New York state of mind

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/11/2018 (2514 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The envy washed over me like a bucket of cold water.

It was a hauntingly temperate Wednesday evening, and New York City’s legendary Times Square was fulfilling my every expectation. It buzzed and throbbed and shimmered and glowed.

Panhandlers in Marvel and Disney costumes lurched about, attempting to lure tourists into costly photo opportunities. Spoken-word artists pleaded their case as well, asking for any denomination of donation in exchange for some spontaneous free verse. Amateur photographers mixed with working stiffs passing through the intersection trying to escape the working day.

In case you haven’t visited NYC lately, Times Square is no longer just an intersection. It’s a pedestrian plaza where automobiles are limited and pedestrians dominate. The result is a potpourri of humanity, strangers loitering, strolling and consuming the heartbeat of one of the world’s great cities.

The pedestrian plazas started out in 2009 as an experiment by then-mayor Michael Bloomberg, who announced several lanes of traffic on Broadway from 42nd Street to 47th Street would be closed on a trial basis. The same thing was done in Herald Square, at the intersection of Broadway and Sixth Avenue (Avenue of the Americas) between 33rd and 35th streets.

Bloomberg’s plan was part urbanist nirvana, part environmental statement, with a dash of traffic safety thrown in. The famed intersection had become a giant parking lot, where motor vehicles sat in endless gridlock. When traffic did flow, it was often interrupted by a violent meeting between pedestrian — forced from the over-populated sidewalks into traffic — and vehicle. It was one of the most unsafe intersections in the city.

Rather than fence or wall in the pedestrians, Bloomberg went all-in on another solution: limit traffic and give the intersection back to the pedestrians. His theory was that by making Times Square less of an option for cars and trucks, it would be safer for pedestrians, and in the process create a more engaging meeting place for visitors and residents.

Initially, lanes of Broadway were just blocked off. The city put clutches of plastic patio furniture at various spots along the deactivated roadway to function as makeshift meeting places. After a period of initial skepticism, more and more New York decision-makers bought into Bloomberg’s vision. Starting in 2010, Bloomberg started a five-year, US$50-million project to permanently transform Times Square into the pedestrian plaza.

Today, the asphalt has been replaced by art deco-inspired concrete stones. Small metal discs embedded in those paving stones help reflect the luminous glow of the enormous video and neon signs that encircle the intersection. Fifteen-metre-long polished granite benches create small pockets of respite for visitors trying to escape the torrent of pedestrian traffic. Open-air cafés and restaurants have added to the ambience.

It truly is a marriage of practical infrastructure and urbanist art. There are lingering concerns: aggressive panhandling by costumed characters; security concerns about exposing pedestrians to vehicle-assisted terrorist attacks; pedestrian traffic that has exceeded even the wildest estimates.

Still, I couldn’t help but wish that Winnipeggers could somehow find their way into the mindset that led New York to this audacious statement.

There is still an ugly stench surrounding the plebiscite result from last month’s civic election, which killed plans to reopen Portage and Main to pedestrians. The plebiscite result has not, however, settled the future of the intersection.

Major concerns exist about the state of the underground concourse. Repairs to the membrane that separates above-ground precipitation from below-ground concourses may turn out to be so significant that pedestrian barriers will have to be removed as part of the repair process.

It will take years to figure out what has to be done, how much it will cost and what will happen to the barriers. If we’re lucky, the mayor and council will use that as an opportunity to rethink the intersection and surrounding neighbourhood.

This isn’t about taking another run at reopening the intersection. Winnipeggers drove a stake through that idea, although “no” votes were mostly predicated on misunderstanding, or outright misinformation, about the consequences of reopening the intersection.

Even so, that does not mean city council should not consider some other ideas of Bloombergian magnitude.

I wrote a column some time back about cities around the world that have created pedestrian malls, platforms and bridges above busy intersections. Although much more expensive than the simple streetscaping the Team Open forces advocated in the plebiscite campaign, it is a project that could be more transformative for all of downtown.

And if Portage and Main proves to be a no-go zone for transformative change, then perhaps local government could look at creating a permanent pedestrian mall west of Main that encompasses Albert and Arthur streets from Notre Dame north to McDermot, and ultimately to Bannatyne and Old Market Square. It does not solve the nagging ugliness of pedestrian barriers at our signature intersection, but it would still be cool.

The most important point here is for city hall to continue to look for ideas to enhance and transform downtown.

The plebiscite result was disappointing for all those who saw an opportunity to change downtown for the better. That defeat should not become an excuse for neglecting the future of the intersection and the neighbourhood that surrounds it.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca