I specifically bought in a neighborhood with sidewalks, because kids. But, as GenX I didn’t anticipate that GenZ would be the first generation that didn’t play outside all summer like we used to.
I don’t know, My nieces are in VR or on their phones alot, but outside is still on equal footing. And they are meeting other kids out there.
I think for people that can sustain their social needs with indirect relationships, maybe. But anyone that needs in-person socializing, they are gonna go get it. They don’t go outside as much extra during the school year, but they spend the majority of summer break out there.
GenZ would be the first generation that didn’t play outside all summer like we used to.
Idk where you live but going outside in August is absolutely brutal down in Texas. All the kids go out in Fall and Winter, when the weather is much more bearable. You’ll have the running trails packed shoulder-to-shoulder for half a mile as soon as temperatures get under 90. But not a degree before.
This drives me nuts, I know sidewalks are an extra cost. But I’d happily pay a portion to get some put in around us.
I don’t live in an HOA, but I swear all the surrounding neighborhoods just don’t want them to keep the “riff raff” out. Still I ride bikes with my kid in the mega HOA neighborhood across the street, a lot flatter. Have to ride in the storm gutter if a car comes by.
They are building another mega HOA housing development next to the current one, houses at double the price. They certainly won’t have sidewalks because it’s targeting 60+. No restricted by age, but by money. They’ll probably put a gate on it too.
The sidewalk is 36” (1m actually) with a 12” curb.
It’s large enough for wheelchairs to get by. The road is also 40’ wide so two cars can pass with parking along each side. The vehicle in the back provides some scale.
Plus the bins in the back, they’re atleast 24” by 24”, clearly the sidewalk is wider.
I think they’re saying that sidewalk is too narrow, which it does look minimal compared to the street, like a wheelchair would have a hard time, especially with the edge curving down like that.
It’s a 40’ wide road with a 36” sidewalk and 12” curb. People can pass a wheelchair going down it fine. Look at the vehicle and the bins for scale context.
It think they’re trying to funny that there’s no shoulder, which would just waste space on a 40km/h residential road that is filled with parking after school and work.
So… About the minimum for a single person to walk with little leeway, normally in a safe indoor area with no car traffic?
36" is the absolute bare minimum required walkway space in the US by ADA to technically be wheelchair compliant in that a single wheelchair user might be able to use it, roughly half the minimum 1.8m clear width recommended by Australia’s Department of Transport, and less than half the 2m minimum unobstructed walkway space recommended for pedestrians in low-traffic areas by the UK’s department for transport. This is undeniably too narrow.
That road looks wide enough for about 4 cars, it’s not a “waste” to surrender some of that to make it slightly less hostile to pedestrians.
That road looks wide enough for about 4 cars, it’s not a “waste” to surrender some of that to make it slightly less hostile to pedestrians.
That’s exactly what it is, parking on either side, with enough room for two vehicles to be able to come Opposing each other.
Making it skinnier would make it a risk to pedestrians since two vehicles meeting between parked vehicles could collide pushing the parked vehicle onto the sidewalk. It’s an issue in Older neighborhoods.
What you’re suggesting is even more unsafe for pedestrians, Jesus Christ.
What’s hostile about a 36” wide sidewalk that leads to other infrastructure?
Your second link also only talk about different designs, like with having the buildings right against the sidewalks. Those obviously need to be designed different and my image obviously isn’t that either. So what do you think it’s proving?
And the first link is about footpaths which aren’t sidewalks. Check your sources and make sure you’re comparing the same things? You’re arguing over something entirely different here. All footpaths here are 2.4m, but they’re also updating to 4m as well now.
My city only requires sidewalks depending on how much vehicular traffic, how much foot traffic, and if kids are expected to navigate that street to get to school. And even then “one side” doesn’t mean “same side.” My house and the one next to my neighbor have the unfortunate yards missing sidewalks, meaning people have to use my next-for neighbor’s sidewalk, cross the street, use my neighbor’s sidewalk, and then can continue down until they have to cross the street again because the sidewalk is unusable at a certain point.
The reasons we have missing and broken sidewalks are that:
The city won’t help pay for them
The city has strict regulations on how they’re installed
The 50-foot run of sidewalk would cost more than a car to install, and since they’re often seen as insurance liabilities, it’s practically impossible to get a reasonable loan to cover the up-front costs.
“My yard is the shitty impediment because I can’t afford to fund a public service” is not one of the sad realities of home ownership that I expected to encounter.
My city has a sidewalk renovation program, which is great.
I have a corner lot and practically triple the sidewalk my neighbors have. Cost me over 4 grand to have the city mandated sidewalk repairs done. Kind of a pain, but it was cheaper to get it bundled with them than to have a contractors come out and fix it.
In many cases “the city has strict regulations on how they’re installed” should be read as “the city requires you to use one of their pre-approved contractors.”
Where’s the sidewalk?
They mean like this:
But, a lot of neighborhoods don’t have them:
I specifically bought in a neighborhood with sidewalks, because kids. But, as GenX I didn’t anticipate that GenZ would be the first generation that didn’t play outside all summer like we used to.
I don’t know, My nieces are in VR or on their phones alot, but outside is still on equal footing. And they are meeting other kids out there.
I think for people that can sustain their social needs with indirect relationships, maybe. But anyone that needs in-person socializing, they are gonna go get it. They don’t go outside as much extra during the school year, but they spend the majority of summer break out there.
Idk where you live but going outside in August is absolutely brutal down in Texas. All the kids go out in Fall and Winter, when the weather is much more bearable. You’ll have the running trails packed shoulder-to-shoulder for half a mile as soon as temperatures get under 90. But not a degree before.
This drives me nuts, I know sidewalks are an extra cost. But I’d happily pay a portion to get some put in around us.
I don’t live in an HOA, but I swear all the surrounding neighborhoods just don’t want them to keep the “riff raff” out. Still I ride bikes with my kid in the mega HOA neighborhood across the street, a lot flatter. Have to ride in the storm gutter if a car comes by.
They are building another mega HOA housing development next to the current one, houses at double the price. They certainly won’t have sidewalks because it’s targeting 60+. No restricted by age, but by money. They’ll probably put a gate on it too.
Didn’t even know that was a thing, where I live one side still requires a sidewalk.
We’ll need an after picture too, I assume they’re going to replace that concrete tightrope with one?
Respond to the wrong comment?
I think they’re commenting that the sidewalk is super skinny. I legit didn’t see it at first glance.
The sidewalk is 36” (1m actually) with a 12” curb.
It’s large enough for wheelchairs to get by. The road is also 40’ wide so two cars can pass with parking along each side. The vehicle in the back provides some scale.
Plus the bins in the back, they’re atleast 24” by 24”, clearly the sidewalk is wider.
So like, technically a sidewalk but that sidewalk is gonna be embarrassed af in gym class
It exceeds international standards. What the hell are you basing it off of?
I think they’re saying that sidewalk is too narrow, which it does look minimal compared to the street, like a wheelchair would have a hard time, especially with the edge curving down like that.
It’s a 40’ wide road with a 36” sidewalk and 12” curb. People can pass a wheelchair going down it fine. Look at the vehicle and the bins for scale context.
It think they’re trying to funny that there’s no shoulder, which would just waste space on a 40km/h residential road that is filled with parking after school and work.
So… About the minimum for a single person to walk with little leeway, normally in a safe indoor area with no car traffic?
36" is the absolute bare minimum required walkway space in the US by ADA to technically be wheelchair compliant in that a single wheelchair user might be able to use it, roughly half the minimum 1.8m clear width recommended by Australia’s Department of Transport, and less than half the 2m minimum unobstructed walkway space recommended for pedestrians in low-traffic areas by the UK’s department for transport. This is undeniably too narrow.
That road looks wide enough for about 4 cars, it’s not a “waste” to surrender some of that to make it slightly less hostile to pedestrians.
That’s exactly what it is, parking on either side, with enough room for two vehicles to be able to come Opposing each other.
Making it skinnier would make it a risk to pedestrians since two vehicles meeting between parked vehicles could collide pushing the parked vehicle onto the sidewalk. It’s an issue in Older neighborhoods.
What you’re suggesting is even more unsafe for pedestrians, Jesus Christ.
What’s hostile about a 36” wide sidewalk that leads to other infrastructure?
Your second link also only talk about different designs, like with having the buildings right against the sidewalks. Those obviously need to be designed different and my image obviously isn’t that either. So what do you think it’s proving?
And the first link is about footpaths which aren’t sidewalks. Check your sources and make sure you’re comparing the same things? You’re arguing over something entirely different here. All footpaths here are 2.4m, but they’re also updating to 4m as well now.
This are footpaths, not roadside sidewalks.
Why are you comparing it to something totally different? Gotta be apples to apples.
In the bottom right?
My city only requires sidewalks depending on how much vehicular traffic, how much foot traffic, and if kids are expected to navigate that street to get to school. And even then “one side” doesn’t mean “same side.” My house and the one next to my neighbor have the unfortunate yards missing sidewalks, meaning people have to use my next-for neighbor’s sidewalk, cross the street, use my neighbor’s sidewalk, and then can continue down until they have to cross the street again because the sidewalk is unusable at a certain point.
The reasons we have missing and broken sidewalks are that:
“My yard is the shitty impediment because I can’t afford to fund a public service” is not one of the sad realities of home ownership that I expected to encounter.
My city has a sidewalk renovation program, which is great.
I have a corner lot and practically triple the sidewalk my neighbors have. Cost me over 4 grand to have the city mandated sidewalk repairs done. Kind of a pain, but it was cheaper to get it bundled with them than to have a contractors come out and fix it.
Could you install a very narrow terrace at the front of your yard?
In many cases “the city has strict regulations on how they’re installed” should be read as “the city requires you to use one of their pre-approved contractors.”
If it’s for a sidewalk, yes. I’m wondering how strict their definition of sidewalk is.
Walk up the driveway, than under the wooden pergola at a 90 degree angle, than it turns to the house.
Driveways are parts of sidewalks, don’t need a seperate one if the driveway is wide enough to walk past the cars.