Should Church Street open to traffic????
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
13,987 Posts
Yes.
Any and all pedestrianised streets are shit. Only small roads in city centres which are incapable of handling traffic should be pedestrianised, an example being the Cavern Quarter. Big wide streets should NOT be pedestrianised. It has that 'Anywhere UK' feel to it.
Any and all pedestrianised streets are shit. Only small roads in city centres which are incapable of handling traffic should be pedestrianised, an example being the Cavern Quarter. Big wide streets should NOT be pedestrianised. It has that 'Anywhere UK' feel to it.
Joined
·
13,987 Posts
Actually... I've changed my mind about my post. If there is one place in this country which knows how to do pedestrianised streets PERFECTLY its Glasgow.
They are absolutely fucking gorgeous. The paving and street furniture is spot on. The glass subway station on Buchanan Street helps also, as well as the big screen at the top of the street.
They are absolutely fucking gorgeous. The paving and street furniture is spot on. The glass subway station on Buchanan Street helps also, as well as the big screen at the top of the street.
Joined
·
2,467 Posts
Personaly I think with the completion of Paradise street keeping church street closed to the traffic its just a waste of space. I really like big commercial boulevards (like Oxford Street in London), gives a different feeling to the whole area. Church street could do the same for Liverpool connecting Lime street with the Town Hall area.
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Yes.
I do think that very wide pathways on either side of a road should be maintained so that there is plenty of room for people to move and sit on benches. At present, it is just unnecessarily wide, and the place would benefit from improved accessibility by motor vehicle. I'm not sure whether it should be one-way, one lane system- but I'd like to see it open to some traffic.
I agree with Accy, the way it is now is just a waste of space- it reeks of "typical British high street". The same as Derby, Warrington, Leeds, Manc.
I dunno if anybody has seen it, but the Headrpw in Leeds could be a good example. It has two songle road ways separated by a large central rservation and allows buses, etc. during the day.
I do think that very wide pathways on either side of a road should be maintained so that there is plenty of room for people to move and sit on benches. At present, it is just unnecessarily wide, and the place would benefit from improved accessibility by motor vehicle. I'm not sure whether it should be one-way, one lane system- but I'd like to see it open to some traffic.
I agree with Accy, the way it is now is just a waste of space- it reeks of "typical British high street". The same as Derby, Warrington, Leeds, Manc.
I dunno if anybody has seen it, but the Headrpw in Leeds could be a good example. It has two songle road ways separated by a large central rservation and allows buses, etc. during the day.
Pedestrianised streets can look good, but only if done well. In the case of Leeds, Briggate is the main pedestrianised street ,considering the amount of foot traffic, I can't imagine opening it to traffic again, but it still looks dire with the vast exspanse of stone from one side to the other, they've recently repaved it, but they missed an oppurtunity to make it stand out. I've always wanted them to have wide streets on either side of Briggate, with a large garden area where the road used to be, with plenty of mature trees. Think what a difference the trees make to the Las Ramblas in Barcelona.
Church Street does look like any high street in the UK, I'd like to see exstensive mature planting down the centre, with market stalls lining the street either side of the park space. At the moment it looks a bit blah though.
Church Street does look like any high street in the UK, I'd like to see exstensive mature planting down the centre, with market stalls lining the street either side of the park space. At the moment it looks a bit blah though.
Joined
·
4,192 Posts
No to motorised vehicles, Yes to Trams.
Trams would be excellent, and people would make more use of them for the whole journey if they knew they could arrive right at the shopping destination, without any other traffic to worry about.
I can see the Tram link from the Airport to city centre loop coming back onto the agenda after 2008, but don't know if Church st would be suitable after the "Ribbons of Life" project is completed.
Trams would be excellent, and people would make more use of them for the whole journey if they knew they could arrive right at the shopping destination, without any other traffic to worry about.
I can see the Tram link from the Airport to city centre loop coming back onto the agenda after 2008, but don't know if Church st would be suitable after the "Ribbons of Life" project is completed.
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
I agree Skopie. Briggate is the Leeds equivalent of Liverpool's Church Street. I think Church St is much smarter to be honest (altohugh it is a bit tired itself.) Briggate looks really scruffy IMO, the paving is all fucked up and messy, and the buildings are a but mish mash.
I think both would be better off with road traffic- why have large pedestrian spaces if they're going to look shit?
I think both would be better off with road traffic- why have large pedestrian spaces if they're going to look shit?
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
Nobody has mentioned how shit and anti social these streets are once the shops have shut!
I would depedestrianise all the main streets if I had may way... city's are about permeabiltyi and connectivity, not poncing round looking at the flooring...but!
This will never happen, so my other solution is to have time limited traffic restrictions. I think Martin has rasied this also. This way you could actually have an even bigger area closed to traffic during the day, but after 6, say, you open them up to everything....even when the shops open late the crowds are not as intense as during the day... and there is also the issue of why Church St is so crowded... it's currently the ONLY place to go. When L1 opens up the crowds should thin a bit.
having this sort of system would allow other uses to be introduced into the district of an evening and on into the night.
I would depedestrianise all the main streets if I had may way... city's are about permeabiltyi and connectivity, not poncing round looking at the flooring...but!
This will never happen, so my other solution is to have time limited traffic restrictions. I think Martin has rasied this also. This way you could actually have an even bigger area closed to traffic during the day, but after 6, say, you open them up to everything....even when the shops open late the crowds are not as intense as during the day... and there is also the issue of why Church St is so crowded... it's currently the ONLY place to go. When L1 opens up the crowds should thin a bit.
having this sort of system would allow other uses to be introduced into the district of an evening and on into the night.
not all pedestrianised streets look that bad.. i think the type of pedastrianisation used on bold street is far better.. ie retaining the original road and pavements to prevent access traffic damaging the street surface as happened with church streetAccura said:
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
Aye, that's exactly the point maggie. You could put bollards up at junctions over a much wider area than currently permanently pedestrianised... nice solid paving etc... then at 6p.m drop the bollards into the ground and let everything through!
10mph speed limit.
As an associated idea, why not limit traffic speeds to 20 mph withing Queens Drive? it would probably speed the fraffic up due to smoothing out the flow... well, in a few years time when we have heavier traffic?
10mph speed limit.
As an associated idea, why not limit traffic speeds to 20 mph withing Queens Drive? it would probably speed the fraffic up due to smoothing out the flow... well, in a few years time when we have heavier traffic?
Expansion isn`t thining out.....it`s density.
Church Street - Lord Street - Whitechapel-ish works better as a pedestrianiased area.
Trams hopefully and certainly `Merseyrail` expansion.
Cars on the perifary.
and better `place scape / street scape` aka `Ribbons of life`.....
"there is also the issue of why Church St is so crowded... it's currently the ONLY place to go. When L1 opens up the crowds should thin a bit."
That doesn`t sound like good urbanism.....and `Church Street` is not the only place to go either.....
That is the whole point of `Cavern Walks`, `Clayton Square`, `Albert Dock`, Bold Street`,`Lord Street`, `Met Quarter`,`Stanley Dock - Camden 2` and even `St Johns` and `Central Station` and `Queens Square`, `London Road` etc.
`L1` will merely expand on what should have been and consolidate what is and will be.
Key Facts
42 acres, 40 individually designed buildings, 6 districts, over 1.6 million square feet of shopping
Site area
42.5 acres 17 ha
Total development
234,000 m2 2.5m ft2
Retail
154,000 m2 1.65m ft2
Leisure
21,500 m2 230,000 ft2
Residential
600 units
Car parking
3000 (of which 2100 are new)
Open space
2.2 ha
Department store 1(John Lewis)
22,300 m2 240,000 ft2
Department store 2(Debenhams)
17,200 m2 185,000 ft2
Hotel 1 (landmark)
270 rooms
Hotel 2 (budget)
107 rooms
Permanent jobs
4,400
Construction jobs
3,300
Construction costs and fees
£500 million
Investment value
Completion Date
£920 million
2008
:cheers:
Sorry Tony,Tony Sebo said:
Church Street - Lord Street - Whitechapel-ish works better as a pedestrianiased area.
Trams hopefully and certainly `Merseyrail` expansion.
Cars on the perifary.
and better `place scape / street scape` aka `Ribbons of life`.....
"there is also the issue of why Church St is so crowded... it's currently the ONLY place to go. When L1 opens up the crowds should thin a bit."
That doesn`t sound like good urbanism.....and `Church Street` is not the only place to go either.....
That is the whole point of `Cavern Walks`, `Clayton Square`, `Albert Dock`, Bold Street`,`Lord Street`, `Met Quarter`,`Stanley Dock - Camden 2` and even `St Johns` and `Central Station` and `Queens Square`, `London Road` etc.
`L1` will merely expand on what should have been and consolidate what is and will be.
Key Facts
42 acres, 40 individually designed buildings, 6 districts, over 1.6 million square feet of shopping
Site area
42.5 acres 17 ha
Total development
234,000 m2 2.5m ft2
Retail
154,000 m2 1.65m ft2
Leisure
21,500 m2 230,000 ft2
Residential
600 units
Car parking
3000 (of which 2100 are new)
Open space
2.2 ha
Department store 1(John Lewis)
22,300 m2 240,000 ft2
Department store 2(Debenhams)
17,200 m2 185,000 ft2
Hotel 1 (landmark)
270 rooms
Hotel 2 (budget)
107 rooms
Permanent jobs
4,400
Construction jobs
3,300
Construction costs and fees
£500 million
Investment value
Completion Date
£920 million
2008
:cheers:
Funnily enough there aren`t many bars on `Oxford Street` London .....
That is all it needs.....to lead into Bold Street / Hardman Street etc and Rope Walks.
Perhaps at GROUND LEVEL `Church Street - Lord Street - Whitechapel-ish` could have a more 24 HR `street / urban` Cafe / Bar / Market life?Tony Sebo said:
That is all it needs.....to lead into Bold Street / Hardman Street etc and Rope Walks.
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
Yes. Lord Street also. They look awful. When I say "yes", I mean to buses, taxis, delivery vehicles, bikes, and cars simply to pick up and collect. Not a through road for private car traffic, that would not do at all.
Within 10 years Church Street could be semi-derelict with the Worlds Biggest Pound Shop oppisite the Worlds Biggest Oxfam shop unless serious action is taken. I suggested that larger furniture businesses might be an option for it, eg a city centre IKEA even, but people need to drive to collect things from furniture shops.
Some streets just weren't made to be pedestriansed, they never look quite right, and Church Street is one of them.
Within 10 years Church Street could be semi-derelict with the Worlds Biggest Pound Shop oppisite the Worlds Biggest Oxfam shop unless serious action is taken. I suggested that larger furniture businesses might be an option for it, eg a city centre IKEA even, but people need to drive to collect things from furniture shops.
Some streets just weren't made to be pedestriansed, they never look quite right, and Church Street is one of them.
Joined
·
13,488 Posts
Yes.
Provided you install wide pavements with bollards to prevent vehicles mounting them. Have frequent pedestrian crossings, so minimising dislocation of pedestrian routes and slowing traffic down.
Whether or not you have pedestrian only periods should depend on just how many pedestrians are using the streets in peak periods. Tony may be right that the opening of new areas such as PSDA will reduce the pedestrian density in streets such as Church and Lord Streets (there is the counter argument that the expansion of the shopping centre will achieve a critical mass that will greatly increase the attractiveness of the whole centre).
Allowing vehicle access to as much of the city centre as possible is a good thing as it means that there is far better access to all areas (bus services were far more direct in the pre-pedestrian, one way street days and bus stops were far nearer the places that people wanted to go), deliveries to shops are easier (although that does need control) and the streets become safer at night as they can be policed from patrol cars and there are generally more people around to keep an eye on things.
I do believe that in a city centre, the pedestrian should have priority but I also think that the emphasis should be on allowing vehicle access to all streets were it can be accommodated without causing major inconvenience to people on foot (I would not suggest de-pedestrianising Mathew Street for example).
Provided you install wide pavements with bollards to prevent vehicles mounting them. Have frequent pedestrian crossings, so minimising dislocation of pedestrian routes and slowing traffic down.
Whether or not you have pedestrian only periods should depend on just how many pedestrians are using the streets in peak periods. Tony may be right that the opening of new areas such as PSDA will reduce the pedestrian density in streets such as Church and Lord Streets (there is the counter argument that the expansion of the shopping centre will achieve a critical mass that will greatly increase the attractiveness of the whole centre).
Allowing vehicle access to as much of the city centre as possible is a good thing as it means that there is far better access to all areas (bus services were far more direct in the pre-pedestrian, one way street days and bus stops were far nearer the places that people wanted to go), deliveries to shops are easier (although that does need control) and the streets become safer at night as they can be policed from patrol cars and there are generally more people around to keep an eye on things.
I do believe that in a city centre, the pedestrian should have priority but I also think that the emphasis should be on allowing vehicle access to all streets were it can be accommodated without causing major inconvenience to people on foot (I would not suggest de-pedestrianising Mathew Street for example).
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Church St is dead after the shops close. Perhaps re-introducing traffic will make it more of a bars and restaurants type of Street- like Bold Street. PSDA could do with having a happening night time artery near by once it opens up. It will do the city centre no favours to have PSDA, Bold St and other areas all broken up by this desolate, un-used through fare.
The point about crime is a good one too. It is not just that police cars cannot patrol it- it is also that there is nobody around. It may help to reduce insurance costs to retailers, and reduce the need for these horrible shutters if the place is frequented and observed more at night. In fact, I think pedestrianisation has been a disaster in many ways. Apart from the obvious fact that people get to walk more erratically as things are now.
LCC should seriously consider opening the place up.
The point about crime is a good one too. It is not just that police cars cannot patrol it- it is also that there is nobody around. It may help to reduce insurance costs to retailers, and reduce the need for these horrible shutters if the place is frequented and observed more at night. In fact, I think pedestrianisation has been a disaster in many ways. Apart from the obvious fact that people get to walk more erratically as things are now.
LCC should seriously consider opening the place up.
Joined
·
13,488 Posts
We could get a virtuous circle operating here. More people means less crime. Less crime means shutters can be taken down. Shutters taken down means the street is more attractive. A more attractive street means more people will use it.Blabbernsmoke said:
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Join the discussion
