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.
ADA compliance requires sidewalks less than 60” to have passing zones every 200 feet. Which is why USUALLY you’ll just have a 60” wide sidewalk. 36” is the bareminimum for ADA compliance. So. That.
The one you’re showing would simply not be compliant in some states and unless they’re counting the driveways as “passing zones” idk how this meets ADA compliance
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.
Huh? I literally just sent you two links about roadside walkways. Australia’s one is under the header “Footpaths in road reservations”, while technically it doesn’t always need to contain a road, it does include the road and area around it. Here’s a definition from a random Aus council I found with a quick search:
A road reserve is the public land outside your property boundary and generally includes the nature strip or verge, roadside drains or kerbing, footpath and roadway.
The UK one literally gives that advice beside a diagram of a footway beside a road while clearly marking the 2m recommendation on the diagram.
Personally I’m the same size wherever I’m walking, but I’d still prefer the extra space when I’m around cars rather than on a safe path, I’m not even sure what point you were trying to make?
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?
ADA compliance requires sidewalks less than 60” to have passing zones every 200 feet. Which is why USUALLY you’ll just have a 60” wide sidewalk. 36” is the bare minimum for ADA compliance. So. That.
The one you’re showing would simply not be compliant in some states and unless they’re counting the driveways as “passing zones” idk how this meets ADA compliance
International bare minimums maybe. I’m used to 1.5m but sounds like even 1.2m is more of a standard than 1.0m
Can barely even walk beside/past someone comfortably with 1.0m wide sidewalks
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.
Huh? I literally just sent you two links about roadside walkways. Australia’s one is under the header “Footpaths in road reservations”, while technically it doesn’t always need to contain a road, it does include the road and area around it. Here’s a definition from a random Aus council I found with a quick search:
The UK one literally gives that advice beside a diagram of a footway beside a road while clearly marking the 2m recommendation on the diagram.
Personally I’m the same size wherever I’m walking, but I’d still prefer the extra space when I’m around cars rather than on a safe path, I’m not even sure what point you were trying to make?