2017’s Most Competitive Neighborhoods for Homebuyers: 19 of Top 25 Are in the Seattle Area (Rainier: rental, condos)

[pnwguy2]

The one thing about NE Seattle that has always griped me is the lack of sidewalks in residential areas. I understand these neighborhoods were put up quickly to serve a high growth era, but today it just looks tacky and cheap. To be fair, this is not just a Seattle issue, I have seen it in Portland, OR, and in Houston, TX. I'm sure many others...

[CrazyDonkey]

They don't have sidewalks (and it isn't just NE Seattle) because the Seattle City Limits were at 85th. Lake City was its own town until 1954, and north of 85th was all unincorporated county, when Seattle annexed the area up to 145th. Adding sidewalks have been talked about ever since, but the reality is that no one, residents or the City, want to pay for it.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2015/08/...ks-in-seattle/

Areas north of 85th Street, for example, largely remained under the jurisdiction of King County until 1954 — that’s the year when Seattle annexed large swaths of land between 85th Street and 145th Street. But unlike the city, King County did not have development regulations that required the construction of sidewalks as part of platting and building nor a program to construct sidewalks. This meant that as neighborhoods grew outside of Seattle, pedestrian infrastructure was largely neglected.

[pnwguy2]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

They don't have sidewalks (and it isn't just NE Seattle) because the Seattle City Limits were at 85th. Lake City was its own town until 1954, and north of 85th was all unincorporated county, when Seattle annexed the area up to 145th. Adding sidewalks have been talked about ever since, but the reality is that no one, residents or the City, want to pay for it.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2015/08/...ks-in-seattle/

Fair enough, and I did know that...but what was the excuse not to build them when the area was incorporated? Did this ever come to a vote, or was it just assumed this area didn't want to pay for it?

[Neerwhal]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

The one thing about NE Seattle that has always griped me is the lack of sidewalks in residential areas. I understand these neighborhoods were put up quickly to serve a high growth era, but today it just looks tacky and cheap. To be fair, this is not just a Seattle issue, I have seen it in Portland, OR, and in Houston, TX. I'm sure many others...

Half of Bellevue has no sidewalks. You can walk on the street.

[CrazyDonkey]

But that still leaves some 900 miles (28% of city blocks) without any sidewalks; adding those to the pedestrian network would cost at least another $675 million.

Are you willing to pony up to pay for sidewalks north of 85th?

[pnwguy2]

We can't go back in time, but decisions were made back in the 50's that resonate today.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

The one thing about NE Seattle that has always griped me is the lack of sidewalks in residential areas. I understand these neighborhoods were put up quickly to serve a high growth era, but today it just looks tacky and cheap. To be fair, this is not just a Seattle issue, I have seen it in Portland, OR, and in Houston, TX. I'm sure many others...

it's not just NE Seattle. The Greenwood district doesn't have sidewalks in parts of it, either. Victory Heights doesn't have sidewalks, and it looks charming and rural, but that's partly because there are so many cedar trees preserved in the area. And when I lived there, there was still a small working farm. The poor woman who owned it was mercilessly badgered by real estate agents wanting her to sell it.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

We can't go back in time, but decisions were made back in the 50's that resonate today.

I grew up in a part of Berkeley/Oakland that was still somewhat rural. The Oakland side of the city line still has no sidewalks. The streets are too narrow for them. There was still a small farm there, with cows, and just past that was a waterfall. Across the street from that, was a family that kept a donkey and horse carts for their kids. Down the hill from there was a beautiful regional park with a waterfall and lake. Although part of the farm property was sold, the neighborhood has retained its scenic character. When people say all of Oakland is a ghetto, I just laugh. I have very pleasant associations with neighborhoods without sidewalks.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

We can't go back in time, but decisions were made back in the 50's that resonate today.

It was the County that failed to mandate that sidewalks (and their cost) be included when any development was platted. Instead, they left it to the market to determine whether sidewalks and other civilizational amenities (such as town squares, for instance) should be included. In an area where all drove or were driven (including children), sidewalks were the first thing to be cut, as being superfluous. It is only now, in an era that has rediscovered the virtues of walkability (vs driveability) that the absence of sidewalks in many residential areas has caused surprise, even among those who extol a return to a purely market-driven society.

The City, on the other hand, which was largely platted in the streetcar era, including when streetcars were pulled by horses, operated on the thesis that sidewalks were all that separated us from the mud and horse cr*p, the result being that sidewalks are virtually universal south of 85th.

[Thom52]

My house in Kirkland had a right of way for sidewalks, but my cul de sac did not actually have any, nor did they put in a driveway apron from the street, just the same rounded curb running around the rest of the street,which resulted in a lot of scraped undercarriages of cars and shredded bumpers.

The area was not incorporated until the 80's/90's. There are just "patches" of sidewalk all over the neighborhood, with anything from a ditch to a curb where there isn't sidewalk.

Funny thing is, most joggers and walkers just use the middle of the street even in the areas that have sidewalk, even at night, and of course wearing all black so you can't see them either.

Kirkland recently passed a law that any new construction or even a major remodeling/rebuild would require the property owner to pay an inflated ridiculous price for putting in sidewalk, even if it meant your house would be the only house on the street with a bit of sidewalk. The cost was usually more than the property improvement, which really wasn't fair to the owner.