3 ms·

> “arduous, long, and expensive process” of approvals, as well as being forced to meet higher (and more expensive) standards for things like sidewalks, I now l

> “arduous, long, and expensive process” of approvals, as well as being forced to meet higher (and more expensive) standards for things like sidewalks, I now live in a neighborhood with about 200 homes all built right after WWII, all 3 bed/1 bath 1,200 sq. ft. with minor variations[0]. No sidewalks! Pedestrian-friendly access is not cheap. [0]by now, many have been modified to add a bath/bedroom

underlipton 2y ago
You actually don't need sidewalks to be pedestrian-friendly. You need some combination of vehicle control measures (slow cars down), low density (fewer cars) or high density (shorter walk times), and something to walk to (a corner store, a transit stop/station, a park). Voila, people walk. Is it common to mention why certain codes and policies were implemented (documentation, essentially)? Because that would make it a lot easier to understand if planning dogma was reasonable ("When we didn't have this, people died a lot") or not ("We now have mitigation strategies for the reasons people died a lot that allow us to step back rigor in this area.").
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  This is true even without somewhere to walk to. Most hilly neighborhoods in california lack sidewalks, and tons of people are out walking. Dog still needs walked. Its a nice day practically every day in california. People get out of the house and walk plenty, and the drivers assume there's probably going to be something to slow them down around every blind turn and act accordingly. People won't be inclined to walk if its raining often, snowing, or too humid, moreso than the quality of the built environment outside their door I imagine.
- jandrese 2y ago
  One side effect of not having sidewalks and not being connected to public transit is it segregates the neighborhood from the poor and especially the homeless. People were fleeing cities and were putting up walls around their neighborhoods via zoning and car centric design.
  - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
    Not everything is a conspiracy, sidewalks cost a lot of money to build and maintain, they cause problems with water runoff from roads often necessitating storm drains which cost even more money. Car centric design is an obvious necessity of being a bedroom community built on inexpensive rural land some distance outside of city boundaries.
    - underlipton 2y ago
      The "bedroom community built on inexpensive rural land some distance outside of city boundaries" in my area was actually connected to the city by electric railway lines (whose right-of-ways still largely exist, as bike paths). This was before the big mid-century paradigm that GP describes, which absolutely was a(n open) conspiracy to create racially-segregated communities. There were a lot of amenities that these communities went out of their way to fund, so expense was a concern only inasmuch as the money that would have gone to sidewalks instead went to a community pool or bike paths or water/trash services.
RHSeeger 2y ago
Having moved from an area _without_ sidewalks to one _with_ them, I would vote for them to be pretty much everywhere of medium population density. It's a lot safer for everyone that way.
aworks 2y ago
I now live in a neighborhood with about 200 homes all built right after WWII, all 2 bed/1 bath 1,200 sq. ft. with minor variations[0]. Sidewalks! Next to me is a rich town with no sidewalks and a more country ambience except for the even bigger McMansions. [0]by now, many have been torn down and replaced with two story McMansions, to the extent they can fit on the lot. It's all tradeoffs, I guess...

underlipton 2y ago

You actually don't need sidewalks to be pedestrian-friendly. You need some combination of vehicle control measures (slow cars down), low density (fewer cars) or high density (shorter walk times), and something to walk to (a corner store, a transit stop/station, a park). Voila, people walk. Is it common to mention why certain codes and policies were implemented (documentation, essentially)? Because that would make it a lot easier to understand if planning dogma was reasonable ("When we didn't have this, people died a lot") or not ("We now have mitigation strategies for the reasons people died a lot that allow us to step back rigor in this area.").

kjkjadksj 2y ago
This is true even without somewhere to walk to. Most hilly neighborhoods in california lack sidewalks, and tons of people are out walking. Dog still needs walked. Its a nice day practically every day in california. People get out of the house and walk plenty, and the drivers assume there's probably going to be something to slow them down around every blind turn and act accordingly. People won't be inclined to walk if its raining often, snowing, or too humid, moreso than the quality of the built environment outside their door I imagine.
jandrese 2y ago
One side effect of not having sidewalks and not being connected to public transit is it segregates the neighborhood from the poor and especially the homeless. People were fleeing cities and were putting up walls around their neighborhoods via zoning and car centric design.
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  Not everything is a conspiracy, sidewalks cost a lot of money to build and maintain, they cause problems with water runoff from roads often necessitating storm drains which cost even more money. Car centric design is an obvious necessity of being a bedroom community built on inexpensive rural land some distance outside of city boundaries.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    The "bedroom community built on inexpensive rural land some distance outside of city boundaries" in my area was actually connected to the city by electric railway lines (whose right-of-ways still largely exist, as bike paths). This was before the big mid-century paradigm that GP describes, which absolutely was a(n open) conspiracy to create racially-segregated communities. There were a lot of amenities that these communities went out of their way to fund, so expense was a concern only inasmuch as the money that would have gone to sidewalks instead went to a community pool or bike paths or water/trash services.

RHSeeger 2y ago

Having moved from an area _without_ sidewalks to one _with_ them, I would vote for them to be pretty much everywhere of medium population density. It's a lot safer for everyone that way.

aworks 2y ago

I now live in a neighborhood with about 200 homes all built right after WWII, all 2 bed/1 bath 1,200 sq. ft. with minor variations[0]. Sidewalks! Next to me is a rich town with no sidewalks and a more country ambience except for the even bigger McMansions. [0]by now, many have been torn down and replaced with two story McMansions, to the extent they can fit on the lot. It's all tradeoffs, I guess...