Looking around Irvine on google maps and streetview, I see:
1- a fairly dense mix of different housing types
2- lots of pathways and consistent sidewalks that form a network (could be more consistent but pretty well connected - there are some bigger arterial roads that look like they could be easier to cross - see Scott's comment on gett…
Looking around Irvine on google maps and streetview, I see:
1- a fairly dense mix of different housing types
2- lots of pathways and consistent sidewalks that form a network (could be more consistent but pretty well connected - there are some bigger arterial roads that look like they could be easier to cross - see Scott's comment on getting to the corner store - but fairly good)
3- schools and parks that are connected to that pathway and sidewalk network
4- aside from schools, there are almost no 'practical' or commercial destinations (restaurants/shops/services/offices and their jobs) that take points 1-3 above into account and make non-driving access a consideration other than a couple of sidewalks through parking lots.
So my question is, why, when an entity like the Irvine Company comprehensively plans an area like this, would there be a near zero amount of such 'practical' destinations that provide a pleasant, high quality experience for those not in a car? There is clearly a significant effort to provide comfort for people walking (or cycling) throughout the area, but this abruptly stops when we get to the commercial sites. Why?
I can understand that many/most of these sites depend on car access (people are busy, they're in their cars doing all kinds of things beyond Irvine, they're just getting in and out for groceries, etc), but surely some share (5 or 10 per cent? 25?) of these commercial areas would want to be experience-focused and comfortable? Do people not want a nice place to sit and have a drink with friends? Do office employees never want a pleasant walk at lunch? Why are there not more places like University Center (or maybe Woodbridge Village Center), given how walkable and pleasant the surroundings are? Worth noting those two examples work for both the walking and 'place' experience as well as driving (not hard to park at University Center and get in/out from TJ's for example - the walk/experience quality doesn't have to undermine the drive quality, in other words).
I would love to hear your thoughts on why a comprehensively master planned community with extensive paths and sidewalks (and densities that mean amenities are not far) still ends up with the same roadside car-above-all commercial sites as everywhere else and not a higher share of commercial 'places' worth experiencing. Thanks!
I wonder what part of the strip mall development look and feel is due to parking mandates—and also due to use-specific zoning? I worked in one of the office parks near the Irvine Spectrum and it was painful to walk along the major thoroughfare to go grab lunch
Looking around Irvine on google maps and streetview, I see:
1- a fairly dense mix of different housing types
2- lots of pathways and consistent sidewalks that form a network (could be more consistent but pretty well connected - there are some bigger arterial roads that look like they could be easier to cross - see Scott's comment on getting to the corner store - but fairly good)
3- schools and parks that are connected to that pathway and sidewalk network
4- aside from schools, there are almost no 'practical' or commercial destinations (restaurants/shops/services/offices and their jobs) that take points 1-3 above into account and make non-driving access a consideration other than a couple of sidewalks through parking lots.
So my question is, why, when an entity like the Irvine Company comprehensively plans an area like this, would there be a near zero amount of such 'practical' destinations that provide a pleasant, high quality experience for those not in a car? There is clearly a significant effort to provide comfort for people walking (or cycling) throughout the area, but this abruptly stops when we get to the commercial sites. Why?
I can understand that many/most of these sites depend on car access (people are busy, they're in their cars doing all kinds of things beyond Irvine, they're just getting in and out for groceries, etc), but surely some share (5 or 10 per cent? 25?) of these commercial areas would want to be experience-focused and comfortable? Do people not want a nice place to sit and have a drink with friends? Do office employees never want a pleasant walk at lunch? Why are there not more places like University Center (or maybe Woodbridge Village Center), given how walkable and pleasant the surroundings are? Worth noting those two examples work for both the walking and 'place' experience as well as driving (not hard to park at University Center and get in/out from TJ's for example - the walk/experience quality doesn't have to undermine the drive quality, in other words).
I would love to hear your thoughts on why a comprehensively master planned community with extensive paths and sidewalks (and densities that mean amenities are not far) still ends up with the same roadside car-above-all commercial sites as everywhere else and not a higher share of commercial 'places' worth experiencing. Thanks!
I agree that they need more walkable neighborhoods.
I wonder what part of the strip mall development look and feel is due to parking mandates—and also due to use-specific zoning? I worked in one of the office parks near the Irvine Spectrum and it was painful to walk along the major thoroughfare to go grab lunch