That’s one of the more absurd pieces of engineering I’ve seen in a while. Could they seriously not find an alternate way to build that?

I am so glad to see you post this Steve! I have walked that side walk many times with my family and often times with a stroller. It is a real head-scratcher.

They’re supposedly going to slap some sidewalks out towards the ‘burbs; if they’re going to look like this, I may turn grumpy about it.

What would be more amazing is getting a (non-staged) photo of anyone actually walking down this street.

steve..come write something positive about the Eastside….”OKCEAST”

That’s completely idiotic. Keep pressing the responsible parties to use some common sense, Steve!

A few more detailed comments:

1) The passage way along the building is just short of technical compliance (the base of the fence intrudes on a required 32″ minimum clearance.

2) Although the passageway along the street technically complies with ADA, it ignores the sidewalk design concept known as “shy distance.” In plain English, this incorporates the following concept: someone in a wheelchair (or walking, for that matter) tends to “shy” away from portions of a sidewalk that are immediately adjacent to the curb (for obvious, intuitive reasons: they don’t want to get taken out by a large rear-view mirror or other object projecting from the side of a travelling vehicle).

3) The situation you describe constitutes a right-of-way encroachment by a utility structure. Many cities have regulations that prohibit the creation of the condition you document (large, fenced off portions of sidewalk).

If this condition was created in connection with the construction of the building, was it documented and approved as part of the building permitting process? This wouldn’t pass muster in many jurisdictions.

Good job, Steve!