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.
I was confused by the whole "playing in the street" discussion until I realized that everyone was talking about neighborhoods that didn't have sidewalks. To me, that just seems odd, I've never lived anywhere without sidewalks and spent hours playing jump rope, hopscotch, etc on them as a child. Where I live now that is what all the kids do here, they either play on the sidewalk (there are really no front yards in my neighborhood) or in the alley. However, I do see older kids sometimes play catch in the street.
I can walk through a few adjoining neighborhoods.
Here in deep suburbia, walking to retail and services requires a dedicated hike.
But for a stroll, I can get all the walking I need in two or three neighborhoods, safely, without ever stepping on a sidewalk.
And don't get me wrong, I certainly recognize there are many streets and boulevards that are not walkable and pedestrians should be wary of.
But this thread turned to a lot of posts with absolutes and attitude in lieu of considerations, and at that point it is easy to turn to personal choice as a good default position.
Not all streets need sidewalks. Many to most streets shouldn't have pedestrians in them, but to cross. Cary is in process of putting sidewalks along heavily traveled thoroughfares, with Cary Parkway recently receiving a few miles of sidewalk. That is a great thing.
But if they proposed to do so on our short dead end street, I would argue against it with some fervor. It would be an unnecessary hassle that I think would hurt my property value.
I haven't lived in a home with a sidewalk in front since 1992 and haven't lived anywhere that I have missed it. That house was four blocks from a central business district in a small town. We walked to retail and services.
If I lived three blocks from Cameron Village, or Glenwood Ave., I would expect a decent walkway to access services on foot.
Mike & rfb,
thanks for responses on "walking in suburbia". I'm a bit more educated now. I'm still a proponent of sidewalks as my lense of experience shows they are a good thing. However, I'm open to the idea that sidewalks aren't necessary in the suburbs. BUT my kids will not play in the street!! Unless there is enough snow on the ground to keep everyone and all cars safely at home.
Take Care,
PDXMom
First, a point on sidewalks: while I like seeing neighborhoods get sidewalks, one trend these days is for sidewalks to be installed only on one side of the road. Though this may look like a way of doing things "cheaper," it also reduces the amount of water-impermeable surface in the development -- which helps with stormwater management. It's now considered 'greener' in many cases to do sidewalks on just one side.
In our neighborhood the city had to rip up the road for sewer repairs. Part of the new road they put down pourous pavers... basically pavers w/ small gaps between them. The parking strip area of the road is these pourous pavers and the main drivable part is a hard surface. It is asthetically pleasing and it prevents run off from going into the storm drains. In October when we get large down pours, these storm drains no longer have standing water. It's been a HUGE GREEN sucess. Some people have talked about putting them in on sidewalk areas instead of concrete . I don't know where the city falls on this. I have seen people take out their concrete drive ways and put these pourous pavers in as well. It's is lovely and it cuts down on run off.
Yes, it is more expensive. But many "green" practices do cost more upfront. The savings is in the long run with reduced sewer storm drain run off charges.
I get what you are saying about one side of sidewalks is "greener". But I think there are other alternatives and personally I'd rather see less concrete for roads and more for places to walk to bike.
But, BCR, I do think that you and I are on the same page about community and walkability. It sounds like these are 2 of the reasons you live where you do.
In our neighborhood the city had to rip up the road for sewer repairs. Part of the new road they put down pourous pavers... basically pavers w/ small gaps between them. The parking strip area of the road is these pourous pavers and the main drivable part is a hard surface. It is asthetically pleasing and it prevents run off from going into the storm drains. In October when we get large down pours, these storm drains no longer have standing water. It's been a HUGE GREEN sucess. Some people have talked about putting them in on sidewalk areas instead of concrete . I don't know where the city falls on this. I have seen people take out their concrete drive ways and put these pourous pavers in as well. It's is lovely and it cuts down on run off.
Yes, it is more expensive. But many "green" practices do cost more upfront. The savings is in the long run with reduced sewer storm drain run off charges.
I get what you are saying about one side of sidewalks is "greener". But I think there are other alternatives and personally I'd rather see less concrete for roads and more for places to walk to bike.
But, BCR, I do think that you and I are on the same page about community and walkability. It sounds like these are 2 of the reasons you live where you do.
Absolutely! My wife and I were able to walk to the mall for lunch yesterday and then took a walk last night down the Ellerbee Creek trail. There's lots of great greenway/trail facilities throughout the Triangle... but as you've pointed out, they don't all "come home" to our neighborhoods.
I love the idea of pavers along the parking strips. Do you have a link to any pictures, info from Portland, etc. on that design? (My neighborhood's doing some traffic calming work, and I wonder if we might be able to advocate for their installation along a busy corridor that has on-street parking.) Interesting idea using them for sidewalks, too. In that case, it'd make having them on both sides of the street make more sense.
I mentioned "family friendly neighborhood" in a pp and for me it referred to a rental complex. It was not a young singles kind of a place that might be loud in the evening (when baby is trying to sleep) and lonely during the day (when everyone is a work). My neighbors are in a similar situation and are able to tell me what they know about doctors, preschools, playgrounds, etc. It just made moving to Raleigh more comfortable. In fact one other family we met at the townhouses had remain one of our closest friends.
Until Monday, I live in a little "fishing village" that just happens to share a zip code with a Seattle metro area. Just shortly after I moved in here, a 12-year-old boy was killed by a non-speeding car because he was playing in the street and not wearing reflective clothing.
I am torn by his death to his day - and what his parents are going through - and what the neighbour whose street-side the death occurred on - and the guy who accidently killed him at 9:30ish at night on a PNW winter night. With that in mind, all I can say to all of the parents out there is this:
Keep your babies safe. Teach them that even a slow moving car is thousands of pounds heavier than they are. Teach them to not be in the way.
I, for one and based on this horrible incident will, NEVER AGAIN, live in a place where it's OK for kids to play in the street. And if you'd like me to take piccies of little Justin's memorial before I leave here on Monday, just ask. I'll be happy to do so - and post.
eileen
We almost lost my cousin after she was hit by a car. I can't believe parents actually encourage kids to play in the street. What's wrong with a small backyard, a local park or even a community center? We were dirt poor, but we always had safe places to play.
Wow...maybe there aren't enough ordinences in Wake County
Being a good neighbor means respecting those who live around you and treating them the way you would like to be treated.
I drive slowly around my development because I know there are kids learning to ride bikes or chasing after balls and I wouldn't want to hit them regardless of whether or not it would be my fault.
By the same token, I would never errect a basketball hoop on the street. Unless your block is filled with future NBA players with perfect aim, chances are that somebody is going to miss the hoop and hit a car or window. You wouldn't want to pay to have your car or window replaced, would you?
Ditto for blocking off the cul de sac to traffic. I'm not a traffic cop and I have no right to tell my neighbors where they can and cannot drive.
And I wouldn't let my kids run across my neighbor's flower beds either. Sure, it's fine for a kid to retrieve a stray ball or toy, but he or she should be taught to respect peoples' property, especially if the neighbor is serious about lawn care and landscaping.
I live in a small, 12-house neighborhood without sidewalks where kids play outside all day, usually in each other's yards. When they ride their bikes and scooters, they obey the traffic rules for the most part. If my kids don't, I take their bikes away for a couple of days after reitterating why it's a safety issue.
I've never experienced any of the nonsense some of the other posters have because those of us with kids have taught them to be respectful.
Perhaps some of the posters on this board should do the same rather than telling their kids it's O.K. to blatently break the law and expecting their neighbors to suck it up in silence.
Part of the problem is that unlike the neighborhoods we grew up in, today's subdivisions often lack decent-sized backyards and sidewalks where children can safely play. Most people would rather have a McMansion on a tiny lot than a more modest home with more outdoor space.
I think a family friendly community is when you drive through a town you can see things for the whole family to do. Like a park so the children can run around and strech their legs. A splash park for the whole family to enjoy. I also think having sidewalks in the town are great to so it let the public know they don't like children and families on the street. As for neighbourhoods, they should all have a park in them no matter if its family or not.
I hear it more with restaurants. "Family friendly" usually means to me that there will be loud, screaming kids there so if you want a peaceful meal, go somewhere that does not advertise "Family friendly".
But to answer NRG's four-year-old question: I've always wondered about the street named, "Rue sans famille" in Raleigh. It's French, and it means "Street without family."
Doesn't sound too friendly to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Raleigh_Guy
I know there are certain areas of every metro area that suffer from stigmas or are not considered as safe as others because of crime, but aside from those areas, what would be considered a good example of an area in the Triangle not welcoming to families? I can't think of one.
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.
A Green Alternative to Concrete Sidewalks
