Comments on: Why?

By: Sid Burgess

Sid Burgess — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:55:56 +0000

I really don’t understand how someone could look right at that and then say, “You bet, that meets the standard”. I understand that it meets the legal standard, but common sense and a simple glance and you can clearly see that it doesn’t make sense to allow it to be built that way. Sure, I could build a sidewalk in such a way that it had 36″ of clearance but that required handicap folks to zig-zag like on some kind of driving course. Legal? Sure. Do we want anything that resembles that in our community? Of course not.

Kristy is right and quite frankly, has to defend the legal position of the city. But we can encourage our elected officials to adopt either higher standards (legal) or fight to get builders to be more sensible (political).

By: More on the NE 2 Sidewalk | OKC Central

More on the NE 2 Sidewalk | OKC Central — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:58:05 +0000

[...] the city says this sidewalk meets ADA. It seemed hard to believe … but … yes, it does seem to meet the letter of [...]

By: Blair Humphreys

Blair Humphreys — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:28:23 +0000

"Is this not an embarrassment to someone?" Yes, to me...and has been for some time. It is infrastructure like this that has helped earn us the title of America's Worst Walking City. It is completely indefensible from an urban design standpoint and points to fatal flaws in the way the city handles urban infrastructure and development.

By: Jan

Jan — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:32:36 +0000

Steve,
The deal is, as I understand it, the ADA only requires a handicap accessible exit from the street, but doesn’t require that there even BE a sidewalk. That’s why you’ll see new ramps from a street straight into a field or yard. The cities have to meet the ADA requirement, but often they don’t have the money for continuity.

My mom needs those ramps, but we often find obstacles at the end, such as trash cans, flower pots and parking bumpers. I guess you just can’t legislate common sense. (Nor should we try).

By the way, check out the ramps between 30th and 35th on May. You could make a coffee table book out of this stuff.

By: Tim Evanston

Tim Evanston — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:55:30 +0000

Ah, the busy street of a bustling metropolis…not a person in sight.

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:49:56 +0000

I thought you were referring to the vertical separation between the street and the first level of the 2nd Street Lofts which looks really bad.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:23:56 +0000

LordGerald, there is still pass through space there. Which brings up the following response from the city’s PIO, Kristy Yeager:
“ADA coordinator Paula Falkenstein surveyed the sidewalk referred to in your blog on NE 2. She said that at its narrowest point, (on the street side of the fenced off underground vault) the sidewalk is still four feet wide. ADA requires sidewalks be at least three feet wide.
I’m happy to report that Paula determined there is no ADA violation and that the sidewalk is accessible and useable to people with disabilities.”
Now, assuming this is correct (I’d like to get some feedback from wheelchair bound folks about this sidewalk scheme), let’s ask another question: is this sidewalk the sort of design that encourages pedestrian activity? Was it really impossible to lower the grate by a few inches?

By: LordGerald

LordGerald — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:07:52 +0000

I’ve always wondered how the new mounted sign in front of Red Prime adheres to code…