Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Jul 29, 2014
Remind me again how 12 to 15 foot setback but zero setback on upper floors made sense?
It provides a covered overhang for pedestrians in bad weather - shade from the sun and shelter from the rain - while still allowing room to walk on the sidewalk. Five foot wide sidewalks do not allow couples to pass each other, or wheelchairs, or strollers. Eight foot sidewalks allow for that if left clear, so that extra space is needed for street trees or street furniture - benches, trash cans, newspaper racks, etc. Thus, the desire for 12 ft sidewalks. If the obstructions were staggered, 10 feet would work, too.
How about just bigger setbacks? Seems way simpler but I guess the developers wouldn't like that and someone would lose the cement contract.
An example of what is possible is the design of the new building at University and Cowper, where the building was pulled back on all four sides to provide more public walkway and plaza areas.
5 feet? Some sidewalks are so overgrown with vegetation that there's only 2 feet of walkable space. Who do I contact to get that fixed?
So what happened to the enforcement of the sidewalks on University Ave. Tables have encroached on the public right of way so there is only a foot or two of walking space. Is the city at least getting rent for the use of this space?
I totally support the wider sidewalks initiative. On El Camino, the setbacks desperately need to be increased to avoid it turning into a tunnel. However, with the existing sidewalks, first thing to improve pedestrian access and comfort is to start handing out tickets for cars parked on the sidewalk. I sometimes see the sidewalk reduced to half due to bad parking.
I see no issue with a building overhanging some of the WIDER sidewalk as long as:
1) the sidewalk is not cluttered with business displays/tables/news racks. It is to be for WALKING.
2) the lowest part of the overhang provides at least 12feet of ground clearance to prevent truck-building damage.
Having a weather sheltered walking area seems like a Plus to me.
12 - 15 feet overhang is pretty substantial and would do some weird things to the architectural choices.
With all the overbuilding around here, blotting out the sun is not a reason to make a code to essentially require overbuilding.
No one is suggesting 12-15 feet of overhang. Too often people have absolutely no idea what the actual issues being considered allow or restrict. And frankly, the tables that stick out slightly on university don't bother me. Its dining outdoors. It's beautiful.
No one is walking down El Camino these days. This initiative is a small piece in the plan to make it more pedestrian friendly. And its not a developer preference that the setbacks not be increased, its an owner preference. A local business owner preference. The assumption that some developer will not make as much money and that's why people oppose it is ridiculous. People oppose change. That's it. They oppose change. When was the last time you tried a different toothpaste? What makes anyone think this community is ready to accept a walkable pedestrian friendly El Camino? Nothing really. Stop holding this city's future hostage. The next generation doesn't have a phobia about change.
I was talking about the previous suggested revision: "The ordinance would have required sidewalk widths of 12 to 18 feet, depending on context, and would have allowed upper floors to be placed at zero setback as long as the ground floor provided pedestrians ample space to walk.
Zero setback for any floor is still a looming wall. I'm guessing it was a compromise to make the sidewalk setback palatable.
When did this ordinance requiring people to build up to El Camino in a wall come about anyway, and what is the historical context? It seems like if it hasn't been around for very long, businesses have very little to complain about if we tried it and it's creating an overdevelopment frenzy that is ruining our town. These businesses aren't going to do very well if no one wants to drive through our jammed up urban tunnelways that we create with such ridiculous rules.
So having varied setbacks is now "broken teeth"? I'll have to use that one when I remodel my house...
how long before this thread is closed to all but registered users.
do not support pa online censorship
this is not a game
Wider sidewalks will allow pedestrians to walk farther away from potentially sidewalk-jumping cars. It will also give the city more space to install barriers (trees, planters, walls, etc.) between the street and the sidewalk to help keep cars where they belong. In light of today's "accident", these are very real issues that have to be considered.
Additionally, wider sidewalks also be navigable for people of all abilities, especially as technology advances for transportation and energy. A too built up environment is not only unpleasant and less safe, it will limit our options to be a real city of the future.
At the least, it will spare us the giant lawsuit we face for shutting the disabled out of the prosperity of Silicon Valley in a fake quest for affordable housing (witness the City's pressure to put in Maybell which was majority a market rate development - ironically totally inaccessible to the disabled across from a school for the disabled - while doing next to nothing for BV).
Putting safety first has other benefits.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Barron Park
- Charleston Gardens
- Charleston Meadows
- College Terrace
- Community Center
- Crescent Park
- Downtown North
- Duveneck/St. Francis
- Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
- Esther Clark Park
- Evergreen Park
- Greater Miranda
- Green Acres
- Greendell/Walnut Grove
- Leland Manor/Garland Drive
- Meadow Park
- Monroe Park
- Old Palo Alto
- Palo Alto Hills
- Palo Alto Orchards
- Palo Verde
- South of Midtown
- St. Claire Gardens
- The Greenhouse
- Triple El
- University South
- Woodland Ave. area (East Palo Alto)
- Addison School
- Barron Park School
- Duveneck School
- Egan Middle School (Los Altos)
- El Carmelo School
- Escondido School
- Fairmeadow School
- Gunn High School
- Hoover School
- JLS Middle School
- Jordan Middle School
- Juana Briones School
- Nixon School
- Ohlone School
- Palo Alto High School
- Palo Verde School
- Santa Rita (Los Altos)
- Terman Middle School
- Walter Hays School
- another community
- Another Palo Alto neighborhood
- East Palo Alto
- Los Altos
- Los Altos Hills
- Menlo Park
- Mountain View
- Portola Valley
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Teavana Palo Alto closes
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 4,126 views
What Freshmen Should be Thinking About College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 17 comments | 3,307 views
Waiting on the Edge of Death
By Chandrama Anderson | 7 comments | 1,843 views
Welcome Back Sugar Addict
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,666 views
Clarifying the Process of Canonization
By Nick Taylor | 1 comment | 1,400 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Palo Alto
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2015 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.