05-20-2022, 08:22 AM
(05-20-2022, 07:42 AM)clasher Wrote: I hate those lamp posts. I also hate the awkward transition from sidewalk to asphalt... it looks uneven and awkward. Why not integrate the bases for the lights right into the retaining wall and use a modern design instead of those ugly olde timey looking crap... there's a modern looking building right there. This is just "be happy we actually did something" level of work.
Ooof, yeah, nothing about that looks good.
Frankly, it looks like they are going to fail ADA compliance with the slope at the sidewalk as well, although given it's a photograph, it's hard to know for sure.
The lamps are a real shame, but as AC3R says, par for the course for mediocre regional engineering. It's ironic, because the "old timey" lamps are a premium product that the CoK implements downtown, but there was zero consideration given to whether they made sense in this context, or if there was a better way to integrate them into the retaining wall.
Now, I do understand that integrating them into the retaining wall would have required design changes, because that type of wall cannot support a lamp base, but it would have been worth the effort.
Of course, if they'd spent that effort, they'd also have fixed all the rest of the bullshit about that particular trail, like the corners and edges. I will be curious to know where the railing goes (as you know there obviously will be a railing installed).
Honestly, all of this fits with our typical regional engineering. Apply the standards without thinking, without making any effort to look at local context or what makes sense in a specific location. We could replace our entire engineering team with a photocopier.
Which is actually why the ADA compliance issue is more than anything here, actually surprising. Since that's a standard to which they must adhere. Even if their default solution to ADA issues is to disallow all access. Maybe it's barely compliant, or maybe it isn't, and they missed it...it wouldn't be the first time ADA compliance was the one standard they failed to meet.
Honestly, it's hard to know how to respond here, it's great we're building infrastructure, especially useful infrastructure, I just wish the people who were building this were even slightly competent as designers.
FWIW...this isn't unique to cycling infra...although it is the most apparent here, both because I'm familiar with how it should look, but also because it's the one with the fewest standards that force our engineers to do a competent job. But when it comes to roads, our engineers similarly phone it in, with context free photocopying of road standards.
I don't think this gets solved without major staff turnover.