Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is way off-topic so I'll simply say that there are conflicts inherent in a system of this sort where the city owns (and in some cases regulates what can go in) these strips but requires the adjacent property owner to maintain the plants in the strip. If a city is going to intentionally create potential conflict areas like this then there should be a good reason for them. In my view, a residential street with little traffic does not meet this standard, although an arterial or main street certainly may.
Even more off-topic: my city doesn't plow residential streets at all unless the snow is on the ground for over a week (which it usually isn't). This is common along the CO Front Range (we call it the solar snow removal system).
You are making some assumptions that have not been proven thus far, or even brought up until now. Who says the property owner is required to maintain the plants in the strip? Most cities have groundskeepers that maintain city-owned property. It is still safer on a residential street to have that strip of land between the sidewalk and the street. In the "old days" all streets had this. These days, in my city, they're only on the downtown area streets (Old Town) and in areas where the sidewalk is on a feeder street or a business street.
Ft. Collins' snow policy is not the same as every city's. Some cities plow by a priority
In the "old days" all streets had this. These days, in my city, they're only on the downtown area streets (Old Town) and in areas where the sidewalk is on a feeder street or a business street.
I think that's a western thing. Newer eastern neighborhoods generally have a strip, you're more likely to find no strip between the sidewalk and the street on on the older streets — a nearby street to me doesn't, but it's partially residential. Older residential streets often don't have them in Massachusetts:
I think that's a western thing. Newer eastern neighborhoods generally have a strip, you're more likely to find no strip between the sidewalk and the street on on the older streets — a nearby street to me doesn't, but it's partially residential. Older residential streets often don't have them in Massachusetts:
go out to newer areas, and you'll get a strip. Ditto with the NYC metro (city & suburbs).
Heck, in the Albany suburbs there were generally NO sidewalks except little patches along major, major roads. It was hard to take a walk to the park with one kid in a stroller b/c the streets were narrow w/no sidewalks. In the first picture, the strip is about 6" wide if that on the left; the width of a tree trunk on the right. https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...ed=0CDMQ8gEwAA
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 04-14-2013 at 10:21 PM..
Heck, in the Albany suburbs there were generally NO sidewalks except little patches along major, major roads. It was hard to take a walk to the park with one kid in a stroller b/c the streets were narrow w/no sidewalks.
My point was that older neighborhoods have sidewalks that are generally stripless, in my experience and newer neighborhoods more often than not have a strip. The newer Albany suburbs I've seen tend to attempt a semi-rural feel. Long Island usually has sidewalks except on small residential streets where traffic is light. The sidewalk is usually there, but every now and there it disappears. This is what I was thinking of as newer roads with strip:
I love big trees, but I think they have to be chosen carefully. I grew up in an established neighborhood in Pennsylvania with maple trees on either side of the street. When I was a kid they were full grown and beyond gorgeous in the fall but they created a lot of debris. By the time I got my mother out of that house she kept for more than 50 years, they had become quite problematic. They were magnets for lightning and people parked in front of their houses at their own peril in the summer. Ka-boom ... giant branch down on your car. They interfered with electrical lines and the electric company was always hacking away at them. Some residents got really frustrated with them and had them removed which left ugly gaps. Choose with professional advice.
It is still safer on a residential street to have that strip of land between the sidewalk and the street. In the "old days" all streets had this. These days, in my city, they're only on the downtown area streets (Old Town) and in areas where the sidewalk is on a feeder street or a business street.
Did a quick walk around. It's the reverse in my town. The downtown area streets are the only ones that don't have a strip. In my neighborhood, some residential streets have it, some don't. The further away you get from the center of town, the more likely you'll have a strip
Did a quick walk around. It's the reverse in my town. The downtown area streets are the only ones that don't have a strip. In my neighborhood, some residential streets have it, some don't. The further away you get from the center of town, the more likely you'll have a strip
So apparently both forms have been around a long time.
This is way off-topic so I'll simply say that there are conflicts inherent in a system of this sort where the city owns (and in some cases regulates what can go in) these strips but requires the adjacent property owner to maintain the plants in the strip. If a city is going to intentionally create potential conflict areas like this then there should be a good reason for them. In my view, a residential street with little traffic does not meet this standard, although an arterial or main street certainly may.
Even more off-topic: my city doesn't plow residential streets at all unless the snow is on the ground for over a week (which it usually isn't). This is common along the CO Front Range (we call it the solar snow removal system).
Well, you do have some options. You could not choose not to purchase property in that location. You could put in plantings that don't require any special upkeep. Or if enough people cared strongly about this the city could raise taxes to pay for city employees to do all the maintenance. (And I realize that this varies by city, but where we live, the city does do the big stuff for trees -- planting, trimming, removing if necessary -- but asks residents to water them, as well as to take care of the grass or plants in the strip.) Sidewalks are the same kind of thing -- in many places they are technically public property, yet the property owner is responsible for maintaining them. People know this before buying a property.
Going back to the OP were street trees less common in the old days. I can't see any street trees in this 1860s aerial of Boston, though it's hard to tell:
Even more off-topic: my city doesn't plow residential streets at all unless the snow is on the ground for over a week (which it usually isn't). This is common along the CO Front Range (we call it the solar snow removal system).
Don't think that would work too well here..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
