O9Y64V8FDQk

From today:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/6677d1392505843-saint-anthony-expansion-sa021514.jpg

Why the hell are the lamp posts right in the middle of the sidewalk?? Isn't that basic common sense to not place them there?

Yeah, that seems pretty stupid.

That's a sign you just don't give a flip.

I don't understand how this got past design review.

That's a sign you just don't give a flip.

As long as it meets ADA requirements the city is fine with it. See the utility box on 2nd in DD.....also at the airport, the support columns for the upper level roadway cut the sidewalk in half on the lower level in many places. The people who design and approve these things just don't have the concept of walkability. It is a mostly foreign concept here.

As long as it meets ADA requirements the city is fine with it. See the utility box on 2nd in DD.....also at the airport, the support columns for the upper level roadway cut the sidewalk in half on the lower level in many places. The people who design and approve these things just don't have the concept of walkability. It is a mostly foreign concept here.

There's no way it meets ADA

Looking at streeview on Google, you can see those light poles were already there before this construction, as they are all along this stretch of Walker.

But everywhere else, there is a grassy area between the sidewalk and street. Here, they moved the sidewalk up against the street where the light poles were already installed.

They actually took out the existing sidewalk and moved it three feet to the street.

No worries. We all know that nobody actually WALKS on sidewalks in OKC. They mostly exist just to keep the filthy hippies from complaining that we have no sidewalks.

If you think that's dumb, you should see the Google Fiber boxes that are in the middle of the sidewalks in KC!

Google Fiber boxes (https://twitter.com/kclightrail/status/377555860790464514/photo/1/large)

wtf

Why the hell are the lamp posts right in the middle of the sidewalk?? Isn't that basic common sense to not place them there?


Yeah, that seems pretty stupid.


That's a sign you just don't give a flip.


I don't understand how this got past design review.

Better than crappy makes Mick happy

Better than crappy makes Mick happyNo, I just think it is lack of planning. I mean seriously, how hard is it to move the lights 3 feet? Honestly, how much would it cost? Would it even cost $5,000? That would be my guess. They're doing this multi-million expansion to make this a better building and they screw up their sidewalks by putting light post smack in the middle. I am going to send them a strongly worded message about this.

There's no way it meets ADA

36 inches wide is ADA. Also if you look closely the sidewalk curves around each pole.

Literally just saw this.

http://i.imgur.com/NLaBp0I.jpg

Incidentally there are light posts in the middle of the sidewalk, which can't possibly be ADA compliant, along the south side of NW 23rd within the Uptown area... have always hated those things..

36 inches wide is ADA. Also if you look closely the sidewalk curves around each pole.

Wow I see that now. Ha. There's ya stinkin ADA...

Wow I see that now. Ha. There's ya stinkin ADA...

Certainly no excuse for the crappy placemaking, though.

Better than crappy makes Mick happy

How is this a Mayor Cornett issue?

Wow I see that now. Ha. There's ya stinkin ADA...

Tell an engineer (or engineering assistant) that 36" is the absolute minimum for ADA, and you'll get 36"...

BTW, that 36" min. is only for short stretches...

Tell an engineer (or engineering assistant) that 36" is the absolute minimum for ADA, and you'll get 36"...

BTW, that 36" min. is only for short stretches...Tell an engineer you want the pole to be placed out of the way and you want 40'', that is what you'll get, if possible.

Tell an engineer you want the pole to be placed out of the way and you want 40'', that is what you'll get, if possible.

Have you ever "told" a civil engineer anything? lol.

no, but why wouldn't they build something the way you want it if you're paying them?

no, but why wouldn't they build something the way you want it if you're paying them?

Because engineers are in charge of what to build.

Because engineers are in charge of what to build.I thought that's what we have planners for?

I thought that's what we have planners for?

There are no planners in the public works department...

There are no planners in the public works department...

Which is completely mind-boggling. Is that SOP in other cities our size?

Which is completely mind-boggling. Is that SOP in other cities our size?

From the experiences I have, yes, most public works departments do NOT have planners on staff. Decisions about specific placement of sidewalk, street lights, etc. are left to the standards and policies set by those in charge. I do know some very progressive engineers and public works directors that see the whole picture and strive for better implementation...

A planner is not someone that typically gets into that level of detail anyway (at least your traditional planner). I believe there is a dearth of urban design training, both in planning and also in engineering.

Some things aren't even about good urban planning or not...just good common sense. This is just not right regardless of your planning views. Seems like lazy execution. You should see how they dealt with it on some other new sidewalks with poles in the way. Just stupid.

Some things aren't even about good urban planning or not...just good common sense. This is just not right regardless of your planning views. Seems like lazy execution. You should see how they dealt with it on some other new sidewalks with poles in the way. Just stupid.

Unfortunately, "Common sense" is subjective. What we may see as common sense is nonsensical to someone else.

Here is a better one of that area:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sa021514b.jpg

I wonder if the same folks who are responsible for the sidewalk are also responsible for the atrocious street repairs where the utilities were installed a number of months ago…

How stupid. Especially when you look across the street and see that the lights were put in the small, grassy strip and not in the middle of the sidewalk.

Seems like this could have been fixed by making this side like the other with a grass strip against the street (where the lights would then be) and the sidewalk pulled in a little. Plenty of room for that... sigh...

^

That's how it was before the construction... Sidewalks and lamp posts were already in. They tore up the old sidewalk and put in this new one around the lights.

^

That's how it was before the construction... Sidewalks and lamp posts were already in. They tore up the old sidewalk and put in this new one around the lights.

Not that it was designed the right way in the first place...

I'll bet money that the light fixtures are rated to only throw light a certain distance and that moving them 4-5 feet further from the roadway would have resulted in lighting not being up to required standards in the street. So, the choices (as far as PW was concerned) were to spec/buy new light poles (actually I think the poles are usually owned by OG+E, but still would have resulted in $$ spent) OR leave them be and pave around them. The results that you see make sense, from that engineering/cost perspective. They make zero sense from a pedestrian or just about any other perspective.

By the way, I'm simply not a fan of fixtures like that, which direct more light directly into the retina of the driver/walker than they cast onto surroundings. Drive down Automobile Alley (which has the same type of lights) at night, then drive down Film Row, and tell me which feels/looks better (ignoring which district has the best development). Film Row has the modern fixtures used throughout Project 180, and they light the sidewalks and streets rather than blasting the eyeballs of people traveling down the street. Big difference.

From Steve's live chat with Jim Couch:



10:22
Comment From Nick
Good morning, Steve and Mr. Couch. Can someone shed some light on why the light poles outside St. Anthony Hospital's new parking lot were placed right in the middle of the sidewalk?

10:22
Steve Lackmeyer: JIM: I'm not familiar with the situation but we can look into it.

Better photo on Steve's twitter.

https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer/status/437076069145780224

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhDMUXHCIAA_R6d.jpg

wut

I was wrong. Must have been something else in the photo that made it look like they added a small curved path around the light pole.

This is even worse than I was imagining.

Exactly what I thought.

I was wrong. Must have been something else in the photo that made it look like they added a small curved path around the light pole.

This is even worse than I was imagining.

You're not wrong. I ran on this sidewalk today. The light pole in the picture has been there. That is not the new sidewalk. The new side walk further south does curve around the light pole. Regardless, still bad.

You're not wrong. I ran on this sidewalk today. The light pole in the picture has been there. That is not the new sidewalk. The new side walk further south does curve around the light pole. Regardless, still bad.

Ah okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Yes still no excuse.

Please tell me that little tab that juts out to the curb doesn't exist simply to sidestep ADA requirements (no pun intended).

Yeah and I'm wondering if the corners might be cutting it a little too close, or if they engineered the little concrete tablet to perfectly sidestep ADA but also make certain someone in a WHEELCHAIR can not get through.

I know there's a lot of groans with ADA and it is a little unnecessary in some cases, but we're not talking about requiring an elevator in a 3-story apartment building. We're talking about a sidewalk in an area surrounded by a hospital, assisted living homes, medical offices, and other public services that healthy people probably don't even think about. This is a case where it really is a moral imperative that you don't just follow the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law.

Please tell me that little tab that juts out to the curb exists simply to sidestep ADA requirements (no pun intended).

Probably is. The cost to make that tab a little bit bigger would have been minuscule compared to going back and doing it right.

Oops. I meant please tell me it DOESN'T exist for that purpose (edit made), but I suspect it probably does. If so it would be a great way to illustrate the "spirit of the law" vs the "letter of the law."

LOL hadn't read the posts after mine and just saw that Spartan made the same point.

Probably is. The cost to make that tab a little bit bigger would have been minuscule compared to going back and doing it right.

Yeah, like I mentioned before, the cost of doing it right probably would have had to include changing the light posts, because simply making them further from the street probably would have taken them outside of their acceptable working parameters. They probably would have had to switch the existing nearly-brand-new poles for taller, brighter ones or (more likely) ones with arms. Which in addition to expense would have required applications, approvals, etc.. So instead, some quick-thinker said "I've got it! We'll just extend the sidewalk out around the posts!" And the more recent work just carried on the same theme but made it nicer.

Why would we need to move lights? Just place the sidewalk back from the street and leave a grass strip containing the light poles...just like it is across the street!!!

Duh. If someone was thinking prior to setting forms, there would have been no added cost.

I agree. Lights should not have to be moved. Sidewalk should not have been moved street side. Problem is that this doesn't appear to fit St. Anthony's landscape plan. Or something.

I was told some dissapointing news today. Not sure if you guys are aware that St Anthony is in a money crunch right now... so to save money they decide to take out a lot of the glass that's going to be on the pavilion. The newer design is not as impressive.

Seriously?

I have been wrong about many things, but this came from one of the construction managers thru the main concierge.

Man, that would just suck. Hopefully something happens so this ends up like originally planned. I really like the original designs for this, other than this cray sidewalk business they have going on.

The lot across from Starbucks is striped and open for parking now. I wonder if that means they're gonna start construction soon...

Here is the new design for this project:



http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/7762d1399480976-saint-anthony-expansion-sanew2.jpg

Previous design:
http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5561d1387819126-saint-anthony-expansion-saints1.jpg

More of the new design:



http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/7763d1399480977-saint-anthony-expansion-sanew3.jpg

Previous:
http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5562d1387819127-saint-anthony-expansion-saints2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/7764d1399480978-saint-anthony-expansion-sanew4.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/7765d1399480978-saint-anthony-expansion-sanew5.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/7766d1399480979-saint-anthony-expansion-sanew6.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/7761d1399480975-saint-anthony-expansion-sanew1.jpg