Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OttoMets, post: 3910497, member: 716"] I mean, right now as a near-daily pedestrian I'm looking at a ~45-foot crossing distance on Almond Street. Turning radii are fairly tight for a street designed in the '60s. The Parsons plans from last week show crossing distances of over 100 feet and huge turning radii. None of their designs conforms to NACTO's recommended design standards for urban streets. If it's built like this, and I hope it isn't, it's going to be a much worse pedestrian experience. It's the 1990s lipstick on a pig approach to transportation design: built it for cars to move as fast as possible, then drop down some out-of-context plantings and pavers in order to say alternate uses have been taken into account. Then everyone will act shocked when it's still a dead zone. For these projects to be successful, attention to detail (and best practices), is important. The design's got to encourage development that will activate life on whatever sidewalks are built. [/QUOTE]