Wayfinding in Edmonton inches forward

At Executive Committee today, Councillors discussed a report which outlined why wayfinding is important, a strategy for moving it forward, and initial implementation options and costs.

Edmonton has very little wayfinding information for citizens or tourists and what we do have is confusing and lacks consistency. It has become clear that our city’s haphazard implementation of wayfinding within the pedway system is a disaster and is a mistake we should not repeat. The City’s push to see Edmontonians shift transportation modes is another big reason to support this initiative – finding your way around can be difficult if you’re not in a car. As Edmonton grows and attracts both more residents and visitors, the problem is only going to get worse. And like most things, the longer we wait to do the work required, the more it’ll probably cost.

wayfinding

The good news is that the City seems committed to doing something with wayfinding in a coordinated, strategic way. Administration understands and has articulated the benefits of wayfinding. The risk is that the funding to do it right may not be available.

Here’s an audio overview of today’s meeting & news:

You can download the cloudcast here.

Hooray for citizen action!

Would the City have come around to this position without citizen action? Perhaps eventually. But without question, the work of the Edmonton Wayfinding Project has had a significant impact. They’ve engaged citizens, they’ve conducted surveys and have done some other public engagement work, they have connected with experts in other cities, and they have pushed for collaboration with City Administration. Perhaps most importantly, they’ve shone the light on a topic that could have easily been ignored, and for no reason other than they want to make Edmonton a better place to live and visit.

The founder of the project, Tim Querengesser, was at Council today to speak to the report and to make his group’s case for the importance of progressing this work. The group published a discussion document today as well, which concluded:

“The Edmonton Wayfinding Society recommends City Council support the reports it is examining and follow their recommendations, with one caveat. The Society recommends the City reconfigure the roadmap toward a unifying wayfinding system for Edmonton to include the pedway/LRT system. Further, the Society recommends that its volunteer-driven research suggests a comprehensive study of pedway users, attitudes and behaviours is badly needed to create a wayfinding system that works in all nodes of Edmonton’s transportation infrastructure. In the interim, the Society also recommends that Edmonton introduce, immediately, guidelines for all new developments that add wayfinding as a factor that is examined. “

Be sure to follow @WayfindYEG on Twitter for updates.

Concern about costs

Today’s report included both a business case and a detailed strategy. The two hefty documents (a combined 97 pages) provide all of the necessary background and detail that you could hope for. The opening paragraph of the business case highlights one of the big problems with wayfinding efforts in Edmonton in the past:

“There have been several attempts to create a corporate wayfinding program in the City of Edmonton which have failed at the value for money decision. While it is understood generally that wayfinding offers many benefits to a growing city, it has not so far obtained support as a priority for the investment needed for citywide implementation.”

Cost dominated much of the discussion today too. Councillor Oshry in particular peppered Administration with questions about the cost of implementation, and argued after the meeting that we don’t need “the Buckingham Palace version of the signs.” He told the Sun that the proposed wayfinding strategy “seems excessive”. Mayor Iveson, however, said “to cheap out on these signs is probably a mistake.”

The overall cost of implementing the wayfinding strategy is estimated at around $10 million. That includes the development of signs, apps, plans, artwork, and more. It also includes the rollout of hundreds of physical signs. A big chunk of that cost, $5.5 million, is for the installation of maps at each existing LRT or transit station. Options for funding the project include: direct funding, which Council would need to approve; incremental funding, which would mean signs only appear as projects are completed; and revenue generation, which could be from sponsorship or advertising. Rollout options were also discussed, such as focused on downtown first and other areas later.

The business case concludes that “a pedestran-focused wayfinding system in Edmonton offers a positive benefit to cost proposition” and that “wayfinding has been shown to be a cost-effective means to overcome barriers to modal shift, a way to improve the local economy and a contributor to overall city liveability.”

Design standards

A lot of design work has already been done, which you can see in the report but also in the prototype signs that were installed around Churchill Square back in April. Future signs will include both “Walk Edmonton” and the City of Edmonton brand, and they’ll likely look a bit different than the prototype signs based on feedback and other lessons.

wayfinding

Icons are meant to be based on national or international standards, to ensure widespread recognition. The Benton Sans typeface is proposed for use across maps and signs, because it has good legibility at both large and small sizes, comes in a wide range of weights, and is a little more unique than Helvetica or other commonly used typfaces.

wayfinding

Consideration has already been given to colors, themes, cartographic elements (like the “you are here” markers), 3D landmarks, and incorporating the pedway.

Governance and maintenance

There was some discussion today about the need for a wayfinding czar, or as the detailed strategy calls the position, a “Wayfinding System Manager”. Harry Finnigan, who worked on wayfinding in Winnipeg and who spoke at Council today, said he wished they had implemented a similar position in Winnipeg. Ultimately though, Administration today decided they would rather have a team of people take responsibility for wayfinding, and Council didn’t push the point.

wayfinding

On the topic of maintenance and operations, the strategy identifies the importance of both a procurement strategy to efficiently buy and maintain signage, and an asset management database, to record information about each sign. That database of information is sorely lacking from the pedway system currently, and would certainly be important to have going forward.

The wayfinding strategy will be managed by Walkable Edmonton, under the Walk Edmonton brand. ETS and Great Neighbourhoods are the two main internal partners. Mayor Iveson also suggested that the Edmonton Design Committee be involved.

What’s next?

To some degree, the City is going to move ahead with its efforts to develop the corporate wayfinding program. At some point however, more funding will be required. There are four capital profiles being recommended for funding in the proposed 2015-2018 Capital Budget, which is when we’ll likely hear about wayfinding next. If those four profiles were funded, that would enable the City to complete roughly 60% of the wayfinding strategy.

That means Edmontonians need to keep pushing for wayfinding if they think it is important! Tell your Councillor if you want to see more funding go into this important project.

For more on wayfinding, check out the City of Edmonton’s website here and the Edmonton Wayfinding Project here.

City Council takes a step in the wrong direction by supporting the Galleria Project

Well it just wouldn’t be a high-profile project without Council doing most of its deliberations in-camera (private) now would it? That’s exactly what Council did again tonight in considering the Galleria Project (items 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). It’s a worrying trend.

Essentially what Council decided to do was move forward with building the pedway, at an amount of up to $30 million, and that it would purchase the necessary land and relocate the EPSB Maintenance Building at a cost of about $33 million, pending written confirmation from tenants of the project. This doesn’t mean the Galleria Project is a done deal, but it is a significant step in that direction. And I think it’s a step in the wrong direction, at least at this time.

Here’s the motion as passed this evening:

That the Capital Profile number 14-17-5037 in Attachment 2 of the April 15, 2014, of the Sustainable Development report CR_1065, be amended to a total cost of $30 million.
That subject to an agreement to share the total cost of construction for the Pedway, approved by Council, with land owners north of 103A Avenue benefitting from the construction of the Pedway Connection to the Royal Alberta Museum:
1. the amended Capital Profile number 14-17-5037 to fund the Pedway, be approved, and
2. a contract with Ledcor Construction in the amount of $4.4 million for the design for the construction of the Pedway, as outlined in the April 15, 2014, Sustainable Development report CR_1065, be approved, and the contract be in form and content acceptable to the City Manager.
That the Galleria Project – Downtown Academic and Cultural Centre be acknowledged as an innovative development opportunity in downtown Edmonton and subject to the City receiving written confirmation of financing and financial commitment for the Galleria Project from the Province of Alberta for the University of Alberta, a major office building tenant, other office building tenants, and retail tenants, that the purchase of land and relocation of the Edmonton Public School Board Maintenance Building and Capital Profile number 14-17-5031, as set out in Attachment 1 of the April 15, 2014, Sustainable Development report CR_1066, be approved.

Wasn’t this project supposed to be mostly paid for by donations? Yet here we are, with the City taking on much of the upfront risk.

Galleria Project

Council decided on all of this after receiving a report full of potential risks. Here are some excerpts from one of the reports that Council considered today on the Galleria Project (emphasis is mine):

“The Foundation initially requested financial support for the Galleria roof, but has withdrawn that request given the preliminary state of the project and the absence of a clear design or plan.”
“The University of Alberta has confirmed its intention to relocate the School of Music and Department of Art and Design to the site, bringing potentially 5,000 additional staff and students to downtown. This relocation is conditional upon direct, climate controlled connection to the LRT (i.e. an underground pedway connection to Churchill Station).”
“On February 18, 2014, as a result of revised cost estimates for the pedway construction and land purchase, the Foundation requested additional funding that reflected the increased cost estimates. In addition, because of the design and construction schedule for the Royal Alberta Museum, the City was asked to fund the pedway design and associated utility relocations immediately. This work cannot be deferred to a later date.”
“In order to purchase the School Board property, the City will be responsible for all costs to relocate the School Board Maintenance Building Operations to an alternate site.”
“In order to protect for the opportunity to connect both the Royal Alberta Museum, the Galleria, and other new development north of 103 A Avenue directly to Churchill LRT Station, the decision to proceed with the design of the pedway, the commencement of required utility relocations, and commitment to construct the shell under the Museum forecourt must be made now.“
“The request to the City to contribute towards the construction of a roof over the Galleria has been removed. The Foundation may return with a request for assistance at a later date once more information is available. It is considered premature to consider any additional funding for this component until the project further evolves.”
“The business case as developed by the Foundation identifies that the source of funding for the Trust, and in turn for the theatres, is from the revenues generated by the office space and retail leasing on the property. In the event that the revenues are not realized, then while there is no legal obligation for the City to assume the operation of the theatres, there is a risk that the City could be asked to provide financial assistance in order for the theatres to continue to operate.”
“It is difficult to define and quantify risks at this time as this project is still at the concept design stage. The Foundation has provided what information it has, but there is not sufficient information available to fully address many of the issues identified for clarification.”
“Critical assumptions have been made relative to office and retail lease rates, rate of office space absorption, retail market demand, financing costs, construction costs, fundraising commitments and availability of government grants. Should any of the assumptions made in the business case not be realized, there is a risk that the funding to build, operate and maintain the theatres will not be sufficient to achieve the goal of providing affordable space to the arts community.”
“While the Foundation is confident in their ability to secure an anchor tenant for the office tower as well as several additional tenants, no proposed tenants are under contract.”
“With several new office towers having recently been announced or underway in the downtown, vacancy rates are expected to rise, and given the existing vacancy within the EPCOR Tower, the ability to secure tenants in a short time frame is considered to be a significant risk.”
“Costs for the theatres are difficult to estimate as they are subject to considerable range depending upon the design; however the costs are at the low end of the range of recent theatre construction in Calgary and Toronto.”
“The Foundation or Cultural Trust will offset the anticipated net operating loss of the theatres with diverse and dedicated revenue streams from office and retail rental rates from the larger Galleria project. There is no contingent plan contemplated to continue the operations of the theatres if the projected revenues are not realized.”

Nevermind that the original business case called the four new theatres “financially self-sustaining”. Guess not. Or that it declared the project was “feasible” and “sustainable” or that it would “generate significant revenue.” Unless of course the assumptions are wrong. Or worst of all, that the City wouldn’t have to put in much money, because it was a unique “P4” model. Right.

Somehow, after discussing the project behind closed doors, Council was able to look past all of that risk and concern (not to mention the ultimatum about needing to decide today) to support the project. Furthermore, many of them made a point of expressing their support verbally, as if the proponents might see the motion not as a victory but as a loss.

Councillor Henderson called it “a remarkable opportunity for the city.” Councillor Esslinger called it “an exciting project.” Councillor Sohi said it was “a very innovative development opportunity.” Only Councillor Knack spoke partially against the motion, suggesting that it should be compared against other projects up for consideration as part of the next Capital Budget. Mayor Iveson too pointed out that more assurances are needed, but said “it’s entirely appropriate to further explore” the project. He said it’s a “very exciting concept.”

Councillor McKeen made the motion, and used his remarks in part to justify the use of an in-camera session. He essentially asked us to trust Council, to take their word for it that the proponents did their homework. I fully appreciate the sensitivity around confidential information that doesn’t belong to the City, but I fail to see why that means the entire discussion needs to be had in private.

Furthermore, Councillor McKeen said “I think we’re asking a lot of the proponent” and added “we have spent a lot of time on this.” Really? Given the glaring holes in the proposal and self-admission that it is still extremely preliminary, I don’t think Council is asking much of the folks behind the Gallera Project at all. And I certainly don’t think Council has spent “a lot” of time on this project, unless it all happened behind the scenes.

In general I think the land investment by the City is a good thing – I’d rather have the City own it than some speculator or foreign investor who will just leave an ugly and unsafe surface parking lot on it. I think it also makes sense for the City to be a key player in land assembly for big projects. But aside from that, I’m really at a loss for why this should proceed with City funding.

The word most commonly used by Council tonight to describe the project was “innovative”. They all seemed to find the proposed Cultural Trust especially appealing, despite the risk that it may never come to fruition if the anticipated revenues from the office space and retail leasing don’t pan out. Unfortunately no questions were asked about the success of such initiatives in other cities throughout North America. No questions were asked about the likelihood that such a scheme would work here in Edmonton.

Only one question came up about whether the project as proposed would actually meet the needs of the arts community. No one asked why other arts organizations aren’t lining up to support the project, however.

At no point in the brief public discussion tonight did any question come up about the potential impact this project could have on the arena, located directly across 101 Street. This despite the fact that both projects need significant retail leasing to happen in order to succeed, which means they’ll be competing against one another.

Galleria Project

And most importantly, no consideration appeared to be given as to whether or not this is the way we want to build our city. Is moving billion dollar projects around like lego pieces really the way to do it? Shouldn’t there be some concern about how they’ll all work together? Or maybe some sort of bigger vision or plan? At the very least, shouldn’t we understand whether or not we can afford the worst case scenario?

I’m all for building downtown and the positive vision that Council has for Edmonton. I fully appreciate the incredible work that Dianne and Irving Kipnes have done and will continue to do in Edmonton. But I’m finding it incredibly difficult to support the Galleria Project as it has currently been proposed.

Edmonton’s Pedway: Wayfinding

This is the third part in a series of posts looking at the past, present, and future of Edmonton’s pedway network.

Have you ever gotten lost in the pedway? You wouldn’t be the first to do so.

In the late 1970s, the City began to think about how to make the pedway more usable, and navigational information (known today as wayfinding) was to play a big part of that. The Pedway Concept Plan of 1976 called for “a standardized information guide applied throughout the system, including directional signs, maps, route directories, and general information signs” and “identification for individual commercial frontages.”

In March 1989, the City published the Downtown Pedway Network Review which highlighted the need for improved signage. “There is a need to develop and implement a directional and information signage program for the pedway network,” it said. “The 1987 pedway user survey revealed that users generally were unaware of the extent of the pedway network beyond a few specific areas.” As is often the case with the City, there was already a project underway to improve the signage when the report came out.

In 1987 the City of Edmonton entered into an agreement with Lance Wyman Ltd. for “consulting services in the area of the design of public signage and information systems.” Wyman has had extensive experience in designing branding and wayfinding systems, having worked on the Washington D.C. Metro maps, the Mexico City Metro icons and wayfinding, wayfinding for Midtown Detroit, and branding & wayfinding for Pennsylvania Station in New York City, among many other projects.

Edmonton’s pedway wasn’t the only project Wyman undertook in Alberta. He also designed the branding and wayfinding for Calgary’s +15 network. Here’s what he wrote about it in 2004:

“Symbols can participate with the environment in many ways and can enhance and make a wayfinding system work better. A symbol can be a reminder of history and a functional directional guide at the same time. The Calgary +15 Pedestrian skywalk symbol (bridges and walkways are 15 feet above grade) combines references to the city history and culture (local native Blackfoot star constellation circles, traditional white rodeo hat symbol) to establish a symbol that participates in all aspects of the wayfinding system. Circle patterns are also used to indicate the walking path on +15 maps, and are inlaid into the floors in contrasting materials to indicate the actual walkways. The consistent use of the circle patterns become familiar +15 wayfinding information and is a reference to Calgary history.”

In Edmonton, Wyman’s work was to proceed in three phases. The first would be Preliminary Design, during which data would be collected and Wyman would become familiar with the system. A concept for the pedway system logo, typography, and symbols would also be produced in the first phase. The second phase would be focused on detailed design, resulting in a manual and cost estimates for each element. The third phase would be a demonstration project. The total value of the contract, signed in December 1987, was $117,950.00. Only the first phase at $27,725.00 was funded at first; the other two phases were to proceed subject to funding approval from City Council. The work was to be completed by the fall of 1988.

Wyman eventually produced the City of Edmonton Pedway Signing & Graphics Manual (pictured above), which outlined the pedway network logo, iconography, and other design details. “The Helvetica system of typography was chosen for the Pedway to be compatible with the LRT signing system, which also uses the Helvetica system,” it reads.

pedway levels

Something that may not be immediately apparent is that the pedway logo itself comes in three versions, one for each level of the system. As Wyman puts it, “pedway logos inform pedestrians which of three walkway levels they are on; Subway, Street, or Skywalk.”

Another unique aspect of the design are the directional elements. “The signs give orientation using compass directions that incorporate familiar city landmarks; the North Star to the North, the refineries to the East, the river to the South, the view of the Rockies to the West.”

pedway directions

The manual includes design details on a wide array of different signs, including:

Flag Sign (sticks out from building)
Wall Sign (flat on building)
Elevator Button Sign
Pedestal Map
Wall Map
Waymarker Sign (mounted at baseboard level)
Stencil Sign (for paint applications)
Overhead Sign
Street Name Sign
LRT Sign (on the illuminated signs)
Entrance Decal (interestingly has different times for entrance hours)

The project was a relative success, and today the signage that Wyman designed can be seen throughout the network. In 1989, the Downtown Pedway Network Review recommended that the designs and signs “be incorporated into the existing portions of the Pedway Network and used in all future pedways.” Furthermore, it recommended that all development agreements should “require installation of this standardized signage system within the pedway link and throughout adjacent developments to ensure ease of access by pedway users.”

Over the years the signage rolled out, but it very quickly became out-of-date. As new buildings and connections appeared, they did not always follow the same format and some lacked signs altogether. There were long stretches of time during which the pedway map was not updated. Even today, the link to the Downtown Pedway Map on the City of Edmonton’s website takes you nowhere. Today’s system reflects a lack of ownership over the wayfinding aspects of the pedway, resulting in a mess of different signs and maps.

Twenty years after they first tackled the problem, Council decided to do something about wayfinding in the pedway. On November 18, 2009, Executive Committee directed Administration to work with the Downtown Business Association on addressing issues with the pedway, including “signage, way-finding, and new directions, including connections to outside streets.” An ad hoc pedway committee was formed shortly thereafter, and they identified “a system of standardized signage” as a key opportunity. The committee felt that a database should be created containing all of the relevant details about the pedway, so that it could serve as the basis for a web-based map to help people navigate the system.

The Downtown Pedway Committee was officially established in September 2010 with a mandate to “examine and address the challenges and opportunities” related to the pedway. The committee met six times throughout 2011 and focused their efforts on updating the existing pedway maps, a task they finally completed in March 2012 (you can download it in PDF here). Next they turned their attention to wayfinding.

“The major focus of the Committee has been the creation of an integrated way-finding signage system for the pedway network. A way-finding system performs the essential function of directing, informing and supporting movements that allow public spaces and buildings to function. Such a system is key to ensuring that people can access and use pedways and the transit system efficiently, conveniently and safely. A comprehensive way-finding system involves not only clear directional signage to smooth pedestrian flows, but also includes open spaces beyond the pedway network which extend throughout the downtown, resulting in a more open, uncluttered environment. A comprehensive way-finding system also includes connecting street level activity with the existing multi-level pedway system.”

The Pedway Committee made it clear that they felt improvements to the wayfinding system were necessary, especially given all of the other projects taking place in the downtown area:

“The Pedway Committee feels the time is right to start planning for an integrated way finding signage system for the pedway and throughout the downtown. The downtown is well-positioned to take advantage of this initiative.”

In November 2012 the Pedway Committee made a presentation about the business case for a wayfinding system. They identified “at least 78 different signage types” throughout the pedway network, including 13 in the library parkade alone!

They proposed a project with three phases to remedy the situaton. The first would be to do initial scoping and conceptual and detailed design. The second phase would focus on a pilot project, with the final phase including final design and rollout of the system beyond the pilot project area. Executive Committee was generally unimpressed with the presentation, and seemed shocked at the cost. The report estimated the cost of implementing such a project at $2 million, a figure based on similar projects that were recently implemented in Calgary and Toronto.

The source of that funding? The report recommended that the project be aligned with the “Green and Walkable Streets” project proposed as part of the downtown CRL. Unfortunately, when Council approved the list of catalyst projects that would be funded under the CRL on May 8, 2013, they broke Green and Walkable Streets into two. The first part, around the arena, was in the “recommended for initial funding” category. The second and much larger part, which includes any potential wayfinding project, was placed in the “to proceed on revenues actually realized” category. In other words, any improvements to the wayfinding system used throughout the pedway are for now dependent on the arena going ahead and the CRL being successful. Improvements may never happen.

So we’re stuck with the same old pedway signage and out-of-date information that has plagued downtown for the past twenty years. We’re stuck with PDF maps instead of mobile apps and other technological advances. And the situation could get even worse with the new arena, Royal Alberta Museum, and numerous other projects being constructed downtown with pedway connections.

It’s important to remember that wayfinding is about more than just signs. “An effective wayfinding system can be a visual ambassador, a means of saying ‘Welcome, let me help you find your way around and enjoy yourself’,” Lance Wyman wrote in 2004. “Wayfinding offers the designer an opportunity to reference the history, culture, and essence of place in an immediate way that will be seen and used on a daily basis.”

Edmonton’s Pedway: The Growth Years

This is the second part in a series of posts looking at the past, present, and future of Edmonton’s pedway network.

The pedway system we know today was largely built in the 1980s. According to the Edmonton Journal in 1990, projects with an estimated value of $679 million were completed between 1983 and 1989 downtown, including $20 million on Jasper Avenue, Rice Howard Way, and the pedway system.

One of the biggest projects was the extension of the LRT line, with construction on Bay and Corona stations beginning in 1980. Subterranean downtown Edmonton must have seemed like paradise in those days, because the LRT construction had an extremely large impact on downtown. Jasper Avenue was under construction for years, and that harmed businesses as much if not more than West Edmonton Mall (which first opened in 1981).

Downtown construction, photo by ETS

It wasn’t just the LRT being built though. Of the roughly 40 buildings downtown connected to the pedway, half were built between 1974 and 1984. More buildings were constructed in Edmonton during the 70s than any other decade. It’s no surprise then that the pedway grew significantly during the latter part of this period and in the years immediately following it (as pedway construction tended to lag building construction).

Following the completion of Edmonton Centre in 1974, a series of office towers followed. TD Tower opened in 1976, with the Sutton Place Hotel (Four Seasons Hotel) and 101 Street Tower (Oxford Tower) following in 1978. All three had connections to the pedway built. The Citadel Theatre and Sun Life Place also opened in 1978, and the Stanley Milner Library, constructed in 1967, was first added to the pedway network that year. Canadian Western Bank Place, HSBC Place, and the Standard Life Building all opened in 1980. ATCO Centre and Enbridge Place opened in 1981, followed by Bell Tower and Scotia Place in 1982. Manulife Place and the Shaw Conference Centre opened in 1983. Canada Place capped off a busy period of construction in 1986.

Pedway connections were often added years after a building was first completed. Scotia Place was connected via an above-ground bridge in 1990 when Commerce Place (Olympia & York) opened (though it already had an below-ground connection). The Royal Bank Building, built in 1965, didn’t get a pedway connection until April 1993, one month after an above-ground pedway was built connecting Manulife Place and Edmonton City Centre (Eaton’s Centre). Construction of these connections did not always go smoothly. The bridge connecting City Centre and Manulife was delayed for a variety of reasons, but one was that the hallway from City Centre did not line up with existing “knock-out” panels that Manulife Place had for future pedway construction. That meant blasting through a wall that was not designed to be opened. Still, the bridge came in at a relatively inexpensive $200,000 (the typical above-ground bridge could cost up to $500,000 at the time).

Existing & Approved pedway connections, ~1980

Downtown wasn’t the only place pedway-like connections were being built. A $64 million renovation of the Alberta Legislature grounds took place from 1978 to 1982, and one of the key features was an extensive underground pedway system. In the spring of 1985, the Business Building opened on the University of Alberta campus with an above-ground connection to Tory and HUB Mall. It would eventually be connected to the larger system in August 1992 when the University LRT Station opened featuring a below-ground connection to the Dental-Pharmacy Centre and above-ground bridge to HUB Mall.

Though connections continue to be added today, many Edmontonians considered the pedway “complete” in 1990 after two key projects. The first was the extension of the LRT to Grandin Station in 1989, finally linking the downtown pedway network with the Legislature pedway network. The second was much more controversial.

The pedway linking Edmonton Centre and Churchill LRT Station was often called “the final link” in the pedway network. When the City first put the project out for tender, no bid came in at the budgeted amount of $4.9 million. The lowest bid was 14% higher, bringing the cost to $6.2 million. The original design called for a glass wall and an amphitheatre under Churchill Square, in addition to the removal of 16 elm trees. Council requested that the design be tweaked and re-tendered. That delayed the project, but the plan worked. The pedway we know today was designed by MB Engineering Ltd. and constructed by Chandros Construction Ltd., right on the original $4.9 million budget.

Edmonton Centre contributed $600,000 of the budget, and insisted on the skylights and planter boxes. Jim Charuk, Edmonton VP of Oxford Development Group, said at the time that anything less would have become a “people sewer.” The pedway connection first opened for Christmas shoppers on December 14, 1990. It closed during January 1991 so that finishing touches could be put on the project. The pedway officially opened to the public on February 18, 1991.

With the addition of City Hall in 1992, the Winspear Centre in 1997, and the Art Gallery of Alberta in 2010, the downtown pedway network has continued to grow. But today’s network was largely built in the 80s, and it shows.

Edmonton’s Pedway: The Beginning

This is the first part in a series of posts looking at the past, present, and future of Edmonton’s pedway network.

For nearly 40 years Edmonton’s pedway system has been a fixture downtown. The maze of pedestrian walkways built above streets, through parkades, and under buildings has hosted parades, buskers, and even a pop-up restaurant over the years. It has kept office workers from having to step into the rain or snow, and it has served as an emergency shelter for our city’s most vulnerable during cold spells. Thousands of Edmontonians use the system each and every day, and while not universally loved, most Edmontonians can’t imagine our downtown without it.

Elevated walkways and other pedestrian-oriented urban planning concepts were becoming increasingly common in the 1960s in North America. Cities such as Chicago had started a pedway network as early as 1951. In Canada, Toronto led the way with PATH in 1959, followed just three years later by Underground City in Montreal. Eventually the idea moved west, and both Edmonton and Calgary started exploring the concept of a pedestrian circulation network in the late 1960s.

City Council paved the way for the pedway in Edmonton by approving the following recommendation on April 8, 1968:

“Council accepts the principle of a Downtown Pedestrian Circulation System as a guide to the future planning of pedestrian circulation in this area.”

Increasing concern about pedestrian safety played a key role in the recommendation, though it would be six years before the plan to separate pedestrians from vehicles became real. A working paper on the Downtown Pedestrian Circulation System published in 1980 offered this explanation: “Unlike streets, pedways cannot be laid out, constructed, and await development to occur around them.” The pedway has never had a master plan because no one owns it. Passages cannot be built until there are developments to connect, which makes the pedway a cooperative effort between a variety of developers, including the City.

Edmonton Centre opened in early 1974, and with it came Edmonton’s first pedway connections. It was the city’s first full-block development, and it featured both above-grade and below-grade pedways. The first above-grade pedway connected Edmonton Centre with the 14-level parkade across 102A Avenue. Connections were later added to Eaton’s (now City Centre West) and the Four Seasons Hotel (now Sutton Place).

Pictured top-left is Edmonton’s first above-ground pedway, photo of microfilm by Darrell

Over the summer of 1974, Council approved the City of Edmonton Transportation Plan Part 1. The document proposed “an enclosed walkway system” for the downtown and was an important step in the development of the pedway network.

That same year construction began on the LRT. Council had first endorsed the concept of a rapid rail transit system in 1968, and through a series of reports and debates the decision to go underground was made. That presented the challenge of ensuring smooth access from the street to the trains. To tackle it, the City approved a series of development agreements with nearby properties, and started building “climate-controlled linkages” which quickly became known as pedways.

In July of 1977, Council adopted the Pedway Concept Plan with the following motion:

“That the policy guidelines contained in the Pedway Concept Plan be adopted for future planning, design, security, maintenance, financing, operation, and implementation of a pedway network for Downtown Edmonton.”

According to the plan, the City had made “substantial investments to encourage construction of the pedway system” throughout the 1970s. However it also signaled that as acceptance of pedways increased and the network was built out, the City would no longer contribute financially. The pedway would have to evolve without the direct backing of the City.

The LRT began regular service on April 22, 1978, with Central and Churchill Stations all but guaranteeing the pedway would play a key role in moving people throughout Edmonton’s downtown for years to come.

Recap: Blink Edmonton, Pedway Pop-up

A month ago we held Blink, a pop-up restaurant that Sharon and I organized. On February 26, sixty people filled the pedway that connects Commerce Place and Scotia Place across 101 Street for a six-course meal. We sold out just twelve hours after tickets went on sale, and had a number of people on the waiting list. There’s certainly a hunger for unique experiences in Edmonton!

We had only minor glitches throughout the evening, and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. The food that Chef Tony Le and his team created was delicious, and I love that they were able to do something different. As Century Hospitality’s VP Culinary Paul Shufelt wrote in the Edmonton Sun:

Yearning for any opportunity to express our creativity. #Blinkyeg was just the opportunity we needed, a chance to create with far less limited boundaries.

Because of the space constraints of the venue, we needed to limit the tickets to 60 people. This allowed us to play with ingredients and techniques that were a little more obscure, and seen far less often on the everyday menu.

So with that in mind, we set out to assemble a menu that would allow us to express a different side of our creativity.

Sharon did a great job capturing the dishes and other details about the restaurant, so check out her recap for more.

We really wanted to hold Blink in a pedway because it fulfilled our desire to utilize a forgotten or under-appreciated space. Usually I speak against pedways, because I’d rather see people on the street than indoors, but they’re an important part of the overall pedestrian system downtown. And even if we succeed at making the streets more attractive, welcoming, and filled with shops and other reasons for people to use the sidewalks, the pedways aren’t going anywhere. So we might as well make the most of them!

As I mentioned in my post announcing Blink, the first hurdle was to figure out who owned the pedway and who we needed to get permission from. Fortunately the Downtown Business Association’s Jim Taylor was extremely helpful in that regard! He was able to track down the information and make the necessary introductions. As a member of the pedway committee, he was already working on gathering that information and they’ve made significant progress in the last year.

Last week, the Downtown Pedway Committee submitted its annual report to Executive Committee. Established in 2010, the pedway committee exists to examine and address the challenges & opportunities related to the downtown pedway network. While much of the committee’s initial work was focused simply on finding ownership, maintenance, history, and other information about the pedways (which culminated in the creation of a database), they are now starting to make some positive changes. By the end of Q2 this year, the committee hopes to have the existing maps updated throughout the system (with help from Edmonton Transit). And next on the list is an integrated way-finding signage system. The signs throughout the system are dated, some are incorrect, and they’re very inconsistent. Refreshing them also provides an opportunity to look ahead, by incorporating digital-friendly way-finding solutions (that was my initial feedback to the committee). All of those improvements will help make navigating downtown easier. And who knows, maybe we’ll see more exciting events take place in pedways!

Thanks again to everyone who had a hand in making Blink happen, especially the Downtown Business Association, the Downtown Edmonton Community League, GWL Realty Advisors, Morguard, and of course, Century Hospitality and everyone at Lux.

And thank you to everyone who bought tickets to Blink – you made it a success! Check out Sharon’s recap here, and you can see my photos here. We are in the process of planning another Blink, so stay tuned for updates!

Blink: Pedway Pop-up in Downtown Edmonton

On Sunday, February 26, 2012 we are transforming the pedway across 101 Street that connects Commerce Place and Scotia Place into a sixty seat pop-up restaurant called Blink. The single-night-only restaurant will feature a delicious six-course meal prepared by chefs Paul Shufelt and Tony Le of Century Hospitality/Lux. Sharon and I have been working on this for quite a while, so we’re very happy to announce that tickets are on sale now!

Pop-up restaurants are all the rage in major cities like New York and London and they’ve started to become popular elsewhere too. The term “pop-up restaurant” is used to mean various things, but I think about three main categories of pop-ups: kitchen takeovers (a chef takes over an existing restaurant’s kitchen and space to create something new), temporary dining spaces (there may not be a kitchen on-site, but some sort of space has been transformed into a dining room), and full-on temporary restaurants (empty spaces completely transformed into restaurants outfitted with kitchens for a short period of time). We’ve had some kitchen takeovers here in Edmonton, but Blink is the first temporary dining space (we’ll have to wait for our first full-on temporary restaurant, an undertaking which requires considerable expense).

When we started discussing the idea for Blink, Sharon was immediately drawn to a pedway. We both love the idea of utilizing forgotten or neglected spaces, so a pedway seemed perfect. When was the last time you stopped in a pedway to look out the window? We walked through the pedways downtown, looking for power outlets, measuring dimensions, etc. We had a few candidate bridges, but decided that we needed a chef on board with the idea first. Knowing that Lux was conveniently located in Commerce Place, we approached Tony and thankfully he agreed to take part in our project right away! That made narrowing the pedway choice down to the one connecting Commerce Place and Scotia Place much easier.

Next we worked on getting the necessary approvals in place. Jim Taylor, executive director of the Downtown Business Association, was incredibly helpful in that regard. He introduced us to the building managers, and helped us track down the owner of the pedway (we discovered as part of this process that ownership is uncertain for many parts of the pedway system). Everyone really liked the idea, so we quickly started working out the logistics. Thank you to the DBA, GWL Reality Advisors (on behalf of Commerce Place), Morguard Investments (on behalf of Scotia Place), and DECL for helping us make this pop-up restaurant happen!

We’ve got some work to do still, but our goal is for Blink to look and feel as much like a real restaurant as possible. We have decided to go with a communal table for seating, to enhance the experience of eating in a unique space with other Edmontonians. The menu makes my mouth water every time I read it, with dishes like confit rabbit pot pie and Alberta pickerel – where possible it features local ingredients. Tickets are $65, which I think is a great deal for six courses, and a cash bar will be available as well. The restaurant will open at 5pm for cocktails, with dinner service beginning at 6pm.

We hope to see you on February 26 at Blink in the pedway!

You can read Sharon’s post on Blink here.

Meet me on the bridge: The Edmonton City Centre Redevelopment

It was 1974 when City Centre Place was completed, part of the Edmonton Centre development across from Churchill Square. The shopping mall we now know as Edmonton City Centre has had an interesting history, to say the least. TD Tower was added to the complex in 1976, and Oxford Tower and the Sutton Place Hotel followed in 1978. As Christopher Leo notes (archive), downtown was the place to be back then:

In the 1970s, downtown Edmonton was the retail centre of the metropolitan area, and the city had a policy of sustaining that role by supporting the viability of residential neighbourhoods near the centre of the city and placing limits on the amount of permitted suburban shopping centre development.

The development of West Edmonton Mall by the Triple Five Corporation in the 1980s had a significant negative impact on downtown Edmonton, and on the City Centre mall in particular. The policy limiting suburban shopping centre development was forgotten. As a result, efforts to restore life to downtown began and Triple Five came along with a solution: Eaton Centre. Christopher has documented the ups and downs of that project very thoroughly, so suffice it to say that what was eventually built in 1987 was a mere shadow of the original vision.

The two malls staggered along until 1999 when the Eaton’s chain went bankrupt. It was around that time that Randy Ferguson came to Edmonton on a mission to straighten things out. He remembers his boss at Oxford Properties, Jon Love, telling him two things before he left. “Go get the job done in the best interest of the community and this company,” and “remember one thing: that’s my hometown”. Randy’s journey began on January 2, 2000.

“There was very little energy downtown,” he recalled. Eaton Centre and Edmonton Centre had separate identities. Thinking back to the amount of space they took up downtown Randy told me how he felt: “it was depressing.” He had a job to do however, and his first task was to convince the Oxford board that they should spend money in Edmonton, their weakest market. “We said, don’t think about this as a retail play.” Randy pointed out that 40% of the office space downtown fed into the property. Four office tower lobbies and two hotels directly. The board gave Randy the go-ahead, but with a budget of just $44 million.

Randy and his team made a number of big changes over the next few years. Randy felt that a department store facing Churchill Square was inappropriate, so they convinced The Bay to move to the other side of the mall, to the vacant Eaton’s location. They turned the basement of the now empty east side into a parkade, and managed to attract Sport Check, Winners, and CBC. There were challenges along the way, of course. In the fall of 2001, Randy had arranged to have the western executives in charge of CBC’s TV and Radio divisions come to Edmonton so that he could pitch the idea of consolidating CBC’s properties in the mall downtown. The morning of the presentation was September 11. Needless to say the deal didn’t happen until many months later!

Merging the separate Eaton Centre and Edmonton Centre identities was an important aspect of the redevelopment. Randy wanted to do something architecturally to combine the two properties, and thought about a pedway bridge. “I think our bridges are terrible,” he told me. “They’re ugly, utilitarian, and generic.” In fact, Randy dislikes our pedway bridges so much that he pitched the idea of wrapping each one in scenes depicting the events taking place at the 2001 World Championships in Athletics. Unfortunately, the City didn’t go for it.

Randy wanted the bridge joining the properties to be more than just a pathway, he wanted it to be iconic. That’s how he came up with the wide bridge concept. “I wanted it to become the meeting place,” he recalled. “You know, ‘let’s go for coffee…meet me on the bridge!’” He envisioned a Starbucks and a patisserie on the main level of the bridge, with the rest of the space available for seating. They built a second level as well, a space that Randy thought would make an excellent wine bar. “We put two circular staircases on the bridge, ran power, and even roughed in plumbing.” As it turns out, Randy’s vision was never fully realized. “It has never been programmed the way I imagined it.” Today the bridge is home to a Tim Horton’s, a Telus Mobility kiosk, and a few retailers including a Bell store. The second level is empty and inaccessible. That’s unlikely to change anytime soon, due to the leases that are in place.

Randy and his team had to be creative in order to achieve everything they wanted with the redevelopment project, which was finished in 2003. “We accomplished an $80 million spend on a budget of $44 million,” he said. He had spent some time studying funding programs elsewhere in North America, and came across a tax increment financing (TIF) project in Florida. “I liked it because it had a direct connection to rehabilitating the area, and it had a sunset, it wasn’t forever.” Randy worked with Al Maurer, City Manager and Randy Garvey, then the GM of Finance at the City of Edmonton, to see if he could make such a program work here. Alberta’s CRL legislation didn’t exist yet, so they could only apply the tax increment from the City to the project, the school taxes could not be touched. They followed the sunset model, whereby 100% of the tax increment went to the project in year one, 90% in year two, and so on. Randy thinks it might be the first example of a TIF used in Alberta.

When the time came to build the wide bridge, Randy again was out of money. Recognizing that it technically wasn’t on land that Oxford owned, they applied for a local improvement levy. The City studied the legislation and agreed that the funding mechanism was appropriate, so that’s where the money for the bridge came from. Further funding for the redevelopment project came through the creative use of a Commercial Mortgage Backed Security, something that would never happen today given the current recession.

Given his history with the concept, I asked Randy for his thoughts on the idea of using a CRL to help pay for the downtown arena. “I am a huge fan of CRL or TIF – it can make things happen that otherwise wouldn’t.” He doesn’t think the proposed formula is the best one, however. “I believe the school tax portion of CRL should be sacred, it shouldn’t be in play,” he told me. Randy also feels the sunset approach is better than 100% for 20 years as the current legislation allows. “We need to benefit from that growth, along with the guys that are making the investment.” He suggested that the City should get some local experience at the bargaining table, someone like Randy Garvey.

Randy supports the proposed arena project, even though it is competition for ProCura where he is COO. “It’s about critical mass. It’s about creating a new day.”

Hooray for citizen action!

Concern about costs

Design standards

Governance and maintenance

What’s next?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: