[Vision2020] Re: subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")

[Jeff Harkins]

Different perspectives on subdivisions and related amenities ......

I am puzzled by the posts which refer to lack of 
connectivity between subdivisions and lack of access to parks.

I lived in the Frontier Addition for 8 years.  In 
addition to road connectivity, there were two 
(now three) connections between Frontier and the 
connecting living areas - one to the Borah 
neighborhood (walk and bike) and one (via stairs) 
to Ridge Road and the campus.   A third was 
constructed when Frontier II was launched - it is 
also walk/bike.  And the Frontier Park is 
available.  Surprisingly, many in this 
neighborhood strongly opposed the Palouse River Drive ballfields.

The Rolling Hills addition and the new Salisbury 
addition are now connected with each other - by 
road and the Rolling Hills addition (upper) is 
connected to the lower level via 
staircase.  These folks all enjoy easy access to 
Hordemen Pond, the Joseph Street ball parks, 
Mountain View Park and the Aquatic Center as well 
as the Latah Fairgrounds and the Lions Park.

Oddly enough, residents around 3rd and 6th St are 
vocally opposed to connecting the subdivisions 
with their neighborhoods by completing the bridge for the "planned arterial".

Should there be additional parks created? - Of 
course - parks are usually nice additions to a 
community, unless they are ballfields.

But, who should pay for them?  Users, those in 
the immediate neighborhood or general 
taxpayers?  Given all the wrangling over parks 
and park use, perhaps it is time to consider 
"private parks".  Such parks would be paid for by 
local residents for the exclusive use of those 
residents - include athletic facilities (tennis, 
golf, lawn bowling, etc), social activities and like-minded folks?

On that theme, would it be reasonable to have the 
Thompson property developed as a private living 
community with restricted access - perhaps offer 
golf, tennis, equestrian amenities - parklike 
appearance, but no public access?  This would 
probably require a change in the prohibition of 
gated communities, but it would allow individuals 
to seek living sites that catered to their 
personal interests.  It would seem to eliminate 
many of the disputes between neighbors, e.g., 
dogs versus no dogs, cats versus no cats, 
children versus no children, outside storage 
versus no outside storage, "ugly" houses next to 
"nice" houses, approved landscaping versus eclectic landscaping.

Would such a project be compatible with a "smart growth" agenda?

Should there be improved transportation queues? 
Of course. Who should pay for them? Users, those 
in the immediate neighborhood or general 
taxpayers?  The current model seems to be built 
around the view that subdivision streets and 
sidewalks are covered by developers - which means 
the cost is impounded in the price of the 
lot.  Arterials are financed by general 
taxpayers.  Are their alternatives to this model?

Bike trails are an interesting element in the 
transportation mix.  I had hoped that the Latah 
Trail would be a real solution for encouraging 
walking and bike/traffic issues on the east 
side.  But sadly (and I drive adjacent to the 
trail at least twice a day) I have seen wholesale 
disregard for the trail as a traffic 
solution.  Each day, I see more bikers and 
runners not using the trail - instead, opting for 
using Palouse River Drive or Highway 8 for their 
trek. This is puzzling.  It would be helpful to 
know why so many folks are not using the trail. 
Now my post is not intended to infer that no one 
uses the trail - each day I also see many folks 
walking with a friend, walking a dog - ie, using 
the trail - my point is that there are many opting to not use the trail.

Question, if a more extensive bike trail system 
were built, would it be appropriate to mandate 
that bikers and walkers use the trails?


At 06:46 AM 5/26/2006, you wrote:
>The discussion of the character of new subdivisions, and walkability, is a
>good one.
>
>I think Keely's point can be seen in this google map
>
>http://maps.google.com/?ll=46.727683,-116.980019&spn=0.026887,0.055189&om=1
>
>I also live on the edge of one of those new neighborhoods, there is no
>"block" we can walk around for an evening stroll, because there are no
>blocks.
>
>I grew up in Pullman on Alfred Lane, one of three streets that dead end into
>WSU near Regents dorms. Each street ends in a flight of stairs onto campus.
>This makes them through streets for pedestrians walking to campus from
>further north. Further, the three streets are linked by a narrow public path
>(the route of the sewer) located 2/3 of the way from the corner to the dead
>end.
>
>The hills explain some of the road alignments in the new developments. The
>hills were not as problematic in the old town (hence its location I guess).
>If you look at the old grid, where it charges up the hills (6th from main to
>the Courthouse), there can be some steep and problematic grades. Pullman has
>it worse (consider High or Spring street from Downtown) I don't think Moscow
>will accept streets of that steepness anymore. Nor are they so great for
>walking, biking, wheelchairs, etc.
>
>Maybe its worth a look at historic cities with hills and their solutions in
>days when horses pulled carts. As in Rome, we might build streets as flights
>of steps (see Spanins Steps) (Google it, look at images). A street-wide
>stair makes a public pedestrian space. I have see a wide stair designed with
>a ramp that zig-zaged up across its face, but it doesn't quite work for
>wheelchairs because the ramp has no railings to help pull oneself along.
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯