wtf is happening to w. 39th?!

[WSPanic]

pedestrian hostile bullshit like parking lots for Chipotle, Starbucks, & convenience stores?

I fail to see how the parking lot for 6 cars is hostile to pedestrians.

[KC-wildcat]

pedestrian hostile bullshit like parking lots for Chipotle, Starbucks, & convenience stores?

The stretch of 39th that you're talking about is incredibly pedestrian friendly, IMHO.  Retail/dining abuts the sidewalks.  parking only available on streets and in (non-visible) rear parking lots. 

small parking lot on corner of Wyoming.  about 30 total spots between Starbucks + Chipotle.  small lot on corner of Bell.  That's pretty much it for street-facing parking.  Far from pedesetria hostile. 

[trailerkid]

I fail to see how the parking lot for 6 cars is hostile to pedestrians.

have you ever been a pedestrian?

[dangerboy]

I call B.S.  I walk this street 2-3 times a day, everyday.  The pedestrian hostility is being way overstated just to get a rise out people.

[taxi]

I call B.S.  I walk this street 2-3 times a day, everyday.  The pedestrian hostility is being way overstated just to get a rise out people.

It's working, as usual.

[WSPanic]

have you ever been a pedestrian?

I lived in and walked in the W 39th St area for 7 years and never got hit by a car. I live in Westport/Valentine now and have experienced 10 more years of accident free walking (on a regular basis). You must be doing it wrong. Start by pulling your head out of your ass and you won't have nearly as many problems on the road (or on this board).

[dangerboy]

^ Do not engage.  Do not engage

[trailerkid]

I lived in and walked in the W 39th St area for 7 years and never got hit by a car. I live in Westport/Valentine now and have experienced 10 more years of accident free walking (on a regular basis). You must be doing it wrong. Start by pulling your head out of your ass and you won't have nearly as many problems on the road (or on this board).

gas stations only have 6 parking spaces. are they ped friendly?

i don't care about having problems on this board. there's a personality deficit and an automobile fetish. that's not my problem.

[smh]

gas stations only have 6 parking spaces. are they ped friendly?

i don't care about having problems on this board. there's a personality deficit and an automobile fetish. that's not my problem.

Gas stations are different because they are oriented exclusively to the automobile. You'll find parking lots similar to the one outside Chipotle and Starbucks smack in the middle of Chicago. I'm fairly certain most people would call Chicago a place that doesn't de-emphasize the pedestrian overall.

[trailerkid]

Gas stations are different because they are oriented exclusively to the automobile. You'll find parking lots similar to the one outside Chipotle and Starbucks smack in the middle of Chicago. I'm fairly certain most people would call Chicago a place that doesn't de-emphasize the pedestrian overall.

so parking lots are good because they have them in Chicago?  :lol:

there is probably more overall stuff done 100% wrong in terms of the pedestrian within the city of Chicago than everything done right in the cities of StL, KC, Denver, and MPLS combined. parking lots and drive-thru windows should not be a priority anywhere. 

[bbqboy]

so parking lots are good because they have them in Chicago?  :lol:

there is probably more overall stuff done 100% wrong in terms of the pedestrian within the city of Chicago than everything done right in the cities of StL, KC, Denver, and MPLS combined. parking lots and drive-thru windows should not be a priority anywhere. 

do you ever have anything positive to say? seriously.

[smh]

do you ever have anything positive to say? seriously.

100% serious question.

[ignatius]

Would like to see the lot behind Jazz along State Line developed with a hidden garage melded with streetfront retail and/or restaurants.  Do they have a master plan?  Who owns that lot?

[KC-wildcat]

so parking lots are good because they have them in Chicago?  :lol:

I think you perspective is the problem.  Your comments would suggest that the issues in question (parking lots) are either "good" or "pedestrian hostile."

Is there not a middle ground?  Can some parking lots be indifferent?  Must the automobile be entirely good or entirely evil? 

[ChefColby]

I have seriously considered not posting on this site for this exact reason......

[smh]

I have seriously considered not posting on this site for this exact reason......

Hey now, don't let a couple of slightly obnoxious apples spoil the whole bunch.

[chrizow]

i completely agree with the idea that any form of urban design or planning that privileges the automobile over actual humans is, on its face, "pedestrian-hostile."  so, yeah, parking lots, even small ones, are pedestrian-hostile. 

indeed, it's very noticeable in places like chicago or new york - places that, by and large, are pedestrian-friendly.  when you do encounter the odd "urban strip mall" with a row or two of parking out front, or even a medium sized surface lot (which do exist in those places and others) it is noticeably less pleasant and more alienating than sidewalk-facing residential, retail and services.  not only does it "feel" more hostile and look ugly (as such interruptions in the urban landscape are more often than not associated with ugly, disposable architecture made with poor materials), but the movement of cars themselves through the landscape are pedestrian-hostile.  it's one thing for a pedestrian and car to interact at stop signs or stoplights, where there is at least (in theory) a protocol in place - crosswalks, signals, etc. - but when you start talking about parking lots, curb cuts for cars, etc. it is more of a free-for-all that by definition favors the car. 

this is subjective, of course, but just think about the pedestrian experience as you walk west along westport road from broadway.  for about a block and a half, you have a very pleasant, human-scaled, pedestrian experience.  things deteriorate rather quickly, however, once you get to Mill street - you're walking past parking lots, oversized parking-lot oriented retail (i.e. world market).  and then, of course, farther west you get to SW Trfcwy, which is the definition of pedestrian-hostile - it feels (and probably is) actually dangerous to walk around there.  then you're at Old Westport strip mall, which is incredibly pedestrian hostile.

i do agree that smaller parking lots (i.e. most of the lots along W. 39th in Volker) are more agreeable to the pedestrian than huge parking lots (i.e. Old Westport or, god help me, 96% of JoCo) because at least with small parking lots you can walk past them more quickly, there are typically fewer cars running you down, and there is often street-facing ped-friendly stuff in close range - e.g. if you're walking in front of ped-hostile Chipotle, you can at least see a refuge of pedestrian-oriented development in the Room 39 strip 50 feet ahead, whereas when you're walking past the sun fresh parking lot your entire vista is ped-hostile and soul-deadening (large parking lots and a huge parking garage.

so, yes, if an area of urban development is geared towards auto traffic vs. foot traffic, it is per se pedestrian hostile.  good urban design privileges humans over cars, as it creates places worth being in and caring about. 

[trailerkid]

^^ nice discussion. another thing to think about is the use of the parking lot. because Starbucks + Chipotle are  bourgie, desirable businesses they're OK. but what happens to the parking lot 30 years from now when the Starbucks turns into a cell phone store or the building is abandoned. an abandoned pad site, former Starbucks is a much more aggressive eyesore than a small, abandoned storefront hugging the sidewalk.

why would i have something positive to say about a Starbucks parking lot in the middle of a nice, walkable taxpayer strip? because they have them in Chicago?  :lol:

I have seriously considered not posting on this site for this exact reason......

...because there are arguments about parking lots being acceptable in the urban milieu? there are number of other reasons for you not to post here besides that.  

[KC-wildcat]

so, yes, if an area of urban development is geared towards auto traffic vs. foot traffic, it is per se pedestrian hostile.  good urban design privileges humans over cars, as it creates places worth being in and caring about. 

Good urban development shouldn't be an "either-or" proposition.  At least not in a midwestern city.  IMO, Good urban development in a midwestern city blends the two concepts into a cohesive, mutually beneficial plan. 

I prefer to be a realist when I approach these issues.  The reality is that cars are necessary in the Midwest in 2010.  For a small minority, this isn't the case.  But, for the vast majority, the automobile is necessary in every day life. 

So, I think the key is to focus on ways to accomodate automobile traffic while AT THE SAME TIME, not hampering pedestrian traffic (i.e. walkability).  Personally, I don't think the concepts are mutually exclusive.       

[KC-wildcat]

But what happens to the parking lot 30 years from now when the Starbucks turns into a cell phone store or the building is abandoned? 

Well, you're not going to give a shit about pedestrian traffic when the robust commerce dissapears.