"An Argument for Alleys," or, Why Melbourne beats us on livability

Peter Berkeley links to this piece – “An Argument for Alleys” – from Michigan State University:

Alleys provide a space for open air, utilities, access to trash and even a bit of shade. Alleys and lanes function as access to private spaces and the rear of lots.  These street types are one lane wide and also provide access for services such as waste and recycling pickup.
They can range from unattractive places to green, organic, distinctive spaces. A near perfect alley is complex, a place to socialize, with good lighting, low-traffic speed and a place for commerce and living, all while handling utilities.

All true – and a great opportunity in a city blessed with (as we call ’em) lanes that are throughout the city as part of our original grid.  But we don’t yet take advantage of them as residential and retail spaces, except in a few isolated places.  (That will change over time with the new West End plan.)
Given the small difference between Vancouver, third on The Economist‘s list of most livable cities, and Melbourne at No. 1, perhaps one reason is that the Australian city makes such good use of its lanes, arcades and narrow little streets.  (Map here.)
Most of the non-through lanes are still primarily for services like waste disposal and parking entrances:

.

But with the addition of a few chairs and tables,  they begin to attract people – and economic opportunity :

 .

The key, of course, is that retail shops and restaurants create a presence on the lane, where blank walls become transparent.  Add some signs, an awning and a bit of landscaping, and they are transformed:

 .

Note in the background that there is a parking garage, with its main entrance on the lane. It’s still possible for most of the utility functions of a lane to operate with a little considered planning and tolerance of mixed-use activities.  It’s just not as convenient.

But the trade-off, as Melbourne has so well demonstrated, is worth it: