Expensive Streetscape Falls Short of Having Good ADA Compliance
Since moving downtown I’ve been doing more walking and one of those streets, as you might expect, is Washington Ave — our main focus for the rebirth of downtown. It started a number of years ago with a complete new streetscape — new paving, curbs and sidewalks. From Tucker to 18th Street is was completely rebuild for a hefty sum ($17 million or so). While I think they went overboard with the design, I believe a new streetscape project by the city was necessary to spur private investment in the area.
That said, I’ve noticed some interesting design decisions. OK, make that some really bad design decisions. For example, the curb ramps at 16th & Washington Ave:
Probably looks fine? Look closer.
Anyone using a wheelchair, such as my neighbor two doors down, or to anyone pushing a baby stroller, this is really messed up. One side of 16th has you aligned with the flow of pedestrians while the other side uses a corner ramp. The corner ramp in the foreground serves the dual purpose of crossing Washington Avenue as this point — one of the very few places where someone in a chair can cross.
Seen from the other direction, looking Westbound, you can see how someone has to jog and angle to continue straight along Washington Ave. Several solutions would have been worth considering here.
First, the corner ramp could have continued further to the South so that a person rolling along Washington Ave could continue straight without having to veer out toward traffic. Second, the ramp crossing Washington Ave could have been positioned in a number of other nearby spots so that the ramps crossing 16th St could have been aligned. Simple really, all it takes is an eye for details and functionality.
Despite all the money spent on fancy paving and custom light fixtures, little details like this were overlooked. Do not assume, that because professionals were involved, that the design is always good. Clearly, more time could have been spent getting these details right.
. . . but ain’t it purty?
.
Seriously, “more time” likely would have had little impact – making accessibility a priority and designing for it/with it in mind/at the forefront from the start would have avoided design “decisions” like these. Until the city decides to empower one or more staff to review all plans for the public right-of-way for compliance with these requirements, we’re going to continue to get more of the same!
.
.
An aside – it happens everywhere (but other places they actually fix their mistakes). From beautiful Daytona Beach:
.
.
Daytona Beach’s New Sidewalks Don’t Measure Up
August 25, 2005
.
DAYTONA BEACH – As Seemor [his seeing-eye dog] led David Dixon along the Atlantic Avenue sidewalk Wednesday morning, the guide dog passed a newly planted palm tree on the street side, forcing Dixon to step on the curb as a truck approached on the busy tourist thoroughfare. “This is not only dangerous for the handicapped, it’s a problem for everybody,” Dixon said later. “There are places Seemor and I couldn’t even walk side-by-side.”
.
.
Palms Pulled to Erase Sidewalk Obstacles
City to spend $85,800 making path clearer
November 15, 2005
.
DAYTONA BEACH – Being blind, David Dixon can’t see whether the Atlantic Avenue streetscape project has turned out attractive or not. But he said it doesn’t take someone with sight to see that the palm trees planted in the middle of the sidewalks along Atlantic Avenue made it too narrow and too difficult for those with disabilities to navigate.
Where are the people?
^ the sidewalks are too inconvenient to use! They’ve chosen to stay away and are shopping in the county instead. If only the ramps lined up. . . .
Actually design professionals many times stand in the way of good design. Nobody checks them because they are supposed to know what they are doing. As you point out the designer should think about how the person is going use the space. Clearly this was not done.
Part of the problem is today many design firms are heavily corporate in their approach and want to kick work out the door with as little thought as possible. (After all time is money). Quality is job two.
The massive parking lot in the background does not invite a stroll in that direction.
Not to condone what was done here, but looking at the pictures, it appears that there’s a catch basin / inlet and a street light post are in the bottom picture, while they’re missing from the top two. As with designing anything around existing conditions, yes, with more money and/or an “adequate budgetâ€, one or both could’ve been moved to create a linear ramp configuration, but with a “limited budgetâ€, “value engineering†probably said to just work around them. The obvious big disconnect is not matching opposite corners. It would be interesting to see how the other two corners were “resolvedâ€, and which of these two is the actual “stepchildâ€. Alternately, they may have been actually trying to avoid having two crosswalks across Washington, and were responding to differeing design criteria on the two corners (since there also is no second curb ramp in the first two pictures / not required in the third) . . .
You can find something wrong with anything if you try hard enough.
You’re right – I wasn’t here when they started – I was just pointing out some possible explanations/excuses. I also said I don’t condone what was done – it meets the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Still, dealing with existing conditions like these are one reason Metro and their contractors are in court now. On a project like this one, where the focus is/was on aethetics, there’s a tendency to downplay the need to deal with functionality. My guess is that the person in charge on this project had more of an artistic background and temperment than an engineering perspective. This also illustrates the level of compromise that drives every decision on every larger project. Hindsight offers 20/20 clarity, and every honest designer will agree that certain things could have been done better, in retrospect, on every completed project.
I blame the Civil Engineer!
Even having commons sense is sufficient knowledge to see this is wrong, but at least ramps were built. When Metro came through my neighborhood, the ripped out sidewalks were not to be replaced as shown to me in the engineer’s drafts (we eventually got them rebuilt).
These problems are wide spread in a culture that lacks common sense and places the needs of autos over people. Get used to it as there is much more nonsense to come…just look at the details of the New 64 and the lack of sidewalks-bike lanes for the Hanley Road project.
Here is what leadership in this region thinks is “common sense”:
As written by the Mayor of Richmond Heights: “Hanley Road effectively serves as the southern extension of I-170. As such it needs to move as much traffic as possible at speeds that are unsafe for bicycle traffic. I appreciate the need for more pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets and roads; however, Hanley Road, with all its challenges, simply is not one of those roads.”
Richmond Heights has used eminint domain and plans to build new strip malls along Hanley Road, north of your favorite store Steve.
Are you in a writer’s block? School got your thoughts focused elsewhere? Seriously, this is not the thought provoking, challenging, cutting edge posts I enjoy. This post is sophomoric. Oh no, not a “jog and angle.” I think I will move to New Town to avoid such horrors. I’m sorry Steve, but you have trained us Urban Review readers to expect much more from you.
“Are you in a writer’s block? School got your thoughts focused elsewhere? Seriously, this is not the thought provoking, challenging, cutting edge posts I enjoy. This post is sophomoric.”
.
i disagree. it’s a valid concern. BTW, try starting you own blog and making EVERY single post a life-altering read. good luck!
I just came back from Jonesboro Arkansas today (Sunday). It seems to me Americans in general don’t look at the details, I really feel the overall quality of life in America is low, especially considering the material wealth that exists.
So the detail of the design of the intersection is important. It defines the larger issues of process and why this intersection is problematic.
Either the city wants to design for ADA or it doesn’t.(Federal law aside) If it does then it should be done right. What else may be impacted through this design process?
For instance was it a similar process used at Loughborough Commons in design for ADA, and perhaps the rest of the site plan also. There seems to be a common thread, no consideration for the end users, the people of the city. So are all of these instances related?
I agree it probably was designed by a civil engineer, although perhaps an architect was involved somehow. I disagree with JZ that someone was so concerned about the design they missed the ADA implications.
More likely it is a civil engineer with incomplete understanding of the necessity of architecture (ie building) to serve people’s needs. There may have been consulting input from an architect for lamps and such, although I’m not blown away by the rest of the design. It is fine, but does not enter the realm of art.
Actually it would be interesting to know if an architect was involved at all (the question of process). This is the type of problem a good architect could analyze and resolve. The process to arrive at such a solution is a question that should be addressed. In fact it is a fair design question to ask about the rest of design. Did it maximize the value received? Should other approaches be looked at?
I agree with JZ, it is possible to find fault with every project, but from what I have seen there needs to be some changes in design methodology in the City of St. Louis.
Make big plans (Burnham) and ignore the small yet important details (St. Louis).
The ramp on the west side of 16th is also used as a driving ramp to exit the parking lot. My window is almost directly across the street and I watch cars drive on the sidewalk and down the handicap ramp regularly. If they made it wider, maybe SUV’s could use it too.