Ask the right questions about Sparks Street
Everyone seems to think the essential debate about the future of Sparks Street is whether or not to reintroduce cars to the pedestrian mall. But the persistent problems and the potential solutions have more to do with the buildings on either side of the street than the traffic on it.
Adding cars, either during off-peak hours or throughout the day, wouldn’t change some of the fundamental challenges faced by the street, but it probably wouldn’t hurt. The only reason people resist the idea is because they’re convinced a pedestrian mall can work in Ottawa, even though Sparks has been struggling for a long time. Some people claim more research is required, but we’ve run a live test for a few decades now and the results have been pretty consistent.
Sparks Street wouldn’t become successful just by adding cars, but it’s hard to argue that banning them has made the area thrive. I wonder how many of the people who are adamant that Sparks Street be preserved exactly as it is actually visit the street regularly. Clearly, not enough of them or the future of the road wouldn’t be one of Ottawa’s never-ending debates.
The pedestrian mall is an antiquated concept that has rarely been successful in North America. Yes, they’ve closed a few blocks of Broadway but it’s not like that was a transformative step that was the making of Times Square, nor is New York City, with its enormous urban population and low rate of vehicle ownership, an appropriate comparison.
In Ottawa, where winter persists and relatively few people live downtown, it’s very difficult for an outdoor destination to compete against the nearby Rideau Centre and suburban malls with giant parking lots.
A street can be vibrant and successful even if it has cars travelling on it. No one would suggest banning vehicles from Elgin Street or Bank Street. Part of the success of Elgin is that it seems accessible, even if it’s tough to find parking there on a Friday evening. And you can’t ignore the marketing value of all those people in cars passing by restaurants and other attractions on their way to and from other places. The lack of vehicles makes Sparks Street much more isolated; many people only see the street when it’s their final destination, so businesses there have to work harder to attract customers.
But whether or not cars are allowed, Sparks Street has to offer something more than just a series of stores that are mostly available elsewhere with covered walkways and free parking. The street needs attractions, not just shops. It needs a compelling reason to make it worth the trip, whether that’s a museum, a performing arts space or some other major attraction.
Unfortunately, the biggest obstacle to transforming Sparks Street is almost impossible to fix. The largest property owner, the federal government, is more a hindrance than benefit to the street. If the majority of the buildings on the street were owned by private developers who shared a commercial interest in seeing it succeed and then competed with each other for attractions and tenants, it would be a lot easier to imagine a bright future for the promenade.
Instead, the street is in a permanent holding pattern. The government buys properties and waits years to decide what to do with them. There are buildings that are interminably shrouded in scaffolding. Leases expire and stores sit empty for months.
If more of the key properties were privately owned, they might already have been converted to residential space that would create traffic for the area. Instead, we are years away from rejuvenating the area with new denizens, and the condo market is already saturated.
The best thing for Sparks Street is neither to allow cars nor to continue to ban them. It’s for the federal government to sell some of its properties, or at least partner with private developers who will create a combination of new residential units and powerful attractions.
If the federal government remains the principal landlord, then with or without cars, Sparks Street’s problems won’t be resolved quickly.