Paved over Davis Square

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

During last week's Public Safety Committee hearing a large amount of time was spend on the impact of bricks and brick pavers and people with disabilities.  Currently the disability commissions and groups from around the area are waging  a jihad against brick paved sidewalks and intend to block any future projects that plan to use them.  It was also revealed in the meeting that the city hired a designer to plan for the eventual redesign of Davis Square.

Since opposing folks with disabilities is an equivalent of political suicide , it is almost a given that when the redesign of the Davis Square happens, the brick-paved streets of Davis Square, as well as the heart of the Square itself, will be paved over or replaced by concrete or asphalt.

Do you think that Davis will loose much of it's charm when the red bricks are replaced by gray concrete?  Will the square still feel like an inviting place to hang out on a summer day?

Comments

[misterthorn.livejournal.com]

Are these really the only two options, inaccessible brick and "gray concrete"?

[emannths.livejournal.com]

I know next to nothing about paving, but...

There's got to be something more durable/flat than bricks but more aesthetically pleasing than plain concrete. Right? I hope?

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

to be honest, i don't really know but from what i've seen around the various sidewalks in somerville/cambridge/boston it's either bricks, brick pavers, concrete or asphalt

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

Next they'll be getting rid of bricks in Boston and Cambridge. I see the argument, but I don't like it.

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

i've occasionally seen natural stone slabs but that shit is deadly when wet.

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

Is the aesthetic charm of red brick really worth making walkways inaccessible for people? I grew up in a suburb with traditional gray sidewalks, and I didn't find it any less charming for that. I -- an able-bodied pedestrian -- certainly don't find the bricks charming when they're poorly shoveled/plowed (and on days I have walked to work in high heels, I have cursed the brick/cobblestone in Harvard Square).

[slinkr.livejournal.com]

Surely there are places they can use brick (borders etc.) to preserve the look while still making things accessible.

[knowthyself.livejournal.com]

I'm with the 'there must be something better than just grey concrete' group here. The bricks look so nice! But inaccesibility for some people does suck.

I don't think it would so bad on the sidewalks, but the area in front of JP Licks, etc, would be the place that would really suffer aesthetically. Maybe if they also spruced it up with more greenery or something when they inevitably get rid of the bricks. Or did some nice stone slabs, a la Copley Plaza?

[pklemica]

What about stamped concrete? If they want the red-brick charm, there are even brick-pattern stamps (and red-brown concrete, of course). Way more durable than actual bricks, I think more uniform/less bumpy, too, but not just plain untextured grey.

[lizzielizzie.livejournal.com]

In downtown Lowell we have cobblestone side streets, which is a big accessibility problem (not to mention just plain lumpy). They took out some of the cobblestones and redid the crosswalks with pavement to make it easier. Perhaps a similar compromise would work here as well?

[misterthorn.livejournal.com]

after thinking about it for a while, i remembered seeing sidewalks in italy that were made out of flat, smooth stone, not concrete. bet that stuff is expensive, though.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

Most "pavers" aren't brick, they're precast concrete, and they're actually a much more maintenance-friendly and accessibility-friendly surface than bricks are, because (unlike bricks) they interlock with each other, so you don't get the single bricks popping up, coming loose, or generally failing and crumbling.

Repairs are easier and smoother, and overall (assuming they're correctly installed) they're much less prone to becoming an uneven surface than brick are, and over time they hold up better than concrete paving does, especially when there's repair or patching work involved.

(Not a criticism of you, smoterh, just correcting general misinformation that seems to come up whenever folks rail against brick and anything that looks at all like it.)

That said, they're not as smooth as concrete, though they're a lot better than bricks. (They are, however, recognized by the ADA and the Mass. Architectural Access Board as an approved accessible surface.)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

Essentially no difference in texture between stamped concrete and precast pavers, and the stamped stuff tends, over time, to look worse and worse.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

This is the solution many communities are finding - see, for instance, the decorative edge along the new sidewalks on Somerville Ave and at Magoun Square.

(Of course, both of those projects are taking heat for using pavers in the crosswalks, though they're being misidentified as "brick" crosswalks.)

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

asphalt still has many problems if it's not kept up (just like bricks)

1. in front of my house, the sidewalk which has an asphalt pavement there is 5 inch tall 'continental divide'. I see people tripping on it all the time.

2. South Street in Boston (where I work) is partially brick, partially asphalt. The asphalt part has 2-3 inch height difference between each slab (every 4 feet or so), while the brick part is relatively smooth.

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

yes, but smooth stone is flat out deadly when there is some snow on it.

[ron_newman]

Those streets aren't much fun for bicycles either. But if you want to see total inaccessibility, check out downtown Nantucket.

[ron_newman]

See also this earlier post on the same subject.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

exactly--cambridge uses a lot of the brick pavers and they are quite smooth and seem to be better maintained than asphalt. certainly more accessible than an asphalt walkway with a big pothole.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

or newport--huge cobblestones, though that was 10 years ago

my thinking on this is the whole thing is sort of bunk. They make brick pavers that are as smooth and flat as any other surface, and actually cheaper to maintain than many. Asphalt and concrete are kind of awful. You can use unpolished granite slabs as well, but they are a bit expensive and I don't think it would match well in davis.

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

This. The asphalt sidewalks where I live have tried to kill me while out running on more than one occasion and are nearly impossible these days to get a stroller over. The wheel-chair bound in our 'hood are forced to traverse the street because the walks are so bad.

On the other hand, yes. Davis would lose almost all of it's charm if it lost the brick or the brick-look. And why a re-design anyway?

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

my understanding that brick pavers are also opposed by groups representing folks with disabilities.

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

to get rid of the ebil bricks ;)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

There's a failing in the terminology of the discussions, I think.

Bricks used as a paving material are, in the technical parlance, "brick pavers."
Not-actually-clay-brick precast items are "precast pavers," or sometimes "brick-style precast pavers" or "precast bricks."

Some of the discussion treats them both as the same thing, and they're most certainly not. Conflating the two leads to a whole host of confusion.

Yes, there are disability-advocacy groups that oppose precast pavers, but often the stated reasons seem (to me) more applicable to brick pavers (maintenance, slipperiness, "popping up"). That said, it's entirely true that even precast pavers have a lot more joints, and even though they have softer bevels, they're a bumpier ride than concrete - where that's the criticism, it's definitely valid.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

Because the brick are in horrible, horrible shape in many spots.