Norfolk Development
A Pedestrian Downtown – Advanced I
Jan 5th
Now that we have established the basic concepts that the City should follow, lets look at specifics. First, everybody should know that according to VA law, a crosswalk can be marked or unmarked at any intersection or marked at any other place on a roadway. Additionally, drivers must stop for pedestrians crossing at any marked or unmarked crosswalk when the speed of the road is greater than 35 MPH. Since most drivers in Virginia seem to be completely ignorant of these laws, marked crosswalks are the best choice Downtown, since they can be easily recognized. Regular use of the “State Law: Yield to Pedestrians” signage would also be helpful. Next, as I said before, sidewalks should flow through crosswalks at logical places to make the pedestrian grid as effective as the street grid. Overall, Norfolk has done a decent job. Unfortunately, the city has taken the cheap way out on multiple occasions. Take the intersection of Main St. and Martins Ln. Its a simple ‘T’ intersection, but the city only gave it 2/3 of its crossings.
Main St. & Martins Ln.: an incomplete crosswalk block. (c) Google
It may not seem like a big deal. A person walking north on the west side of Martins Ln. could, conceivably, cross Martins Ln. and then cross Main St. (red lines). That isn’t human nature, though. Human nature dictates that one would take the least complex route (green lines), which would, of course, be more dangerous, since drivers are not watching unmarked crosswalks. Norfolk needs to show city pedestrians that they are important by going the extra mile to include them to the same extent as they include motor vehicles. There are a number of intersections that need full crosswalk blocks:
- Main St. & Martins Ln.
- York St. & Dunmore St.
- York St. & Yarmouth St.
- Brambleton Blvd. & Yarmouth St.
- Bute St. & Yarmouth St.
- York St. & Duke St. *
- Brambleton Blvd. & Boush St. *
- Granby St. & Bute St. *
- Charlotte St. & Bute St.
- Charlotte St. & Monticello Ave.
- Charlotte St. & Bank St.
- Bute St. & Monticello Ave.
- Bute St. & St. Pauls Blvd.
- Freemason St. & St. Pauls Blvd.
- Market St. & St. Pauls Blvd.
- Cumberland St. & Market St.
- Cumberland St. & City Hall Ave.
- Atlantic St. & Waterside Dr.
- Waterside Dr. & Martins Ln.
- Plume St. & Boush St.
- Brooke Ave. & Boush St.
- Brooke Ave. & Granby St.
- Tazewell St. & Granby St.
- Tazewell St. & Monticello Ave.
- Market St. & Granby St.
- Freemason St. & Monticello Ave.
- Main St. & Union St.
- Main St. & East St.
Think that’s alot? That’s just the regular intersections. There are an additional number of mid-block crosswalks that would complete the pedestrian grid. The crosswalks, especially on narrow streets such as Granby, should be raised to the level of the sidewalk. This would serve to keep vehicles from speeding as well as increase the ease of mobility for people in wheelchairs. Looking past the crosswalks, however, there are a number of other items on the list to make the Downtown district more pedestrian friendly.
While normally I would loath what a shopping mall stands for, take a minute and think about the amenities a mall provides for its customers. Take MacArthur Center, which I consider the best of the area’s malls, and the customer comforts it offers. First and foremost, a good, knowledgeable customer service desk sits at a convenient, central location. A good building services company takes care to make sure the building looks clean day in and day out. Security maintains a safe atmosphere and compliments customer service. As for direct amenities, there are safe, clean public restrooms, water fountains, and plentiful seating areas. All of these elements should be modeled in the general Downtown area.For all intents and purposes, Downtown should be looked at as a single unit, just like a mall looks at itself. Downtown’s users should be considered ‘customers’ and each should be treated as such.
The DNC does offer some of these services, but they need to be expanded. The number of ambassadors should increase and they should be branded as a customer and security services group. This fact should be advertised so that pedestrians feel safe in life and property as well as safe in the fact that they don’t have to worry about getting lost. Their cleaning crew should also be expanded to make sure the district looks good. The city should also work to identify at least two public restroom sites Downtown. One should be in the vicinity of TCC and the other should be in the Bank of America vicinity. These facilities could be shared with or sponsored by a third party group, which would help cover the costs of cleaning and maintenance. Public water fountains should be located every couple of blocks for pedestrian convenience. Privately-owned, publicly-accessible vending machines should be encouraged. Benches and garbage/recycling receptacles should be placed very liberally.
That concludes the design factors that contribute to a friendly pedestrian district. Next topic will be regarding larger projects that increase the quantity of pedestrians in addition to enhancing their experience.
A Pedestrian Downtown – The Basics
Jan 2nd
Currently, the city has made some effort to increase Downtown’s ease-of-use for pedestrians. Unfortunately, most of this is done with an effort to keep the flow of traffic at a brisk pace. I say unfortunately because pedestrian ease-of-use and high traffic flow are completely contradictory. Pedestrian use increases when people feel safe. This perception of safety depends on slow moving cars, frequent crosswalks, and barriers between people and vehicle. Free-flowing vehicular traffic depends on complete separation between cars and people along with giving vehicle traffic priority. Despite the new light rail, Downtown Norfolk’s mobility system is still geared toward vehicle traffic.
First, think about the light rail itself. The Tide should not have to stop at traffic signals. It should always have priority. This stopping really makes no sense at rush hour, when vehicle traffic is stopped anyway. Second, the pedestrian transportation network (i.e. the sidewalks and crosswalks) should be given the same consideration as the vehicular transportation network (i.e. roads). A road would never be allowed to simply end with no signage or alternatives. A road would never be allowed to have obstacles in the middle. You would never approach a busy intersection in you car only to find that there was no intersection. No traffic lights, markings, or even roadway. For some reason, however, Norfolk allows similar problems to exist within the pedestrian network. Sidewalks throughout the city end at seemingly random places. Even in places where they spend more time and money, there are problems. On my last visit, I noticed that, at the Monticello Ave LRT station, the crosswalk did not connect from the station to the east side of Monticello. In fact, it could not connect: the accessible ramp to the sidewalk by the WF building did not line up with the crosswalk from the station to the west side of the street. Furthermore, there was no crosswalk across Freemason from WF to the mall. This is supposed to be the New Norfolk, full of pedestrian friendly amenities. Where are the basics?
Every sidewalk should flow in a logical way. They should not perplex their users or hinder their movement. That is the foundation for a high quality pedestrian network. Follow it up with adequate benches and public restrooms and Norfolk will be on its way to a world-class pedestrian-oriented Downtown.
Yet Another Idea for Waterside
Oct 23rd
In brainstorming more ideas for Waterside, I like to try to find current example from other cities that we could adapt and make our own. I certainly don’t want to copy something; I want to make sure that whatever Waterside becomes, it is truly ours and not somebody else’s. With that in mind, let’s look at EpiCentre, a development in Charlotte, NC. The development consists of nightlife, restaurants, a movie theater, a bowling alley, a rooftop entertainment venue, and a direct connection to a hotel. So far, it has been fairly successful. Like many developments, it has gone through some rough legal patches with lawsuits and such but, overall, it is a great project. It include many aspects that I think would be a great fit for Waterside. In fact, if an EpiCentre-style development was planned well and financed, I might even consider supporting the demolition of Waterside.
Keep in mind that I want a visible plan, signed tenants, and secure financing before a bulldozer even gets near Waterside, but here is my idea:
The developer of EpiCentre, The Ghazi Company, apparently has a good relationship with Starwood Hotels & Resorts, which is why they frequently use Aloft Hotels in their developments. Starwood conveniently owns Sheraton Hotels. In other words, if a company such as Ghazi were to redevelop Waterside, we could utilize the entire strip of land from Dominion Tower to the plaza by the Spirit of Norfolk. A new development could have street-front restaurants and shops on Waterside Drive and waterfront restaurants and hangouts on the Elizabeth River. The development could keep the marina and even include it into the development. The EpiCentre development has a 5-screen theater that closes to under-18s at night and allows adults to purchase beer, wine, and other adult beverages during their movie. That would be something Waterside could handle. The new Waterside could be family-oriented by day and a young adult hotspot at night. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It could include a new hotel to replace the aging Sheraton. It could also include moderately priced condos and apartments priced in the young adult price range.
Another positive feature of the EpiCentre development was that they partnered with a restaurant management company called Bar Management Group. While I could find very little on the company or its portfolio, I can tell by the diversity and quality of the establishments they secured for EpiCentre that they are a quality company worth using. They can bring in the precise type of eating and entertainment establishments that we want.
The endgame that we should try to produce is a mixed-use facility that showcases the waterfront and is not cut off from the rest of downtown. The ground floor of the Waterside garage could be renovated and remade to include at least a couple of ground floor establishments. The rest of the garage could be artfully decorated so as to make it less of a dead wall. It has to have establishments that cater to all price ranges, so that it keeps the original purpose for Waterside.
Downtown Progress
Sep 27th
For example, think about how you would go to Harbor Park. Water St., Park Ave., and Union St./E. Main St. are the main entry points. Now think about the surrounding area. Both Tidewater Drive and E. City Hall Ave. both point directly at the Park but the no longer connect, thanks to the Interstate. Also, there is a rarely used exit ramp from I-264 that exits onto Claiborne Ave. that has the potential to assist in getting people to the Park without further clogging E. Brambleton Ave. Unfortunately, Claiborne Ave. has to go through residential-sized roads only to have to merge back into Park Ave. The MMTC plan would fix these issues. Tidewater Drive and E. City Hall Ave. would connect directly to Park Ave. There would also be a new road built to connect Claiborne to additional parking on that side of the railroad tracks.
On the SPQ side, there are also a number of new connections. The roadways that go through the public housing were designed to not connect. This may be good for keeping poor people from getting out (which doesn’t actually help anybody) but it is bad for a pedestrian-friendly, mixed use development. The SPQ plan would fix this. It would restore a grid system of roads and reconnect the SPQ area to Brambleton Ave. and to Tidewater Drive.
These projects are big news for Norfolk. Both will feed off of each other and off of Downtown. These two projects will nearly double the size of Downtown. Now we just need to get them built. The MMTC has a good chance of getting started if Norfolk gets award the federal grant they applied for. The SPQ, however, appears to still be in limbo. When the project was released, the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority decided they wanted to slow things down. Despite their successes in Broad Creek, they seem to still think that they can better serve their clients by containing them in poverty rather than allowing them to mingle with the middle class.
Regardless, since most people don’t read the studies and plans that the city releases, I wanted to make it easy. I have created a map below that shows the major points of both the SPQ and the MMTC combined. Let me know what you think. Click on something and it should tell you what it is.
If you want to read the actual plans from the City, you can view the MMTC plan here and the SPQ plan here.
Don’t Tear Down Waterside
Sep 25th
To City of Norfolk: don’t tear down Waterside. Waterside has problems, yes, but it is not irreparable. Waterside started as a public/private partnership. It was successful. I think that with the right leadership and a new public/private partnership, Waterside can be made anew. It should be a place that people, particularly families, can go in the evenings and weekends and have good, clean fun. It should have a couple of good, independent restaurants that are open to the waterfront. It should have a coffee shop/café where downtown workers can take a relaxing lunch break on the water. Above all else, remember that this is WATERside. You should be able to have an open view of the water from almost anywhere in the building.
Previous Waterside:
