[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by LasVegasHill

I apologize for not realizing how rich you are.

You're telling me developers make the decision to forgo sidewalks because it's an "urban thing"? That doesn't even make any sense.

Sidewalks make it safe to take a jog in the morning, for kids to walk home from the bus, for families to take a stroll after dinner, to walk the dog or push a stroller... all suitable suburbia activities whether you're rich or poor.

I am a single twentysomething who prefers high-rise living anyway, I'm just suprised that in family-friendly suburbia sidewalks are an afterthought.

It could be because the lots in many of the new developments are so small, with front yards barely deep enough to leave a car in the driveway, that the sidewalk would end up 5' from the front of the houses.

There are some areas that have sidewalks, but they're definitely a rarity in LV subdivisions.

[DessertRat]

Originally Posted by LasVegasHill

Why are there no sidewalks within many of the new single-family communities?

I've always wondered. All of these new neighborhoods seem so unfinished.

Is it really just to save a buck?

I'd rather have less lawn to make room for a path than have to share the blacktop with everyone's car.

I'm not at all sure of this, because I just haven't logged it in enough different places, but it seems to me that (unfortunately) sidewalks are more of an older phenomenon in most of the US. Most older suburbs I've seen have them. Most newer ones do not. Some of that may have to do with the change in our culture to a car-oriented culture in the 1950s, and probably there's a cost-saving factor, too. Developers probably started thinking, "well, everyone drives everywhere anyway, and we can save a few bucks by leaving sidewalks out, so screw 'em". Of course, not every newer development would be without a sidewalk, but I think that's probably why far fewer are. And this would explain why sidewalks are far less common many places in the western US--it's newer in general. The explanation that it "retains a rural flavor" is certainly ridiculous in the given scenario, where houses are on lots that are just as small as other developments that do have sidewalks. I've lived in quite a few places with and without sidewalks, in different states, and almost always, the places with sidewalks were older developments. I agree it makes suburban areas safer for kids, joggers, etc., and it helps produce more of a neighborhood social atmosphere.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by DessertRat

I'm not at all sure of this, because I just haven't logged it in enough different places, but it seems to me that (unfortunately) sidewalks are more of an older phenomenon in most of the US. Most older suburbs I've seen have them. Most newer ones do not. Some of that may have to do with the change in our culture to a car-oriented culture in the 1950s, and probably there's a cost-saving factor, too. Developers probably started thinking, "well, everyone drives everywhere anyway, and we can save a few bucks by leaving sidewalks out, so screw 'em". Of course, not every newer development would be without a sidewalk, but I think that's probably why far fewer are. And this would explain why sidewalks are far less common many places in the western US--it's newer in general. The explanation that it "retains a rural flavor" is certainly ridiculous in the given scenario, where houses are on lots that are just as small as other developments that do have sidewalks. I've lived in quite a few places with and without sidewalks, in different states, and almost always, the places with sidewalks were older developments. I agree it makes suburban areas safer for kids, joggers, etc., and it helps produce more of a neighborhood social atmosphere.

Well, here in GA there's sidewalks in most new subdivisions, with the exceptions being those built on postage-stamp lots. Many of the new subdivisions (ours included) are based on some of the tenets of the "New Urbanism" or TND movements, which encourage walking wherever possible.

[PinkString]

Originally Posted by DessertRat

I've lived in quite a few places with and without sidewalks, in different states, and almost always, the places with sidewalks were older developments. I agree it makes suburban areas safer for kids, joggers, etc., and it helps produce more of a neighborhood social atmosphere.

Aliante is less than 5 years old and sidewalks are all through this community. Of course, it's a master planned community, so sidewalks are a must. Summerlin also has sidewalks and walking trails. Most newer ones like Inspirada, and others like it will all have sidewalks and walking paths.
I'm sure the new area of Park Highlands will also have sidewalks along with their walking trails, since it will also be a master-planned community. Built by the same people that built Southern Highlands.

[richkat]

The thread caught my eye because that was my reaction, too. Where are the sidewalks? We've lived in 4 new homes over the past 8 years and they all had sidewalks. But the neighborhood where we just bought new here in Las Vegas does have sidewalks on one side of the street. I was happy to see that because I like to walk the neighborhood.

[janeannwho]

Can I ask why this is a controversy? I have lived with and without sidewalks, and everyone is still alive. C'est la vie?

[VegasResident]

Originally Posted by lvkewlkid

Most communities that have private streets don't have sidewalks...its just another thing the HOA has to maintain and repave...

We have a private street and we have no sidewalks. Never really noticed it to be a problem personally. does make it easier for HOA to repave road and also seems to make water flow better down street cause you dont have curb sucking garbage like I remember back east.

In the NW we have horse trails next to sidewalks on the main street so the rural flavor still exists.