[renovating]

Originally Posted by Dallascaper

But for towns with vision and a sense of community, sidewalks are nice - they encourage people to walk their own neighborhood where they might accidentally meet each other and talk.

I live in a rural town with no sidewalks, as well. However, I disagree that a neighborhood needs sidewalks for neighbors to meet and talk.

On a given day in the summer or weekends, my nonsidewalk neighborhood is filled with kids running and playing, riding bikes, people walking their dogs, neighbors out in the street chatting. We also have many neighborhood block parties.

I would not like strangers or the general public walking past my house, especially if the kids were playing outside.

Sidewalks are not needed for a sense of community.

[superk]

We have a sidewalk issue here that has unfortunately pitted homeowners against the city. There is a long stretch of what has become a busy road with many beautiful, old, stately homes alongside. There is a canopy of old oak trees that are rooted along this entire stretch. The city wants to put in sidewalks along the road to reduce the danger to pedestrians. Unfortunately, to do so will require that the trees be removed. I feel for those homeowners since this would obviously have a negative impact on their property values. However, is it worth someone's life?

I don't have the answer. I don't know the logistics involved. I hope that something can be worked out, maybe create a meandering sidewalk that curves in and out around the trees without hurting their root systems.

[Junnie]

I was suprised by the anti-sidewalk sentiments by lots of homeowners here. I have a few questions:

1. Why pedestrians and bikes should not have same priviledges as cars? It's really does not take much land to install a one-side paved 4 feet pedastrian lane. Most roads have some lawn/grass at sides, I really do not see need to cut down trees. We can afford to build roads to have cars everywhere but can not afford to allow people safely walking in their neighbourhood?

2. How could sidewalks decrease safety? People thinking it's ok and safe to have strangers' cars roaming in the neighbourhood but not people walking or biking? The rationale that people worry about "Bad guys" in the neighbourhood due to sidewalks is nonsense. Don't you think it will be a lot easier for people from bad neighbourhood (which is several miles away at least) to drive to your neighbourhood rather than walking if they really want to do something?

3. How could sidewalks decrease home value? If that's the case, west hartford would not be so popular and frequently recommended.

4. When people in the forum frequently complain the high property tax and loss of middle class well educated people, I think we all should think about why. When I do my house hunting, I found out that there are either old run-down houses in better-designed neighbourhood or close-to million new constructions in secluded areas. I do believe most young families prefer newer houses in well-designed neighbourhood close to work/school/shopping in a reasonable price range 200-400K, which is so scarce in the region but very well supported in most parts of the country. No wonder we see such a contrast between poor and wealthy neighbourhood, because we do not make space for people in the middle. I can understand some people prefer and could afford to live in acres of secluded wood, but I do think most young families would enjoy affordable communities like "Buckingham and langdon's quarters" with newer but not too expensive houses. For a town to flourish and attract young well educated work force, there should be efforts to support better planning and zoning.

5. Most European countries are much more pedestrain and bike friendly, more environmental friendly, I do not think they are less safer than our communities. As I plan my moving from Midwest, I assume people here would be more proactive and progressive in these issues. I was suprised by the opposite. In my current town, there's huge push for "walking school bus" which encourage neighbour hood kids to walk to school in groups. Most roads have sidewalks except for freeways. And it is a safe economic strong city that always makes to the top list of "100 best place" to live. When we complains about our car-dependent society and environmental issues, we reject the very basic conception of having walking a enjoyable and safe part of everyday life.

I strongly believe there should be mandated sidewalks for public facilities like schools and neighbourhood with less than one acre lot.

[tchemgrrl]

Junnie: I'm with you, and it's one of the few things that I'd consider a major negative of living in CT. There's not a value placed on walkable communities for the most part. You look at the areas in West Hartford that are so desirable, and part of what *makes* them desirable is that walkability factor, but few other towns seem inclined to follow.

That said, though, there are many of the older parts of Farmington that do have sidewalks, and I walked on a LOT of them when I went to high school there. (Careful of crossing Farmington Ave., though--the rarity of sidewalks means that drivers speed around without even looking for pedestrians!) You may need to balance your desire for the newest construction with your desire for neighborhood walkability.

[JayCT]

It really does not make sense to have sidewalks where homes are on lots with over 1/2 acre of land. The lower density of the area means that there are less people walking so towns that have large lot zoning do not require sidewalks. It is an added expense that would have little use.

Most new construction in this state is in areas with larger lots. We do not have much land left that can support higher densities so that is why it is difficult to find newer neighborhoods with sidewalks. I again suggest that you consider an older neighborhood that has sidewalks. There are many nice homes available that have been updated. Jay

[Junnie]

"Most new construction in this state is in areas with larger lots. We do not have much land left that can support higher densities so that is why it is difficult to find newer neighborhoods with sidewalks. I again suggest that you consider an older neighborhood that has sidewalks. There are many nice homes available that have been updated. Jay"

Jay,
I always found your posting helpful for newcomers. But I am completely disagree with you on the above statement. Does it mean " we do have land for larger lots to build expensive homes" but we do not have much land left to build new affordable housing with 1/3 to 1/2 acre land for middle class young family so that they can be close to work and school enjoy pushing a stroller for a walk or walk their kids to school? If we want to live in a walkable community, we have to live in a 30-year old fixable houses but do not even dream about newer houses? Isn't there more public awareness and advocate for walkable community all over the country and the world? Didn't the retirement commucity near UCHC finally pushed UCHC to build a sidewalk along South road? I am wondering percentage wise how many people in CT against sidewalks and how many would support it? We are the wealthiest state with high property tax. To say we can not afford sidewalks is a pure excuse. Are people in CT just have completely opposite mindset? Or CT is a really happy to become a backyard state for wealthy people from NYC who enjoy having their expensive secluded houses?

[blogspott]

You're last question is what I have noticed tobe true in the western half of CT.

[JayCT]

First of all, Connecticut is a mature state and does not have a lot of the type of land that could support large dense developments (basically flat open land without significant wetlands). In order to develop a piece of property it must have the infrastructure to support the development being built. That means that it must have access to a good water supply and must be able to dispose of its waste. Many of the areas that are being developed into larger lots do not have public water or public sewers so you would have to do this on site. To have both a well and septic system on the same property requires a certain amount of land (basically one acre or more). Thus the lower density.

In addition to further support more density you must have roads with sufficent capacity. Can you imagine the additional traffic from increasing the population of the Farmington Valley. Key access roadways like Route 4 and Route 44 over Avon Mountain would be even bigger nightmares than they are now. In addition, increased density adds to the burden of towns for schools, police and fire. This is something few towns can or want to deal with.

Also, the type of development you propose is basically considered sprawl and that is just not what most of the towns in Connecticut want. They want to preserve their character as much as possible and many compete with developers to buy as much of the remaining open developable land as possible.

Finally I do not agree that Connecticut will happily become a "backyard" for wealthy New York. There are plenty of homes available that suit your needs. There is nothing wrong with an older home. As my father always said "Just because it is old, does not mean it is no good". There are even new homes in the more moderate price range. thye just may not be where you want them to be. It just so happens you want a new home in a particular town in a certain type of neighborhood with sidewalks. Sorry it does not work that way. Jay

[Junnie]

1. Most of the new constructions in Farmington and Avon especially have natural gas and public utitilies. Yet they are often above 500K houses within patches of isolated woods which requires lots of trees cutting down while only serving a few families. They are more environmentally destructive based on impact/burdern on energy/natural resources consumed per capita.

2. A few new designed communitie like "Buckingham" and "Langdon's quarters" are actually very popular and sold out quickly. I do not think people hate them because they can walk their kids to community playground. They are just a little far to the city. I wish they will be closer to east side of Farmington.

3. Very matured communities in Farmington like around UCHC and east farm elementery school are still lacking sidewalks although most lots are less than 1/2 acre. I am looking for houses only 2 miles away from UCHC which could be easily commuted by bikes or even a long walk in somedays. The fact that you could only drive because it's the only safe way to get there drives me crazy.

4. Yes, CT is more densed and against urban sprawling like Dallas TX. I support that. I think due to that it makes it a perfect place to promote walking and biking like since everything is only a few miles away only if we have just a little better planning and support for the safety of pedastrian and bikers.

Jay, I really think it's the problem of public awareness and has nothing to do with the negatives of sidewalks which i could not think any. On the contrary, I find the notion of "having to rely on car to drive to hiking trails to walk" is so frustrating and further confirms how car-dependable our society is. We have sacrifice so much for cars and walking and biking safely in your neigbourhood becomes a luxury or against some people's value of community. I would favor living in Farmnington because that's where I will be working. All I wish is I do not have to drive to the park or school that are only 1-2 miles away. All I want to is to be able to take a walk with my kids after dinner to nearby park or just enjoy the beauty of my neighbourhood.

I can not understand the notion cars on the road is OK to perserve the rural beauty of farmington valley while sidewalks for pedestrian is destroying the rural beauty of our town. Are most people in CT hold that idea?

[KH02]

If you don't like not having sidewalks, then simply find another town to live in that does have them such as more urban towns or West Hartford for instance.
If it's THAT big of a deal to you, then reconsider your move here.