[COM] Victoria Square Upgrade - $24m

[zippySA]

And just to add on the "endless complaints" comment - again, this is why Council and government fear to do anything innovative or different, fear of complaints.

So what, people will complain whatever you do - so how about having an informed, open discussion, backed up by detailed engineering and analysis, pick an option that aligns with a vision and strategy (a strategy that is longer than annual budget cycles and terms of government) and get on with it. After 12 months, people will have adjusted, and assuming you took the best available advice, you will be proven right and life will continue with happy little public enjoying their city and confident that decisions will be made in the best interested of the city.

Bold decisions make for great cities, break a few eggs, you may like the omelete.

[build 'em smarter]

Since when is it appropriate to start ridiculing someone for posting an opinion on this forum... pull your head in

[Matt]

Since when is it appropriate to start ridiculing someone for posting an opinion on this forum... pull your head in

Indeed. Calling someone stupid and moronic for offering an opinion you disagree with is a trifle OTT.

[spiller]

^^ I agree, pave the entire section of KWS that surrounds the square, narrow the road using nice bollards and decrease the speed limit to 25 km/h with multiple pedestrian crossings giving pedestrians right of way (i.e no traffic lights) - basically make the whole area a giant shared zone. that would be fantastic but there would need to be some siginficant upgrades to Morphett, Pultney, Franklin and Grenfell streets to handle the increased traffic flow.

the right way to do it is to tunnel KWS but we all know that's many years away.

What a moronic comment. I get that Adelaide should become more pedestrian friendly; and taking heavy peak traffic out of the city. But you, along with other people above seemingly forget that Vic Square is part of major bus routes. I'm sure one of the main reasons behind keeping the central roadway (aside from the endless complaints that would be received if it were removed) is because the buses use it to cross over the square. I too, would love to see it closed off eventually; and I'm sure in good time it will be. But your idea of narrowing the roads and slowing the speed-limit down to 25 km/h is stupid, the already ridiculous wait times for buses going through that part of the city would further become a problem.

Did you type that whilst clinging to your tree in the parklands?

If you read all of the posts discussing this thought you would have seen that someone else already mentioned improving public transport through the square.

[Nort]

I often find myself wishing that Colonel Light hadn't picked such a good spot for the city. For a young colony the flat site Adelaide is on was undoubtedly the best choice, but in modern times the city would be so much more interesting (and give opportunities to solve traffic/pedestrian problems like this) if it had some hills in it.

[mattblack]

I often find myself wishing that Colonel Light hadn't picked such a good spot for the city. For a young colony the flat site Adelaide is on was undoubtedly the best choice, but in modern times the city would be so much more interesting (and give opportunities to solve traffic/pedestrian problems like this) if it had some hills in it.

1. Adelaide doesn't have major traffic issues. We have a 30 min peak hour. Know one sits in traffic jams for hours unlike other cities.
2. I'm not sure whether hills ever solved traffic or pedestrian issues (more interesting ..... possibly)

[Nort]

I often find myself wishing that Colonel Light hadn't picked such a good spot for the city. For a young colony the flat site Adelaide is on was undoubtedly the best choice, but in modern times the city would be so much more interesting (and give opportunities to solve traffic/pedestrian problems like this) if it had some hills in it.

1. Adelaide doesn't have major traffic issues. We have a 30 min peak hour. Know one sits in traffic jams for hours unlike other cities.
2. I'm not sure whether hills ever solved traffic or pedestrian issues (more interesting ..... possibly)

I just meant resolving conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and am just talking about the CBD, not the metro area in general.

It can help because you can have sunken roads/raised pedestrian bridges that are more convenient to build and use.

[MessiahAndrw]

I just meant resolving conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and am just talking about the CBD, not the metro area in general.

It can help because you can have sunken roads/raised pedestrian bridges that are more convenient to build and use.

I agree, flowing with landscape can create an organic-feel to your streets.

Often, much of the charm comes from the fact that your streets need to accommodate the organic landscape, so you can't simply paste a grid on top of it.

Unfortunately, we just went with the grid. At least Adelaide is not as bad as many American cities, where they adopted a grid of square blocks, where every street was exactly the same in width and length;



I'm actually a fan of the more traditional, organic street layouts. Here's a mixture of different organic and grid street layouts;



However, most of our CBD streets were drawn a little less than 2 centuries ago, and it's unlikely they'll change in the near future, so my hope is that the 'laneway activations', 'place makings', and other city initiatives will help to form interesting narrower-organic human-scale streets in between our large automobile-scale ones to break away from our sterile grid.

[Nort]

I just meant resolving conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and am just talking about the CBD, not the metro area in general.

It can help because you can have sunken roads/raised pedestrian bridges that are more convenient to build and use.

I agree, flowing with landscape can create an organic-feel to your streets.

Often, much of the charm comes from the fact that your streets need to accommodate the organic landscape, so you can't simply paste a grid on top of it.

Unfortunately, we just went with the grid. At least Adelaide is not as bad as many American cities, where they adopted a grid of square blocks, where every street was exactly the same in width and length;



I'm actually a fan of the more traditional, organic street layouts. Here's a mixture of different organic and grid street layouts;



However, most of our CBD streets were drawn a little less than 2 centuries ago, and it's unlikely they'll change in the near future, so my hope is that the 'laneway activations', 'place makings', and other city initiatives will help to form interesting narrower-organic human-scale streets in between our large automobile-scale ones to break away from our sterile grid.

Exactly, the long straight roads are great for making it impossible to get too lost in town, but you lose the focus points that naturally develop in a more organic city layout.

[rev]

I often find myself wishing that Colonel Light hadn't picked such a good spot for the city. For a young colony the flat site Adelaide is on was undoubtedly the best choice, but in modern times the city would be so much more interesting (and give opportunities to solve traffic/pedestrian problems like this) if it had some hills in it.

I reckon more hilly roads would just make people lazier and fatter

[Nort]

I often find myself wishing that Colonel Light hadn't picked such a good spot for the city. For a young colony the flat site Adelaide is on was undoubtedly the best choice, but in modern times the city would be so much more interesting (and give opportunities to solve traffic/pedestrian problems like this) if it had some hills in it.

I reckon more hilly roads would just make people lazier and fatter

Would be interesting to see the stats on walking about the CBD in Sydney and Brisbane which are quite hilly compared to Adelaide and Melbourne.

Sorry about the derail though, it's just a historical what-if, I've managed to drag this topic off track.

[jk1237]

Would be interesting to see the stats on walking about the CBD in Sydney and Melbourne which are quite hilly compared to Adelaide and Melbourne.

Sorry about the derail though, it's just a historical what-if, I've managed to drag this topic off track.

Last minute I popped down to the Festival of ideas lecture by Jeff Speck regarding walkable cities. Nothing new that us urbanists on here know about, but very interesting. Ive always believed his argument that the obese epidemic in American and Australia populations is due to a tiny part on diet, but mostly because of our suburban way of life where we sit on our asses 23 hours a day, and don't do any incidental walking. He provided lots of stats that city centre residents are far more healthy and athletic, than those in the middle and outer suburbs, simply due to those in the suburbs not doing any incidental walking, everything revolves around the car. It is pretty obvious, because 60-100 years ago everyone either walked, or rode to the shops, or took the tram into town (which involved walking), and there was hardly any fat people back then. He argues that movement of the human body is natural, and sitting down all day long (especially hours in a car) is un-natural.

Anyway he was a little bit confused as to why he was asked to come here, because everything he argues that American cities should be doing, Adelaide has already done and is doing. He believes the city centre of Adelaide is very walkable, but still believes that many of our streets have too many empty car lanes which should be turned into dedicated bus lanes or separated bike lanes, and he also believes our traffic lights take an eternity for the pedestrian sequence.

But yes, flat cities are generally more walkable than hilly cities, wouldn't really call Melbourne that hilly though, a bit slopey I guess

[Aidan]

Would be interesting to see the stats on walking about the CBD in Sydney and Melbourne which are quite hilly compared to Adelaide and Melbourne.

ITYM Sydney and Brisbane.

A complication is that because they were flat, Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth sprawled out a lot in the early days, whereas Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart densified instead.

[Nort]

Would be interesting to see the stats on walking about the CBD in Sydney and Melbourne which are quite hilly compared to Adelaide and Melbourne.

ITYM Sydney and Brisbane.

A complication is that because they were flat, Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth sprawled out a lot in the early days, whereas Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart densified instead.

Whoops, did mean Brissy, fixed.

That's a good point too, in some cities there are areas that naturally feel like the CBD due to landscape and old street layouts guiding development in that way. Adelaide's layout encourages the skyline to almost sag and spread out.

[mattblack]

Anyway, about Vic Sq ..........................