Your first picture illustrates a point I was making previously – design professionals can (try to) do all the right things, yet once a facility is completed and occupied, owners do many things, in the name “security” or just because they can, that screw up the original design. This is a case where the city may or may not have jurisdiction (is a permit required for a fence of this height? from whom? Zoning? Building? Fire?) and they may or may not have exercised their jurisdiction properly (blocking an existing sidewalk? impeding emergency egress?). Part of it is what work requires permits, and what does not, and part of it is that many things can, and are, done without permits or city review.

The fundamental issue is one of context. The third photo shows the new sidewalk stopping where the flying saucer “project” ends and where the existing parking lot remains unchanged. In a perfect, ideal world, yes, the developer “should” have connected both towers, as well as redoing all the public curb ramps for several blocks around, but that ain’t reality. There are limited funds and the new sidewalk is just that, new, there was no sidewalk there before this renovation. It’s an improvement, but it’s not perfect. A better “solution” may actually be counter intuitive – instead of ending with a vertical curb at the sewer inlet, end with a curb ramp, provide a painted crosswalk at 90 degrees, then continue the pedestrian path behind the existing concrete jersey barriers. No, that’s not “perfect” either, but it would at least provide a safer, continuous path of travel at little or no additional cost.