Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

th1smustbetheplace t1_je1h09p wrote

My biggest concern about the proposal is that the traffic pattern for this new lot requires that cars will enter on Elm, but the only exit is onto the Avenue via the alley between Holy Frijoles and the former Bank of America building. Given the high level of pedestrian traffic, the difficulty of seeing oncoming traffic from that spot if cars are parked on 36th, and the fact that stop signs on the Avenue are already treated like a suggestion, I don't see a scenario in which this won't create accidents.

24

bmore t1_je4gy3s wrote

It's also apparently illegal to put a new curb cut on Elm and they're just going through with the ordinance to pressure DOT into breaking the law and giving them the curb cut permit.

5

umbligado t1_je4h68w wrote

Dude.

0

bmore t1_je4jg3m wrote

What? I don't make the rules. But they exist for good reason. New curb cuts on dense, mixed use, walkable streets are dangerous, anti pedestrian design. And it sounds like there is precedent of previous denials so there certainly shouldn't be special treatment here.

6

HorsieJuice t1_je4hji4 wrote

This is the only reasonable concern I’ve seen raised about this plan.

2

Interesting_Loan_425 t1_je5y5nt wrote

The only reasonable concern to tearing down buildings to put in parking lots, the thing that destroyed most American city centers and sent them back decades in development, is the new traffic pattern it might cause?

2

HorsieJuice t1_je62xal wrote

For this specific plan, yes. That’s the only reasonable concern I’ve seen. Removing one condemned house is not going to destroy Hampden.

3