also, I thought your sign on this was extremely misleading so I am sure that many residents do not realize that they are not being offered both nice sidewalks and trees. Please come up with a plan that accomodates trees within the brick sidewalk. In order to maintain the cohesion of the neighbourhood the sidewalk design selected MUST BE INSTALLED FROM THE QUEENSWAY TO THE CANAL! With no breaks in between.

Park Access: I liked alternative 3 the best. This is not necessarily because it was more aesthetic but because it has better stairs on the East side.

Park Crosswalk: Also I note that you are providing for a pedestrian crossover in some of the alternatives; this should be in all the alternatives (even if the crossover needs to be slightly angled to make it work). Also I strongly believe that this crossover needs to be protected by a traffic signal and that the signal at Bank and Strathcona (which is basically a pedestrian signal anyway) could easily be moved to the park crosswalk.

Landsdowne Park: I generally like the bold vision of the preferred option as well as its traffic control features. I feel that it is only acceptable, however, if it is highly landscaped and aesthetically designed. Otherwise it will feel like a section of highway interchange which — far from being a pleasant gateway to the Glebe — will destroy the sense that you are approaching a village from the South. One structural issue: I believe that the north pedestrian crosswalk across Bank is too long to be safe. I would like to see the median extended into the crosswalk to provide a refuge for pedestrians halfway across.

Parking: I was disappointed not to see any statements about parking. Perhaps I missed them, but I would like to re-iterate that parking ought to be returned to its free state — with a 3 hour maximum time limit — throughout the Glebe and on side streets. Parking meters should be removed to declutter the sidewalk and no pay parking should exist. Businesses need free parking on Bank Street. (I understand if parking must be prohibited during peak hours, but aside from this it should be free all day every day with a 3 hour maximum.) Parking signs should be mounted on existing poles or directly on building walls — not installed on their own poles.

Hydro Wires: For reasons discussed above they should be buried. I understand if the scope of the environmental assessment does not include this, however I would be disappointed if all the public commentary and discussion on this issue was lost. I understand that due to privacy concerns data collected during this study cannot be used for other studies unless it appears in your report. Accordingly I would hope that your report would document the public commentary that has occurred on this issue, perhaps as an informational appendix.

In closing I wish to reiterate my strong feeling that the Glebe needs to be treated as a single unit from the Queensway to the Canal. This is a neighbourhood that has always been considered indivisible by the city and which has thrived on a sense of cohesiveness. Bank Street, being central to the Glebe in so many more senses than just the geographic sense, MUST remain a cohesive whole or the neighbourhood will lose its sense of identity.

I would be pleased to comment on revised plans. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require clarification or to obtain further comments.

Regards,
Colin Henein

return to cmh blog

› letters     2005-07-15 11:30   ...0