[68vette]

When I lived in the Randolph area I attended that church. Parking was horrible as well as the building. The building needed more money in work than what the building was worth. There was no parking lot. It was all street parking and it could be a long walk to the church. Winters were very dangerous with most of the walk without sidewalks. You would have to walk in the road because the cars were parked against the curb.

[ladelfina]

Originally Posted by 68vette

When I lived in the Randolph area I attended that church. Parking was horrible as well as the building. …

Thanks for that info, 68vette. I haven't yet seen where the old church had been.

I would see the relocation as creating problems for others, though, since all the people who could have walked (assuming that the population is densest in the center) now are forced to drive, plus it takes a social nexus out of the center, much the way a Wal*Mart empties out a commercial downtown. It's still the case that holding more masses at different times throughout the day would have diminished the parking issues.

It's too bad that something couldn't be figured out w/r/t the sidewalks. Those same issues of pedestrian viability are going to hold for whoever walks in the center for whatever reason, not just churchgoers!

I'm bringing up these issues not because I care so much about the church's business (unless they ask for a bailout!), but because gasoline is going to be increasingly more expensive, and driving is going to be an increasingly-less-attractive proposition. Continuing to expand car-centric infrastructure is not the prudent direction to go in, imo… not just in Randolph or in VT, but anywhere. That's not coming from an "environmentalist" pov, just a realistic one.

[ladelfina]

Originally Posted by LisaMc46

They are all surrounded by various parking lots with narrow roadways connecting them.

It's a poorly designed mess, in my opinion.

Ugh, that does sound like a mess. I don't know the place, but I know the kind of parking lots you are talking about.

[pauldorell]

Originally Posted by ladelfina

Ugh, that does sound like a mess. I don't know the place, but I know the kind of parking lots you are talking about.

Route 2A through Williston must be one of the most generic parts of Vermont. It could just as well be Indianapolis (except for the mountains). I only go there when I have to.

[harry chickpea]

There are people who are environmentally aware, and then there are eco-nuts. There is a big difference. People who are environmentally aware avoid building structures in flood plains and use the area for forest, farming, and parks. Eco-nuts want dogs banned from streamside parks because during flooding, dog poo can get in the water. (Makes me wonder if these people even know what fish do with their waste...)

Act 250 was passed because Vermont's primary source of business has been as a living museum of 19th century New England for tourists. I remember billboards in Vermont. They weren't as bad as what came after. When I worked at a movie theatre in South Burlington, our roadside changeable letter board was conservatively designed, with a nice planter at the base, which we kept full of flowers as best the seasons would allow. As the eco-nuts began to take control, and repairs were needed on the sign, and accommodation made for showing three titles instead of two (in the same square footage), the permit process took a while. The permit was finally approved - and I am serious as a heart attack when I say this - as long as there were no changes except to the changeable letter board and we spent an equal amount of money in landscaping INCLUDING a 2" caliper tree 30' from the sign, with the obvious intent of it completely blocking the view of the sign from people driving down the road. The company couldn't be forced to remove the sign, so the planner intent was to sabotage it with landscaping. There was and is active sabotage of business in Vermont, largely by eco-nuts.

In response to a previous post, movie theatre parking has almost always been dual purpose. I remember when if you went to the Flynn or Strong, you might be forced to park on Pearl Street.

Williston's Taft Corners was always intended as Vermont's playground for big box stores. I lived within half a mile of the area back when it was farmland, and the p-ssing and moaning about it was intense even back then, when the only thing on it was the GMP headquarters. I've been there since then and it is a pure unmitigated disaster, foisted on Vermonters in the name of eco-somethin-arouther.

Decatur Alabama is in many ways similar to Burlington. The Tennessee River forms a type of lakefront, and the population is comparable. The difference is that the planners in Decatur had a clue. The city built a beltline highway in a sweeping arc, away from the river with a broad right-of-way, easily capable of handling growth for the next hundred years. The beltway is not limited access, but has service roads. The big box stores all live long the sides of it, with the space they currently require, and the city center has remained in character. Even more astonishing, that little city in Alabama has figured out how to properly sequence traffic lights to maximize traffic flow. A stretch of Highway 31 about twice as long as Shelburne Road can almost always be driven in five minutes or less at an average speed of 30 to 35 mph - even during rush hour. That is what happens when moderation is used in balancing wants and needs.

Sadly, Vermont is a belle-weather for how most of the U.S. will be over-regulated within the next 50 to 100 years. Again, environmentally aware people are not the problem. People who are using ecology as a crackpot religion are, along with regulators who don't have the common sense to know that a cow has three valued products, milk, meat, and manure.