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.
Sorry to hear that you have a sidewalk if you don't want one, Golfgal, but many Twin Cities residents don't have them. Whether one thinks that's a good or a bad thing is obviously a personal choice.
Does the OP care about sidewalks? Some suburbs have them, some don't, some have them on some streets but not on others. It varies. I haven't been to Crystal recently, but think it's one of those suburbs where some, but not all, streets have them.
If you're trying to argue that not having sidewalks is better because then you don't have to shovel it in the winter then to each his/her own. I think that is well worth the luxury of being able to walk around the neighborhood on sidewalks with a line of mature trees between you and the street.
No, I am trying to point out your limited and totally unnecessary dig at the suburbs that has no basis in fact. The point is, there are several neighborhoods, including in Minneapolis and St. Paul, that don't have sidewalks. The majority of the suburbs I have been in have sidewalks. We like having a sidewalk but having one certainly doesn't make me "better" than others like some here seem to think .
I have NEVER come across a neighborhood in Minneapolis that doesn't have sidewalks. I have come across many neighborhoods in the suburbs that do not have sidewalks. Check out the article linked above; many people actually find lack of sidewalks a good thing. Not me, but I know people who do.
I would never (and I doubt most people would) suggest that the people who don't have or don't want sidewalks are somehow inferior, but I WOULD suggest that a neighborhood that lacks sidewalks IS inferior, at least in the design sense, to one that does. Obviously I don't plan on buying in a non-sidewalk area soon. For many people that's really not an issue, or isn't the primary issue. That's their choice, and most of us don't judge them for it. (although we may judge the neighborhood's design)
I think this sidewalk issue is going off on a tangent, but I really think that it would be unfair for any potential future reader to leave unchallenged the idea that Minneapolis (don't know about St. Paul) has neighborhoods without sidewalks. I've never seen them. 92% of the city's streets have sidewalks on both sides, and I assume that in most cases the ones that don't have them on two sides are ones that have industrial frontage, etc. (like along 29th street, etc.). The city has a master pedestrian plan if you want to read about it. In any case, there are a (very) few missing sidewalk gaps, but those aren't concentrated in entire "neighborhoods," and the city has made it a priority to fill in the gaps even in these industrial areas and by railroad tracks.
And really, you must know that the suburbs as a whole have lower percentage of streets with sidewalks than do the central cities; that's not some suburb-city conflict, it's just a statement of fact and a reflection of the ways in which different communities developed. It's great that Rosemount does (at least it's great for those who do prefer them), but as all of us who have spent even minimal amounts of time in various Twin Cities suburbs know that many suburban neighborhoods aren't so lucky (or unlucky, depending on one's view).
You must understand also that there is no traffic in the residential neighborhoods in the suburbs either. It is far safer to walk along the side of a street in the suburbs then to try to cross a busy urban street even with sidewalks. You don't have 100's of cars parked along the street in the suburbs like you do in the city and the roads are wider to accommodate foot traffic in areas where there are not sidewalks. When you find more kids playing in the street then you do cars driving on the street, sidewalks are irrelevant.
The problem is, you have never lived in the suburbs where I have lived in the city, suburbs and rural areas so I can farily compare the two, where you really can't. You have no idea what life is like in the suburbs other than brief visits yet you spout off constantly about how bad things are here, how unwalkable they are, yet you really have no idea so stop telling us how bad things are here and how we don't have all these things you say we don't have, sidewalks, BUS SERVICE, etc.
Golfgal, I HAVE lived in the suburbs (and in small/rural towns and in much bigger cities), so I think I have just as valid a perspective as do you, or Slig, or anyone else on these forums. I also think it's a fair assumption to say that I have spent a lot more time walking on the streets of both Minneapolis and the suburbs than you have. I think it's probably also fair to say that I take and have taken the bus more than you do, both in the suburbs and in the city. Maybe that's wrong, but given that I don't drive and grew up with a mother who didn't drive (but have friends, family, and jobs in the suburbs, plus just general shopping and visiting various destinations for other reasons), I've spent (and continue to spend) time in various parts of the metro area and get around when I'm there by foot.
I think you need to spend more time reading my posts: I have NEVER said that the suburbs lack bus service or sidewalks; I HAVE pointed out (as is well-documented) that the suburbs as a WHOLE don't currently have public transportation coverage on par with the core cities or inner suburbs (just try living without your car and visiting friends around the metro area: you'll see.)
I think it's fairly clear that you haven't spent much time on the quieter residential streets in Minneapolis. Not every city neighborhood is busy and urban, just as every suburban neighborhood isn't quiet. It does not help things to try to place everything into a "city" versus "suburb" battle, and I generally try not to do so.
It's unfair to paint all suburbs as the same. I haven't spent time in Rosemount (and never have claimed to have done so); I have spent a LOT of time in other Twin Cities suburbs. Some I like, some I don't. Same goes for Minneapolis neighborhoods. So if I take your word on it and your neighborhood has sidewalks, excellent public transportation, lots of things to walk to, then great! Wonderful! That's the kind of neighborhood I like best. Others don't, and that's there choice. But since you've lived in other areas of the Twin Cities and have spent time in other parts of the metro area, then you know as well as I do that not all neighborhoods are created equal. So what's with the insistence that everything is the same everywhere? That's simply not the case. Seriously, go without your car, get out and walk the streets (ideally in the winter) of a broad sampling of city and suburban neighborhoods, get to and from them by bus (including at non-commuter hours), and try saying that all places are the same. Obviously for most of us a good thing: we may both like walkable neighborhoods with sidewalks and good bus transportation, but obviously plenty of other people don't. When it comes to these sorts of forums it's important to try to give the poster what THEY want, as well as to give them the facts so that they can make up their own mind. (and believe me, NOT all neighborhoods are created equal on the bus issue.)
And obviously we do have some very different ideas: I would never say that sidewalks are irrelevant, even in areas with more kids than cars. It's that way in many south Minneapolis neighborhoods, but I'd still never give up the sidewalks.
In any case, as much as I try not to say there is a sharp suburb/city divide, I also think it's irresponsible to make statements like "there are Minneapolis neighborhoods without sidewalks," as that's just not the case. There ARE suburban neighborhoods without sidewalks. And like the article noted, some people LIKE it like that. That's their choice, and I'm not going to criticize them for it.
ETA: I really need to let this go, but I think that the regular posters on here really need to try to let this idea that the suburbs are all one way and the city is all another way go. But it's equally important to be up front about various neighborhoods, as well as try to acknowledge what's opinion and what's fact. For public transportation, for example, sure, one COULD live without a car in Apple Valley or somewhere, but a glance at the bus schedules make it clear that for someone with public transportation for daily, non-commuting needs somewhere like Apple Valley (not to single AV out; it's just an example) would come far down the list. Same thing with sidewalks. If someone cares strongly about having sidewalks in a community (or, for that matter, feels strongly about NOT wanting sidewalks) then we shouldn't judge them for their choice, but should point them to the city (where all neighborhoods do have them) or to one of the suburbs that does have them. Whether or not we personally like sidewalks is generally besides the point. And finally, one doesn't have to live in a neighborhood to have an opinion on it; we have a core of regulars on here, but not every single neighborhood in every single city is represented. I assume that most of us don't comment about neighborhoods we're not familiar with.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 04-25-2010 at 01:35 PM..
No, I am trying to point out your limited and totally unnecessary dig at the suburbs that has no basis in fact. The point is, there are several neighborhoods, including in Minneapolis and St. Paul, that don't have sidewalks. The majority of the suburbs I have been in have sidewalks. We like having a sidewalk but having one certainly doesn't make me "better" than others like some here seem to think .
It was an observation of mine, take it how you want to take it. Here is a quote from that article Uptown posted a link to:
Quote:
Edina has just 25 miles of sidewalk for 230 miles of road (compare that with Minneapolis, with roughly 2,000 miles of sidewalk for about 1,000 miles of road).
I would say based on that statistic that Minneapolis' roads are pretty well set for sidewalks, wouldn't you say? Meanwhile, I could point out tons of roads in places like Eagan, Coon Rapids, Anoka, Ramsey, Andover, Richfield, Edina, Bloomington, Champlin, Burnsville, Lakeville, Blaine, Shakopee, Woodbury, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. where there are no sidewalks present. It's funny how you always are quick to shut down people's generalization statements yet your counterargument always contains several generalizations of your own. And just because you've lived in suburbs, urban and rural environments doesn't make you any more of an expert on the subject than anyone else on here, let's make that distinction right now.
Crystal has sidewalks. I have used them. for walking.
My original sidewalk comment was about the suburbs in general and not Crystal specific. However, if I'm not mistaken some of Crystal's streets have sidewalks, some have them on just one side of the street and there are streets without any kind of sidewalks when you get into the more residential areas. Beings as you live there I'm sure you can attest to this.
Yeah, I noticed the thing about the lack of sidewalks when we did our drive-through. I personally wish that there were sidewalks, primarlily because it provides a safe place for kids to ride their bikes/trikes, walk from one house to another, and to walk the dog. If its rainy really don't want to walk in a slick road. This may be a residential area but we all know how these teeny-boppers drive like its the Indy 500. Perhaps if I move there I'll install a sidewalk in my yard and see who follows suit.
You could check with the city to see if they have any plans to encourage sidewalks in the future; some of the suburbs are trying to put them in, or at least to expand the number of sidewalks around, although I assume that many of those plans have hit some bumps in the road now that the economy has tanked. I think a lot of people would like sidewalks if they were there, but aren't thrilled about the price tag to put them in after-the-fact. (which I can understand, even though I, too, would prefer sidewalks.) It seems like "pedestrian master plans" seem to be all the rage in cities now; no idea if Crystal has one or will be doing one, but they're really useful documents full of details about sidewalks, safety concerns, goals, etc.
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.
If you're trying to argue that not having sidewalks is better because then you don't have to shovel it in the winter then to each his/her own. I think that is well worth the luxury of being able to walk around the neighborhood on sidewalks with a line of mature trees between you and the street.
.
