Building Better Suburbs: Sidewalks, driveways, and other development standards

[Dado]

Back in August, Planning Committee voted to delete sidewalks from a number of streets in Mattamy's Half Moon Bay development south of the Jock River.

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...position79.htm

3. COMMUNITY SIDEWALKS - MATTAMY SUBDIVISION, HALF MOON BAY
TROTTOIRS COMMUNAUTAIRES - LOTISSEMENT HALF MOON BAY DE MATTAMY
(Deferred at the the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 8 December 2009 / Reporté de la réunion du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement du 8 décembre 2009)
ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0035 BARRHAVEN (3)

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the deletion of the requirement to construct the following sections of sidewalk in Mattamy’s Half Moon Bay Subdivision:

Phase 1
- All of Foxhound Way west of Freshwater Way
- All of Sunset Cove Circle
- All of Watermusic Bay and River Rock Avenue

Phase 2
- All of Baynes Sound Way and Blue Aster Street
- Nutgrove Avenue north of Blue Aster Street

CARRIED

This was based on the following Planning report and earlier efforts by Councillor Harder at Mattamy's behest:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...c/2010/08-24/3 - ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0035 - Harder - Sidewalks in Half Moon Bay Final.htm

For reference, this is Mattamy's map of the development:
http://www.mattamyhomes.com/Ottawa/C...s/SiteMap1.pdf

All the streets but Freshwater Way are named on the map, and that street is fairly easy to figure out which it is.

The interesting thing is that the streets in question run the gamut from those containing detached houses on 50' lots to those which are entirely townhouses. This basically sets a precedent for the future for all future developments where streets are comparable to these. That wouldn't be the end of the world if we started designing (or rather insisting that developers design) our residential streets differently, for example as woonerfs as in the Netherlands, but I don't imagine this is going to happen any time soon.

Now look at the rationale:

The proposed sidewalk deletions as contained in the recommendation affects only those lands located in Mattamy’s Half Moon Bay Subdivision Phases 1 and 2. This is an area where the majority of the homes have been completed and occupied for a period of almost two years. Staff is prepared to support the proposed sidewalk deletions in light of driveway paving and front yard landscaping having been completed for the majority of the homes. If the developer were to return at this time to install sidewalks as previously approved, it would cause too much disruption to the homeowners. As well, the streets affected by the proposed sidewalk deletions will have low traffic volumes due to them providing local access only, they do not provide an important link between homes and a particular destination such as a school, and there are no OC transit stops.

In other words, they landscaped the place where the sidewalks were supposed to go, then pleaded to be allowed to not build the sidewalks, and essentially got away with it (barring denial by the full City Council). And of course we can't disrupt the residents of a new development, either. No way. Residents of existing neighbourhoods can endure the hammering of infill development and tear-down replacement all summer long, but residents in new suburbs can't be expected to endure the construction of a sidewalk.

This item follows on from one in December 2009 that deferred it until a policy discussion on suburban sidewalk standards was presented to Committee, which was expected at the time in April 2010. According to the recent report, this policy discussion now isn't expected until "early 2011" and the sidewalk issue in question was brought back due to the construction season coming to a close.

It gets even more interesting when one reads the minutes from the original meeting in December (I suspect the minutes of the recent meeting will be as interesting once they become available):

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit.../minutes66.htm

Mike Wildman, Manager Developmental Review, Suburban Services, provided the following background information, and staff’s feedback on the proposed recommendations:

• The newer high-density neighbourhoods have very short setbacks from the front of a home to the edge of the right-of-way followed by a sidewalk. The concern from residents is that the setback from a vehicle parked in the driveway to the sidewalk is too short to provide adequate sight lines.
• This issue originated from an incident where a cargo van was pulling out from a driveway and the driver was unable to see a child on a tricycle that was travelling on the sidewalk. Following this incident, the ward Councillor, Councillor Harder contacted staff requesting an examination of how the sidewalk standards are being applied on tighter, high-density local streets.

...

So the solution to a driver not thoroughly checking before reversing out of a driveway is to remove the sidewalks. There's a reason drivers are supposed to reverse into spaces. Car drivers can get away with it since visibility is good enough in most cases, but drivers of larger vehicles can't.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this sidewalk policy discussion. If it results in an emphasis on share space and woonerfs for certain residential streets, it might be an improvement to suburban design, but, as always, I have my doubts.

[waterloowarrior]

August 2010 PEC minutes are up
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit.../minutes79.htm

there was a recent EMC article about this as well
http://www.emcbarrhaven.ca/20100916/...reets:+council

You've raised some good points Dado, this is a weird situation. I'm also interested to see the results of this future report

[MaxHeadroom]

I remember hearing about this and emailed Councilor Harder about it last year. Reason being, I used to live in a townhouse in an older Orleans development without sidewalks, and the property line was only about 10 feet in front of the garage door, with another 20-25 feet to the curb. When we got that record snowfall a couple of years back, we ran out of places to put the snow shovelled out of our driveways and I had to call a company to haul away some of the snow. If we had sidewalks to shovel, too, I have no idea what we would have done.

As long as traffic on the street is not excessive, and cannot ever be due to no opportunities for future expansion (ie crescents or cul de sacs) then why bother with sidewalks? They cost money to maintain and replace.

[lrt's friend]

The sidewalks need to placed right on the curb like in the older parts of the city, where space is an issue. If we want people to walk to schools or shops or to use public transit, we need sidewalks. On quiet streets, sidewalks on one side are enough. On busy collectors and arterials, sidewalks on both sides.

In my part of the city, there are missing sections of sidewalk on a 4 lane major street and nothing but a narrow paved shoulder which often disappears in winter. It is down right scary to have to walk along there. The city has said it is not a priority to close the relatively short gaps. In most of our community, there are no sidewalks. It is no wonder that few people walk anywhere.

[waterloowarrior]

OPA to remove some sidewalks
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__86MA5N

[waterloowarrior]

OPA staff report.... a bit of a half-hearted endorsement
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...9_Sidewalk.pdf

[McC]

So glad I can afford to live in a art of town where people aren't opposed to sidewalks; although we'll see if that changes when it comes time to prioritizing the completion of some of the missing sidewalk links with future s37 monies.

[Dado]

Much of Ottawa West (the residential areas flanking Richmond Rd) doesn't have sidewalks on most residential streets and it's not like this is a source of concern.

That said, most of the same streets also don't have curbs, either.

I think curbless, sidewalkless streets work in a way that curbed sidewalkless streets don't. The former seem to work in a "shared street" type fashion where pedestrians are seen to belong whereas the presence of curbs in the latter seem to be an indication to motorists to regard the street as "theirs". I can't quite put my finger on it but there is a definite difference in "feel" between a residential street with no curbs at all and one with curbs but no sidewalks.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

Much of Ottawa West (the residential areas flanking Richmond Rd) doesn't have sidewalks on most residential streets and it's not like this is a source of concern.

That said, most of the same streets also don't have curbs, either.

I think curbless, sidewalkless streets work in a way that curbed sidewalkless streets don't. The former seem to work in a "shared street" type fashion where pedestrians are seen to belong whereas the presence of curbs in the latter seem to be an indication to motorists to regard the street as "theirs". I can't quite put my finger on it but there is a definite difference in "feel" between a residential street with no curbs at all and one with curbs but no sidewalks.

No curbs and no sidewalks also give it more of a rural feel...which would be desirable for many residents. Worst is curbs and no sidewalks, I agree, since those don't solve the safety problem or the land privacy problem.

Certainly on collectors and arterials, there should always be sidewalks and curbs both sides. But on local streets, it might be safer if there are NO sidewalks or curbs - slowing cars down as children would be more likely to play.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

OPA staff report.... a bit of a half-hearted endorsement
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...9_Sidewalk.pdf

The entire basis for this discussion seems a bit screwy, to be honest.

This all started apparently as a result of suburbanites being unable to fit two cars in their driveways between the sidewalk and the garage door (god forbid anyone park their car in their garage...) with the result that sidewalks were being impinged upon. Ok... but if that's the case, why should the discussion be limited to a few streets?

Staff have now made an exception for a few streets where deleting some sidewalks arguably isn't too big a deal. Staff didn't give much of a real rationale (they basically just kept writing on about the various layers of policies and plans), relying on the fact that the status quo seems acceptable to local residents. However, since the impetus for this change and the rationale (as seen by local residents) of not being able to fit two cars in still applies to other streets where sidewalks will continue to be required, City Staff have now created a bit of a problem for themselves in the future for other new streets where the exceptions don't or can't apply.

In effect, what has happened is that being able to fit two vehicles between the street/sidewalk and the garage can now be considered a legitimate planning issue. Why should suburbanites on low-volume streets be able to park two cars when those on ever-so-slightly busier streets or those with schools and the like not be able to do the same? I can well see that the response will be to increase setbacks where policy requires a sidewalk to ensure that two cars can be accommodated.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

No curbs and no sidewalks also give it more of a rural feel...which would be desirable for many residents.

I think I'd go more with village feel than rural feel myself, unless the street has still got open ditches (and a few places actually do).

Worst is curbs and no sidewalks, I agree, since those don't solve the safety problem or the land privacy problem.

Certainly on collectors and arterials, there should always be sidewalks and curbs both sides. But on local streets, it might be safer if there are NO sidewalks or curbs - slowing cars down as children would be more likely to play.

My inclination is an all-or-nothing approach, so if you want curbs you put in a sidewalk too.

While we're at it, I'd also decamber the streets, too: make them drain into the centre and put the drains there rather than at the edges (a number of private streets do this, as it happens). Street edge draining is bad enough with curbs, but without them it's downright annoying.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

Much of Ottawa West (the residential areas flanking Richmond Rd) doesn't have sidewalks on most residential streets and it's not like this is a source of concern.

That said, most of the same streets also don't have curbs, either.

I think curbless, sidewalkless streets work in a way that curbed sidewalkless streets don't. The former seem to work in a "shared street" type fashion where pedestrians are seen to belong whereas the presence of curbs in the latter seem to be an indication to motorists to regard the street as "theirs". I can't quite put my finger on it but there is a definite difference in "feel" between a residential street with no curbs at all and one with curbs but no sidewalks.

In my experience of very occasionally walking up them from Richmond, those streets can get pretty challenging in the winter with snowbanks, parked cars and some jackasses who insist on driving without being influenced by any of these conditions...

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

In my experience of very occasionally walking up them from Richmond, those streets can get pretty challenging in the winter with snowbanks, parked cars and some jackasses who insist on driving without being influenced by any of these conditions...

The concept of such roads as "shared" completely falls apart with any amount of snow, and even some amounts of rain.

[waterloowarrior]

here is the finished product
nutgrove
http://goo.gl/maps/IpDpR

sidewalk vs no sidewalk
http://goo.gl/maps/PGhDd

rear laneways vs driveway
http://goo.gl/maps/yWg7x

[Dado]

You can see a few cases of where two cars are parked on a driveway and if there had been a sidewalk it would be blocked.

Madrid Ave looks really weird on the north side without a sidewalk, though the sidewalk which wasn't built was actually slated to be on the south side.

http://goo.gl/maps/yWg7x



Any idea what happened to the sidewalks policy?

It's been two years since I started this thread, and the policy was originally supposed to have been in discussion then but was delayed at the time until the spring of 2011, which of course has long since passed.

[eternallyme]

I do think future areas should try on locals to have no sidewalks, no curbs and open ditches...

[McC]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

...
rear laneways vs driveway
http://goo.gl/maps/yWg7x

Not kidding, I literally had nightmares about these streetviews. Turning 360 on Waterlilly Way is bloody haunting.

[Dado]

Did you check out Ambler Lane as well? Not sure what I think about that.

Note that the link actually sends you to Madrid Ave. Still, I prefer the 3-storey townhouses with garages on Madrid and Waterlilly to the 2-storey versions you commonly see elsewhere, such as on nearby Haydon Circle (tee hee!).

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I do think future areas should try on locals to have no sidewalks, no curbs and open ditches...

No, just draining the streets to the centre would suffice (which is what is done in a lot of private streets and lanes). That in and of itself would remove part of the rationale for sidewalks anyway.

Every year it at this time of year it starts: puddles and mini ice rinks form at the sides of streets because water can't drain through the snow and ice dams that end up at curbs and edges of the street. We're designing urban streets with structured drainage, not Roman Roads through conquered wilderness.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

Did you check out Ambler Lane as well? Not sure what I think about that.

wow that's bleak; that's the rear of the units right? I've never been a fan of the townhouse surrounded on all sides by asphalt. not a fan at all.

I wish we'd (still) do townhouse parking like this http://goo.gl/maps/mwIO8 (yes, the exteriors of the townhouses themselves don't have much to recommend them, but I can testify that at least they're well-laid out inside). I guess it costs more to sink a garage, but it leaves a lot more space for yards and things, which I always thought was one of the big reasons people wanted to live in the far flung 'burbs in the first place, no?

[Dado]

Here's more bleak, in Kanata:

https://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=4...250.18,,0,9.71

And again, off Maple Grove between Kanata and Stittsville:

https://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=4...236.23,,0,6.41

Yet it looks quite decent from the other side:

https://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=4...273.39,,0,-0.4

It's kind of difficult because you trade off getting one decent looking street for one ugly lane, versus having every street with garages and driveways.

Still, we can do better. Here's an example from Calgary, Garrison Woods, from the front:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...,330.07,,0,1.4

and from the land behind:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...2,9.37,,0,9.42

Here's another pair:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...12,231.94,,0,4

And from the lane behind:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...322.16,,0,6.51


Not pretty, but not downright bleak like ours, either.

There's something about having detached garages that seems to make some difference. It also allows for some actual outdoor space between the house and the garage.