Marginalizing pedestrians
I’m afraid that this is going to be something of a rant. I get increasingly annoyed by the way in which we seem to be imitating the US in designing our urban spaces around cars, with little regard for people who might prefer to (or have to) walk. I know that some cities in the US are quite pedestrian-friendly, but others just assume that you have a car and use it for even the shortest of trips. I’m used to walking around unfamiliar towns, and remember the bizarre looks I got in San Diego when I asked for directions for walking from one place to another.
In the UK, out-of-town shopping centres or ‘retail parks’ seem to be the worst offenders. They generally have the car park in front of the shops, with no pedestrian paths to get you across the car park safely. This is particularly idiotic, because even people who come by car have to negotiate the traffic after they have got out of their car. There’s a retail park quite close to my home that I had to visit yesterday on an errand. I would never drive there because it’s so close, and it’s not even really worth getting the bike out for such a short trip. The row of shops runs perpendicular to the main road, with the car park facing the row and in front of it. An access road connects to the main road at a set of traffic lights, but before you get to that road, there’s a small piece of woodland with a path bordering the car park. “Great”, you think as a pedestrian, “perhaps there’s a pedestrian short cut to the shops”. Just after you’ve joined the path, you see that you’ve drawn level with the pavement in front of the shops, but—-and here’s the maddening part—-there’s no access to the pavement. There’s a grassy bank and a sturdy wooden fence, but no path or steps down to the shops.
Instead, you have to continue on this pointless path (which after all, just runs parallel to the pavement of the main road) until you reach the access road. You then have to follow the route that cars take, until you reach the entrance to the car park, whereupon the pavement abruptly stops. Then you have to dodge the incoming cars whose drivers are so intent on purchasing that vital Marks and Spencer ready meal that they fail to notice your presence. In total, I reckon that you’re made to walk an extra 300-400 m over the most direct route, in pedestrian-unfriendly conditions.
Why then, you’re probably thinking, don’t you just climb down the bank and hop over the fence? Of course, that’s what I generally do, unless I’m laden with shopping. Judging by the informal path worn in the grass leading to that section of fence (a ‘desire line’ in landscape architects’ terminology), that’s what a lot of other pedestrians do too. If you’re a smart architect, you pay attention to desire lines, because they show you very explicitly where people want to go. It would be so easy and cheap for them to extend the existing path a few metres, open a small section of the fence and put a few steps (or better still, a ramp) in to reach the shops, but apparently pedestrians aren’t worth that kind of consideration any more.
1
Ah yes, the marginalization of pedestrians. Welcome to America, world. It takes alot of effort here (in the US) to be in a town or a walkable city anymore outside the few big ones or the very lberal ones that have stood up to the malls and K-marts. I travel alot and see towns across America that have been utterly decimated and abanded by business and people, yet the malls on the outside of town are blossoming like pretty giant sores. At least we don't have much mass transit here to offset the problems.----- I remember a few years ago a university in the UK was building or extending a campus and purposefully didn't lay any paths between the buildings.
Then, after a term or two, they just built hard paths wherever the grass was worn away. A pain in the neck while you tramp mud everywhere, but it's nice to see some long-term planning for this kind of thing.
Ian
by ijw @ 27/11/2005 4:12 pm • Permalink •
2
Pedestrian friendliness. Another thing I love about my beautiful Oxford
When I briefly lived in Birmingham, by contrast, I marvelled at the way the whole place was "motor city", and how easy it was to drive around. I was very taken by the friendliness of the Brummies, but I can't say that the landscape made me want to enjoy a walk around - except when out on balti and drinking missions, that is. Sparkbrook was not terribly comparable to The High for scenery :>
by jim w @ 27/11/2005 5:11 pm • Permalink •
3
Maybe its like that in some cities - Cardiff is really pretty good for peds. On big match days the council shut the main roads through town and pedestrianise the city centre.
Out of town shopping centres will get theirs as online shopping tightens its grip.
by Dick Davies @ 27/11/2005 5:12 pm • Permalink •
4
Yep, this is one of the big problems facing the US today -- at this point, it's very hard to do without a car in a lot of places, even ones that notionally have public transit. Because of that, people basically can't reduce their driving much without, for instance, selling their house and moving across the country. Within the US, the divide is basically between cities that built up prior to versus after about 1950. Los Angeles, Atlanta, Las Vegas, San Jose -- 'car' cities. Boston, New York, San Francisco -- 'walking' cities. Suburbs -- all 'car' places, many without any sidewalks (pavements) at all.
More generally, I suspect the change has a lot to do with when it becomes common to own a car. At that point, it's easy to spend more and more on roads, which are already subsidized by the government, and less on other kinds of transit. So you'll likely see more of this kind of thing in the UK as time goes on -- unless people spot the trap and adopt policies that keep housing close to businesses, restrict building in rural areas, and so on. Or, more simply, you might refuse to use government money to subsidize car owners via the roads network.
by Victor @ 27/11/2005 6:12 pm • Permalink •
5
Agree with you entirely. As a non-driver , I love to be able to get a feel for a town or city by pounding it's streets for a while. There is nothing more disheartening than wandering along a path by the side of a duel carriageway.
by Martyn @ 28/11/2005 8:12 pm • Permalink •
6
bill brovold: Yes, that's the impression I've got, though admittedly from a very small sample size.
ijw: Actually, that's a great idea, despite the initial mess.
Dick Davies: Sounds good. The centre of Birmingham isn't too bad now, particularly around the new Bullring development, and also along the canal basin, but out in the 'burbs it's a bit different. To give them credit, the town planners in Birmingham are now fighting against the 'Car is King' attitude that scarred the city in the 70s.
jim w: Yes, Oxford is a rather nice city to wander in, but you have the opposite problem of having to force your way through crowds of students and tourists, though it's rather lovely very early in the morning, or very late at night. See above for recent changes to the city centre in Birmingham.
Victor: It's a vicious circle, isn't it. I'm not sure which way we are going to jump in this country. On the one hand, we are doing more out of town development, and very little money is being put into public transport. On the other hand, things like the congestion charge in London (even if it is just done as a money grabbing exercise) seems to be having some good effects.
Martyn: You certainly see a lot more if you walk around, even over taking public transport.
by bsag @ 29/11/2005 6:12 pm • Permalink •
Page 1 of 1 pages