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.
As far as characterizing me as preferring "car-oriented" to "pedestrian-oriented", the post you refer to is hardly a basis for making such a claim.
I've been a lurker for a while, and your past posts give me a basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
"Pedestrian-oriented" is your term, not mine. You clearly intend different meanings for "oriented". Getting from car to store is pedestrian activity. Getting around in the store is pedestrian activity. Getting from the store back to the car is pedestrian activity. None of this activity excludes other pedestrians. Whatever you mean by "car-oriented" includes pedestrians since the store obviously accommodates pedestrians including those that arrive by car and those that arrive by other means. Suggesting that these businesses don't accommodate pedestrians is silly.
I suppose if you want to be completely literal in the meaning of pedestrian, yes, any sort of walking is pedestrian activity. But you're completely missing the point. It's not about people walking in the store - it's about people walking to the store.
Stores that are set back behind large parking lots are very inconvenient for people arriving on foot from the sidewalk. It's as simple as that. Why should people in cars be given preferred treatment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
But you have a different meaning for "oriented" in your "pedestrian-oriented" phrase. What you really mean with "pedestrian-oriented" is "anti-car" and "exclusively pedestrian". You don't like the fact that these businesses are open to pedestrians that arrive by car. You promote pedestrian exclusivity - the "me, me, me" frame of the self-proclaimed urbanists. Keep jousting at windmills - you never know when you need to be ready to attack another parking lot.
"Anti-car" rants are a last resort to win an argument. I don't promote pedestrian exclusivity - I prefer a balance. However, you seen to promote car exclusivity.
I suppose if you want to be completely literal in the meaning of pedestrian, yes, any sort of walking is pedestrian activity. But you're completely missing the point. It's not about people walking in the store - it's about people walking to the store.
Then your point is quite silly. To the block, you can't complain about this. Within the block you'll next be complaining that people coming from the "other side" have an advantage because they wouldn't have to walk past all the stores you don't want to walk past to get to your destination. Your situation does not improve by filling the parking lot with other buildings and making things "pedestrian exclusive" because you now would have to navigate among other buildings to get to your destination.
You've previously hypothesized: "Denser development yields shorter walks. Easy as that." Your hypothesis is false. Your destination is no closer, your walk is no shorter. This is about your personal aesthetic preferences.
Quote:
Stores that are set back behind large parking lots are very inconvenient for people arriving on foot from the sidewalk. It's as simple as that. Why should people in cars be given preferred treatment?
Cars aren't being given a "preferred treatment". Are you going to complain about people being dropped off by a car next? Or perhaps complain that people that live closer to the store you seek are being given "preferential treatment" because they live closer than you or perhaps the store is located more towards one side than the other?
Quote:
"Anti-car" rants are a last resort to win an argument. I don't promote pedestrian exclusivity - I prefer a balance. However, you seen to promote car exclusivity.
Then you might try to stop using them. There isn't an argument, only a debate initiated by folks that think the world must change for them. Again, filling up the parking lot with a bunch of other buildings to meet your personal aesthetic preferences does not shorten the walk nor make the destination any more accessible to you.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 02-17-2014 at 10:27 AM..
I suppose if you want to be completely literal in the meaning of pedestrian, yes, any sort of walking is pedestrian activity. But you're completely missing the point. It's not about people walking in the store - it's about people walking to the store.
You have much larger problems than the design of the store.
1) Americans are lazy. They'll generally walk at most about 1/2 a mile, and that's being optimistic, 1/4 mile would be a better bet and even then most people are going to drive. They might walk a bit farther if they're relying on transit since it's generally less convenient than driving is, unless you're going somewhere that isn't easy to drive/park. Such as a city. Most suburbanites have been to those, which is why we like our parking so much. Parking is good.
2) Landuse. If you live in the 'burbs like I do, how much is within 1/2 a mile of your house? For me it's not much. There's one strip mall that has nothing in it that I ever go to. There's another one just about a mile from me with a restaurant I get takeout at.
Tear down the strip mall and make a nice walkable environment with zero setback and no one is going to walk there. I don't drive to the restaurant because I'm afeared of walking across the lava moat parking lot. I walk to it because I'm lazy. My car gets 20+ mpg and I'd rather use 30 cents of gas to drive there than walk. I have to walk across the lava moat parking lot either way.
"Pedestrian-oriented" is your term, not mine. You clearly intend different meanings for "oriented". Getting from car to store is pedestrian activity. Getting around in the store is pedestrian activity. Getting from the store back to the car is pedestrian activity. None of this activity excludes other pedestrians. Whatever you mean by "car-oriented" includes pedestrians since the store obviously accommodates pedestrians including those that arrive by car and those that arrive by other means. Suggesting that these businesses don't accommodate pedestrians is silly.
But you have a different meaning for "oriented" in your "pedestrian-oriented" phrase. What you really mean with "pedestrian-oriented" is "anti-car" and "exclusively pedestrian". You don't like the fact that these businesses are open to pedestrians that arrive by car. You promote pedestrian exclusivity - the "me, me, me" frame of the self-proclaimed urbanists. Keep jousting at windmills - you never know when you need to be ready to attack another parking lot.
Pedestrian oriented means, friendly and "pleasant" for pedestrians. You don't want to feel like you are playing ******* to get to the front door of your destination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Native, you can't walk in the door of Petco from AT&T. It doesn't improve the walkability at all if you're going to Petco. Now, if you're going to AT&T and it's located there instead of in the back of a similar strip mall, sure. Looks like its common to add sidewalks into strip malls (just based on that example) where you live too. Most of the larger strip malls here have added those stores out front or were designed with them to begin with.
If there was any market demand for building on the street, those spots would come with a premium. Developers would all develop the street fronts for the extra rent. There just isn't a market demand for it.
Actually what happens is the big box retailers protest, because they have to have parking right in front of the store for "convenience." I forgot which of the developments around El Ceritto BART this happened to, but I recall that the criticism of the project was that they waned the store to be closer to the sidewalk, as the store was basically in the BART parking lot, and adjacent to a busy bus station, but the anchor store said "no" and left the huge amount of parking in the front. You know, because the drivers couldn't walk the extra steps to get to the door.
My car gets 20+ mpg and I'd rather use 30 cents of gas to drive there than walk. I have to walk across the lava moat parking lot either way.
Wear and tear constantly from using your car for these short trips adds up to a lot more than 30 cents... It is said most accidents happen near home when it's a short, quick trip and you're not as cautious.
Many strip malls don't have any proper pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the parking lot and no crosswalk in front, let alone having to walk across the entire parking lot itself.
However, the problem with putting in walkable environments in most suburbs is, unfortunately, the fact that you may have to walk a half mile just to get to the gate of your community, by that time, you'd rather just drive. That's why you tend to get these lifestyle "town centers" which are still just malls that people drive to. But there are exceptions, especially in the older "inner" suburban environments with more of a grid layout centered on a main road, and possibly premium transit on the main road, and too often the main road is designed too much like a highway people use to drive through and too little like a neighbourhood where people live, this is where there is the most potential for re-imagining the area. These also tend to have the older, cheaper, no-frills housing stock which is more budget friendly and family friendly.
It would actually make more sense for big box stores to use their roof for parking to reduce the need for surrounding surface parking. Also, most big box stores should be two story buildings rather than the single sprawling floor.
It would actually make more sense for big box stores to use their roof for parking to reduce the need for surrounding surface parking. Also, most big box stores should be two story buildings rather than the single sprawling floor.
It all depends on the cost of land v the cost of building a structure sufficent to handle the extra load of parking and/or retail space. Maybe the better thing would be build the store over the parking then install solar on the roof along with the air handling equipment that is usually located there. I have seen some combinations of these features used if it was cost effective to do it
Wear and tear constantly from using your car for these short trips adds up to a lot more than 30 cents...
It's a car. Driving is what it's FOR. Worrying overmuch about wear and tear from normal driving is like complaining that walking wears out your shoes.
Quote:
It is said most accidents happen near home when it's a short, quick trip and you're not as cautious.
Most accidents happen near the home because most driving happens near the home.
Quote:
Many strip malls don't have any proper pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the parking lot and no crosswalk in front, let alone having to walk across the entire parking lot itself.
Pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the parking lot? They're adjacent, you just walk right into the parking lot
Quote:
However, the problem with putting in walkable environments in most suburbs is, unfortunately, the fact that you may have to walk a half mile just to get to the gate of your community, by that time, you'd rather just drive. That's why you tend to get these lifestyle "town centers" which are still just malls that people drive to.
A mall in a suburb is a "walkable environment in a suburb". But that's not really what you're going for; you're going for a suburb which IS a walkable environment, which is a different thing.
It would be very easy to put the buildings up against the street (accomodating pedestrians) while still having giant parking lots in the back for cars.
Costly, impractical and dangerous all at the same time. Rear parking lots would require front and rear entrances to the store, increasing square-footage needs and security costs for the stores; it also would require pedestrians in the rear to dodge delivery trucks.
You have much larger problems than the design of the store.
1) Americans are lazy. They'll generally walk at most about 1/2 a mile, and that's being optimistic, 1/4 mile would be a better bet and even then most people are going to drive. They might walk a bit farther if they're relying on transit since it's generally less convenient than driving is, unless you're going somewhere that isn't easy to drive/park. Such as a city. Most suburbanites have been to those, which is why we like our parking so much. Parking is good.
2) Landuse. If you live in the 'burbs like I do, how much is within 1/2 a mile of your house? For me it's not much. There's one strip mall that has nothing in it that I ever go to. There's another one just about a mile from me with a restaurant I get takeout at.
Tear down the strip mall and make a nice walkable environment with zero setback and no one is going to walk there. I don't drive to the restaurant because I'm afeared of walking across the lava moat parking lot. I walk to it because I'm lazy. My car gets 20+ mpg and I'd rather use 30 cents of gas to drive there than walk. I have to walk across the lava moat parking lot either way.
1) Good point. But I would guess that maybe people are lazy and won't walk because there is nowhere to walk to conveniently.
2) You're right, and that's pretty much the whole root of the problem.
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.
