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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

• Waterside’s Impending Future

Multi-Modal Transportation Center Full Build Out Concept and Development Sites along Connecting Routes

Norfolk is moving forward with planning and financing a new multi-modal transportation center Downtown. Excellent idea. The plan is to have it ready to open once Amtrak rolls in in three years. It is very exciting. Combining the news of Virginia Beach’s move toward urbanism and I get the idea that our area is actually maturing as a metropolitan area. The one thing that scared me for a minute, though, was where it said,

“In addition, a new bus transfer facility would be developed, moving about two-thirds of buses from the current location at Cedar Grove north of downtown on Monticello Avenue.”

I was worried that might mean that Norfolk was going to keep 1/3 of the buses at Cedar Grove. Fear not. According to the full report by the City,

At present, 17 routes on the HRT network serve the Cedar Grove site, and be-tween 6,000 – 7,000 passengers board or alight daily at the facility. The general conditions of the Cedar Grove site combined with its lack of amenities, poor pedestrian link-ages and connections, and also its remoteness from downtown activity centers combine to make the restructuring of the primary bus transfer operation in Norfolk a high priority. Its lack of a direct connection to the light rail corridor is also another detriment of the current site. … It is planned that the new bus transfer operation at the Multi-Modal Transportation Center will serve 9 current HRT bus routes operating to the Downtown Norfolk area generally from areas to the south and east. Concurrent to this restructuring of the transit network, 6 other bus routes to the downtown area from the west and north would also be realigned to serve other light rail stations which will help to further deemphasize and limit congestion at the Cedar Grove site and thereby improving passenger service and convenience across the entire bus transit network.

That mean 15 out of 17 buses will no longer serve Cedar Grove. I hope the other two will only serve it by driving by. Thinking about it, this actually shows some intelligence on the part of Norfolk city officials. They publicly recognize that Cedar Grove  is a terrible place for a bus transfer point. Ignoring the fact that the city is solely responsible for Cedar Grove, I have to give someone credit on this one. One problem. In the build-out image above, the nice, new bus transfer location has been built over with a parking garage. Check it out yourself:

Where did our bus transfer point go?

Image Property of http://www.ourfuturevb.com/

Check out OurFutureVB.com and will will find a very useful website that VB has developed for its residents to educate themselves. I have to say, compared to Norfolk’s effort, this is spectacular. Norfolk’s last Comprehensive Plan was created in 1992. Norfolk apparently is working on a new one, however, the last new info posted on the website was at the end of 2008. Considering that the public review period is supposed to have been completed in June, I’m going out on a limb and saying that they might not be close to finishing. I have sent an email to the planning department to get more info.

This is not the only option. As I said in my last post about this court projects, they have an option to build a tower in the middle of the current building, saving space and money compared to using the Granby Tower site. Please read Just Say NO to Federal Courthouse Plan.

Despite the negative comments on PilotOnline, light rail will be a benefit to Virginia Beach. However, it will not reduce the number of cars currently on the road. That is not the point of the light rail. The congestion reduction aspect comes into play when Virginia Beach’s “Strategic Growth Areas” begin to expand. Six of VB’s eight SGAs center around the proposed light rail stops. The most important one so far is the Pembroke SGA, which includes Town Center. The residents of Town Center did not move there because they wanted to continue a highway-oriented, suburbanite lifestyle. They moved there for the urban feel. With light rail, that urban feel will grow around each station. Urban residents don’t mind public transit. That is why they are urban residents. Even reformed suburbanites re-evaluate their position on public transit once it becomes convenient for them. People, regardless of where they live, chose what their mode of transportation based on what is cheapest and most convenient. In a mostly suburban area like HR, cars fit this description. While public transportation is definitely cheaper than car use, the convenience of the car far out weighs the cost-effectiveness of the transit. As transit in HR gets more reliable, efficient, and convenient, ridership will increase.

The Waterside

Norfolk has finally announced that it will start a 10-month-long public input period for the future of Waterside. According to the Virginian-Pilot, Mayor Fraim wants to keep the facility open to the public. This could be a step in the right direction. First, Norfolk has finally decided to listen to its own residents instead of some consultant that lives in another state. I really think that the current structure of Waterside can be utilized with the proper renovations. Before I expand on my vision for Waterside, I want to quote the prayer that was said for Waterside’s opening. The prayer was delivered by then-Vice Mayor and Reverend for Grace Episcopal Church, Rev. Joseph N. Green Jr.

Almighty God, You have given us this good land for our heritage. Make us a people mindful of Your favor and glad to do Your will. Continue to bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Bless those whom You have given the authority of government. And bless this place, Waterside. Father, in the beginning you moved over the waters in creation to cause the whole world to come into being. You led the children of Israel out of their bondage and slavery to the land of promise through water. And just as You have created us and we went away from You, You welcomed us back, and called us whenever we went astray to come and return. We began at the water but went away from You, and You called us to return to this place, to this Waterside, to build our future. May it be a place of joy, a place where men and women, boys and girls, old and young, black and white, Jews and gentiles, will gather as one people and one city. Set it aside for our use and all our people we pray in your name. Amen.

We need to look back on this prayer as more of a prayer. This is a vision statement. Waterside was built as a place that all residents and visitors could come and have a good time, regardless of gender, age, race, religion, or economic standing. This is what we need to strive towards again. Waterside seems to have turned into a place where only young drunks can enjoy themselves. The city has shut down some of that, however, and with sporadic renovations, it has turned into a place where the homeless can enjoy a comfortable nap.

Waterside cannot and should not be turned into a shopping destination. It would only compete with (and most likely lose to) MacArthur Center. It has to become a mix of local places with the aim of having something for everybody. Small shops, a locally owned convenience store or newsstand, a locally owned seafood/fresh food restaurant, a couple of clothing stores, a bag/purse store, etc. Originally, Waterside had stores like gift shops, clothing stores, a kite store, a collectible store, an other hard-to-find places. It could be returned to that. Despite popular belief, our area is full of small entrepreneurs who would love to be in a renovated Waterside. The most important thing, in my opinion, is the view. Waterside was created to give the everyday resident access to the waterfront view that was too often too expensive to see in other cities. Waterside still has a good view… from the outside. The original Waterside had an open interior similar to MacArthur Center, allowing the second floor patrons to look down onto the floor below. The second floor, instead of being closed of and made up of one or two large businesses that are only open at night, was made up of small shops. Each of these shops had large glass windows on the inside and the outside, allowing visitors to see the river from any place inside Waterside.

View of Harbor from Waterside

Waterside can once again be a major attraction. If you add in the proper pedestrian connections between Waterside and MacArthur Center (and the LRT station), Waterside could once again spur an influx in investment. This time, however, in the street level spaces around the financial district.