Comments on: Sidewalks Can Be Cool Too…So Why Aren’t They?

by: Joshua

Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:40:04 +0000

Killjoys.

by: Sabina Pade

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:02:19 +0000

Seriously, cobblestone sidewalks, which are beautiful, permeable, and when properly laid and maintained, extremely durable, alongside their high initial cost do have some pratical drawbacks: they’re abusive to high heels, and a they’re very bumpy ride for the wheelchair-bound. Once they’ve worn smooth - after, say, 100 years of use if rough-hewn initially - or if allowed to grow covered with moss, they can be also be very slippery.

by: portlander

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:36:26 +0000

sidewalks in america are an abomination.

or are the ones depicted above just an egregious waste of money by the government?

by: Matt the Engineer

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:27:46 +0000

Be careful with that word. Never is a very long time.

by: mike

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:25:44 +0000

we’re all for better sidewalks. we’re also for a car-free pedestrian zone in the urban core between the convention center and pike place market, but that will probably never happen…

by: K

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:08:28 +0000

* Too expensive. Cheaper to pour thin cement into a wooden frame. This is also quicker.

* Too controversial. Someone wouldn’t like the colors, think they’re ugly, complain to the city, etc.

* Europe has less income stratification and more reasonable standards of living, so they can afford to hire a team of people just to drop little rock tiles into place on the ground.

* Doesn’t look as good when you’re widening the street to satisfy the unmanageable never-ending road capacity demand of a heavily car-based society.

by: Andrew

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:36:13 +0000

Uh, nicer cooler sidewalks cost some god-damned money. Where is that going to come from?

by: David

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:00:26 +0000

everyone else already said it… but the answer to your question is pretty obvious WB - because there are a lot more important things than making sidewalks “cool”

by: Greg

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:45:51 +0000

+1 for Renee’s point - Seattle is woefully behind in sidewalk infrastructure.

One poster child example of how bad it is can be found right off of Lake City Way, Ravenna Ave NE, and NE 91th St in N.E. Seattle. Even though the photos in the link below don’t show it - the area surrounding it has a sizable amount of single family and multi-family development. And what’s also nice about this location is that it is a very convenient transit area with six Metro bus routes on Ravenna Ave alone.

The problem is that there aren’t any sidewalks to get to those routes, nor is there any real planning going on here to bring in pedestrian friendly business services for these people.

So the result is that they’ve got development and transit, but no infrastructure to connect the two - what a waste.

http://smarterneighbors.com/2008/07/24/seattle-neighbors-not-represented-by-any-community-council-are-successfully-lobbying-for-major-sidewalk-improvements/

by: cjh

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:59:15 +0000

More aesthetic whining by WB.

Good thing the first comment hit on the real issue. Yes, let’s spend money on pretty central business district sidewalks when there are about a thousand miles of city streets without any sidewalks at all.

Matt, outside of historic cores, new sidewalks in Europe (and Latin America - since some of those are pictures of Rio) are much the same as here. Oftentimes, they are asphalt. Maybe we should extend that “we” of the short lifecycles to most everyone building anything after the turn of the 20th century.