I'm not in agreement with that,
You're not in agreement with what?
Everything I said was factual, there is no room to disagree with it. You can dislike pedestrian zones, but you can't disagree that this already is one 8 months of the year, and there is no obvious and compelling reason it cannot function as such the other 4 months. That isn't really disputable.
In any event, should you wish to dispute it, you ought to bring forth evidence in support of that.
what problem is being fixed here?
By extending the current condition to 12 months per year?
There is no problem to fix, as such, what there is, is a problem to avoid.
There is a cost to un-doing the space as pedestrian space each winter, then reinstating it again only 4 months later.
Its a needless expense for no obvious again.
Further, retaining the option to re-open it to vehicles precludes any permanent changes in the right-of-way that may make the space even better, be that a stage, or fountain, or benches etc.
Are we saying that the area is dying and it needs to be pedestrianized to "save it"?
No, it IS pedestrianized right now. What is being said is that this should not be un-done for 4 months per year for no obvious gain.
Being a pedestrian zone is not what made the area unique in the first place.
The restaurant row, and the lower level of market have seen an increase in business with pedestrianization. The street is vastly more attractive in its current form and layout than it was previously, and much more enjoyable for locals and tourists alike.
****
At this juncture, I will remind everyone that the poster to whom I am replying is only visible here every few months, stays a few weeks to argue in only one or two threads, with contrarian view points that are typically anti-cycle and anti-pedestrian.
Remind you of anyone?