Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GeneralTonic t1_ivmo1ha wrote

Some of our sidewalks are more... aspirational, than functional.

46

7395715673 t1_ivmpojq wrote

Must first view this now hiring ad to continue.

16

Cold417 t1_ivmpp27 wrote

That's the end of a newer section of sidewalk. There wasn't even a sidewalk there 10 years ago.

10

dailycitizen t1_ivms213 wrote

Anglers Inn (the property where the sidewalk is) was required to build a new sidewalk during their renovation.

Since there wasn't already a sidewalk on the adjacent property, there was no way to require them to connect it to anything.

Seems stupid, is stupid, but really no way to account for it.

25

ICareAboutNihilism t1_ivmsqfd wrote

That's a brand new sidewalk, you can see where the forms were removed along the edge. The property owners are responsible for the sidewalk not the city. Looks like they hit the edge of their property.

1

bradpmo t1_ivmtlib wrote

Least pedestrian city I’ve lived in.

29

SpacierGiant t1_ivmxmqt wrote

It actually sucks ass when they do that. Especially when you gotta bike on the sidewalks for a little bit.

2

UnnamedCzech t1_ivmxoc7 wrote

Sidewalks in Springfield are merely there to check a box, not to be useful.

You can especially tell where the city’s priorities are when it snows. Roads are well cleared… but the sidewalks are piled high with the snow from the road. And then you see people in mobility scooters riding down the side of Glenstone with cars zooming by at 50mph. Pretty clear the city does not care about them.

19

MacAttack2015 t1_ivmxvb7 wrote

I can explain why this happens! In Springfield, new sidewalks are built by the developer at the time of a property’s development (with some exceptions). That hasn’t been the rule forever though, so large parts of the city were developed without any pedestrian infrastructure at all. Now that some of those properties are redeveloping, those without sidewalk are usually required to build it. If it’s a corridor without sidewalk that the City has determined needs the infrastructure, that could mean building a sidewalk with no connection at your property line. This can lead to a patchwork of infrastructure if certain properties do not redevelop when their neighbors do.

The City has a pool of money funded by properties that request to pay a fee in-lieu-of sidewalk, which a special board considers and approves based on the need, etc. in that area. The developer pays for each foot of sidewalk they request not to construct, and that money is then used to build sidewalk elsewhere in that property’s Council district (1 through 4).

8

bthornsy t1_ivmy697 wrote

Shel Silverstein has entered the chat

23

sgf-guy t1_ivn69s3 wrote

I live nearby and noticed this a few years back.

The city is in a weird spot of we follow professional guidelines in city departments but still rely on largely volunteer board members like council/P&Z, etc. P&Z seems to a bit more industry oriented voted appointments which prob helps a bit but I would support a paid part time job for city board members and some baseline training of what the standards the city depts work under. Pay them time to go visit the site, walk the area, sit and watch for a bit at diff times of the day, talk with people who very close by have boots on the ground situational reality.

I also see a problem with many commercial zoning projects having to have a certain percent of green space/landscaping space.

On face it is good, but you end up with situations like Raisin Cains that has a tree on the very NW property line in a no man’s land within spitting distance of Campbell. Or things like planting trees but no irrigation and no one at the new business ever waters it properly. Also, “landscapers” and contractors just buy to fill requirements and know -nothing- about botany or native species. I’d even consider a half as many plant requirements if native species…plus way more likely to survive.

5

Wyldfire2112 t1_ivnn5ch wrote

Correct.

When the Angler Inn, the property this is on, did their remodel they were required to install a sidewalk... but the Taco Bell sidewalk didn't extend to the property edge, so this is what we get.

In short, blame Taco Bell for where they put their planter.

5

wanderlustandtears t1_ivocco4 wrote

Obviously not. I'm saying Springfields lack of city planning is ultimately what is to blame. Plenty of other cities don't have the extreme ugliness that is Glenstone. That's a city planning problem. lots of places that do actually care about walkability don't put sidewalk building and maintenance solely on businesses. Once again, city planning.

4

Why_T t1_ivofftl wrote

This is just how cities do this. They require every business that builds or renovates to extend the side walk. Over the next 19-15 years all the sidewalks will be updated and at no cost to the taxpayers.

It’s a slow but effective method.

8

Why_T t1_ivofnq2 wrote

They do, ish. The landscaping plan would have been submitted for approval along with the building plans. And they wouldn’t get a building permit without it.

2

CetiCeltic t1_ivoma2t wrote

I almost smoked someone in a mobility scooter the other day because they were sitting in the turning lane on Kearney at night. All black scooter, all black clothes. Wish we had better options for them and anyone else with mobility devices.

7

ForWhomTheCheeksClap t1_ivoq8s0 wrote

I know it's hideous but I promise it'll connect to new sidewalk in the future

2

benbunton t1_ivq9tyo wrote

Don't let the cops see you bike on sidewalks or they'll give you a ticket because you're supposed to ride in the roadway (got this ticket 7 years ago when I was a student). But don't let them see you bike on the road or they'll give you a ticket for impeding traffic (got this ticket a month later biking on bear boulevard, literally right next to JQH arena). Basically don't let the cops know you have a bike unless it's in your $70,000 pickup or on your kuat bike rack.

3

ErisEpicene t1_ivqgc61 wrote

r/shittyskylines everyday in sunny Springfield!

1