Answer: Sidewalks Should be 5 ft. Wide

You may recall back in April I had a post discussing how wide a sidewalk should be. Well, I learned yesterday from Bob Moylan that the sidewalks on our road will be increased to a width of 5 ft.

We currently have 4 ft. wide sidewalks in horrible condition and 4 ft. is just not wide enough for two people to walk side-by-side. When I found out our street and sidewalks were on the list to be repaired this year, I thought I would reach out to my City Councilor, Joff Smith, and Bob Moylan, Commissioner of Public Works & Parks and ask them if they would be willing to increase the width a few feet (we have unusually wide 9 ft. grass strips) since they were going to be replacing 90% of the sidewalk already.

Existing 4 ft. Sidewalks and 9 ft. Grass Strips

I followed up with Joff by phone a few weeks later and left a voicemail. Joff called me back almost immediately; he informed me that he had spoken with Bob about my request and that Bob was looking into the feasibility of widening the sidewalks. I heard nothing from either of them following that call with Joff, and to be honest I forgot about it until NSTAR started digging up our street a few weeks ago to install new gas lines. So I again followed up to both Joff and Bob by e-mail yesterday requesting an update on my request, and Bob replied almost immediately with the good news. Apparently DPW also looked at other streets in our neighborhood to see if their sidewalks widths could also be increased (a number of streets in our neighborhood have the 9 ft. wide grass strips), but ours was the only one "free of physical limitations to allow us to widen the walk" (or, in other words: sufficiently devastated by the ALB such that there was not one tree remaining on the grass strip).

Looking forward to that first stroll down the new, wider sidewalk soon.....

(and Harry T., Summerhill Ave. is a good guess, but incorrect....)

Urban Design Considerations for St. Vincent Cancer Center at CitySquare

I was glad to hear the news last week that St. Vincent Hospital has struck a deal with a subsidiary of Hanover Insurance to purchase a CitySquare parcel at Foster and (the to be reconstructed) Front Sts. St. Vincent plans to develop a two story, 40,000 SF building at a cost of $21MM ($525 PSF) on the parcel which will house their comprehensive cancer center, most of which is presently based at the old St. Vincent campus on Vernon Hill.



Updated CitySquare Site Plan Showing Location of Proposed St. Vincent Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center (from Telegram & Gazette)



Rendering of Proposed St. Vincent Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center (from Telegram & Gazette)

This is indeed good news that we now have a second tenant for CitySquare, but the rendering above concerns me from an urban design standpoint.

Remember back in 2005 when Berkeley Investments, then owner and developer of CitySquare, set forth a vision for a vibrant mixed use urban community at CitySquare?

Berkeley Investments Ground Floor Plan (Blue is Retail) for CitySquare (from Berkeley Investments May 2005 Presentation)

Berkeley Investments Rendering of New Front St. for CitySquare (from Berkeley Investments May 2005 Presentation)

The key takeaways for me from the above vision are:

• The plan showed that all buildings would be built out to the sidewalks (i.e., no setback).
• The ground floor of all buildings, regardless of the use on the upper floors, would be active retail so as to contribute to a vibrant pedestrian experience in downtown Worcester.

With these ideas in mind, take a look again at the rendering for the St. Vincent Cancer Center.

Rendering of Proposed St. Vincent Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center (from Telegram & Gazette)

• It appears that the building is planned for 100% medical use, no retail on the ground floor.
• There does not appear to be an entrance to the center off of Foster or Front Sts. The rendering suggests that Front St. rises towards the rear of the building - is the main entrance at the 2nd floor rear?
• The right side of the Foster St. elevation seems to indicate plans for a fenced off ambulance loading area between the building and the sidewalk.
• The presence of a small strip of grass and a few trees between the building and the sidewalk reminds me of what we might find in a suburban office park, not a pedestrian friendly urban environment.

This building will be one of the first buildings visitors to our city will see when entering downtown from Washington Square/Union Station. Given it's prominent location and because it is one of the first new buildings to be constructed at CitySquare, it will set a precedent of what is expected of future buildings at CitySquare. As such, I would suggest the following changes to the design be considered:

• Activate the ground floor with retail whose main entrance(s) would be along Foster and/or Front Sts. The building SF would increase to approximately 60,000 SF and the height from two stories to three. The cancer center would be located on the second and third floors of the building, keeping the main entrance to the center at the rear of the second floor, but perhaps adding access to the center from Front St. at the rear of the building. The ambulance loading area could be relocated to the rear of the ground floor of the building in the area where the new building will abut the existing garage, ambulance access to this area being through the existing garage.
• Do not set the building back from the sidewalk. In this case it probably makes sense to line up the Foster St. facade of the new building with the existing garage facade, which would mean extending the sidewalk to the building. This would create a nice wide sidewalk, which would allow plenty of room for a clear walkway plus room for wide storefront awnings, large trees and street furniture, all elements that go into making Berkeley's renderings above so inviting.

Making pretty pictures is one thing. As Berkeley's experience with CitySquare showed us, turning that vision into a reality is another story.

First, St. Vincent's core mission is to be a hospital, not a real estate developer. St. Vincent Hospital, however, is a large institution and does have significant real estate development and operating experience in Worcester. The Medical Center contains a number of retail tenants, including restaurants, a gift shop, a hair salon and a branch of Worcester Fitness, among others. In this light, it does not seem to be too far fetched to ask them to consider incorporating retail space into their cancer center building plans.

Second, demand for retail in downtown Worcester is minimal. It's one thing to ask St. Vincent Hospital to lease retail space in their building, but it's another to ask them to subsidize this space for the foreseeable future. So this brings us to the question of whether or not this location and the proposed building would be considered desirable from a retailers point-of-view.

• Retailers like corner locations, and this corner would have great visibility from Washington Square and lie on the main auto and pedestrian path between Union Station and City Hall/Common.
• The property abuts a parking garage.
• The building footprint, at about 20,000 SF, is a good size and shape for a number of retailers. In my experience, one of the problems with a lot of the available retail space in downtown Worcester is that it is too small and/or narrow for what many potential retailers are looking for in a space.

So what kind of retail tenants might St. Vincent pursue?

• My first thought is to speak with CVS's competitors, Walgreen's and Rite Aid. These chain pharmacies seem to come in pairs, and right now all we have is a CVS downtown. They pay high rents and the risk that they are not going to pay their rent is minimal. It's a corner property, parking is available adjacent to the site (perhaps parking fees could be waved for those parking in the garage for less then 15 min. and a dozen or so convenient, 15 min. limit, head-in parking spaces could be carved out of the Foster St. sidewalk area without compromising the pedestrian experience), and the footprint of the building fits their model well. Despite all these positives, my guess is that the demographics for another chain pharmacy (and one without a drive-thru in particular) downtown are just not there today.
• My next thought is to speak with Worcester Fitness and see if they might be interested in relocating (or perhaps expanding?) their currently hidden away fitness location on the sixth floor of the Medical Center to this new building.  This location would allow St. Vincent and Worcester Fitness to maintain their affiliation, while greatly increasing Worcester Fitness's visibility and likely resulting in a significant increase in membership numbers by area office users who are presently unaware that Worcester Fitness offers a state of the art fitness facility downtown.
• As a third option, how about putting some of the hospital's doctor offices on the ground floor? While not an ideal ground floor use, the rents paid should be reasonable and the use will bring people downtown, generating a lot of foot traffic which will help activate the street. The use will also serve to reserve the space until such a time as a more appropriate retail use becomes viable.

I'm thrilled that St. Vincent Hospital has chosen to play an active role in the redevelopment of CitySquare. I know budgets for all are tight these days, and this puts a lot of emphasis on short term thinking. Remember, however, that this building and the UNUM tower will stand for decades to come and will also serve to set the standards for urban design at CitySquare. I urge all involved, including St. Vincent Hospital, Hanover Insurance, the City of Worcester and it's citizens to emphasize the long term, pedestrian point-of-view when making urban design decisions that will impact The Image of Worcester in general, and downtown Worcester in particular, for generations to come.

How Wide Should a Sidewalk Be?

We received a letter in the mail a week ago or so from our District Councilor, Joff Smith, letting us know that our street will be repaved this summer. That's great news, the street sorely needs it as it seems like it took an especially tough beating this winter.

I understand that this latest repaving effort is suppose to be for the complete street, including the sidewalks. Now our streets are bad, but our sidewalks are much worse.

Time has taken it's toll on our sidewalks, and the roots of the 30 or so full grown maples that formerly lined the street were not kind either. So I'm hoping we will be getting new sidewalks too, and given that it appears that 90% plus of the existing walk needs to be replaced anyway, I'm wondering if we could increase the current 4 foot width a foot or two so two people can walk comfortably side-by-side?

We have a lot of people in our Burncoat neighborhood who like to walk - when it's nice out, it's not uncommon for me to see a dozen of so people out walking along Burncoat St. and other neighborhood streets.

• On our street alone, we have a number of families with preschool age children who like to take walks together as a family and are often walking with strollers, tricycles and other accessories. The broken up sidewalks are the biggest issue with little ones, but a little extra width would go a long way in giving parents and caregivers some space to walk beside their children to assist as they inevitably get off track or loose their balance.
• School aged children living on our street are considered walkers for not only the local public elementary school, but also the middle and high schools. We walk our elementary school aged kids to school everyday, and everyday I am glad they are getting a little bit of exercise and I don't have to deal with the school drop-off/pick-up traffic jams. If we expect our children to walk to school, I think it is our obligation to provide them with Safe Routes to School.
• During the day, caregivers with babies are often seen walking side-by-side with strollers, more often than not, in the street as the existing sidewalks are too narrow (and too broken up) to do so.
• A number of Hanover Insurance employees take walks along our street during their lunch breaks, and again, most choose to walk in the street as opposed to the sidewalk.
• On nice evenings it's not uncommon to see couples taking a casual stroll, again, usually in the street instead of on the sidewalk.
• Finally, one benefit of a road in poor condition is that it tends to keep the average speed of the cars down. With a freshly paved road, average speeds will be up and it will be even more dangerous for pedestrians to walk in the road.

It's seems to me that in sizing a neighborhood sidewalk, the objective should be for two people to be able to walk comfortably side-by-side. Looking online, it seems like a minimum width of 5 feet is standard these days, and, indeed, the City's Standard Specifications - Streets and Sewers calls for 5 foot wide sidewalks (see details on pages 148 and 149). Several sources, including Safe Routes to School sidewalk design guidelines, state that 6 feet is desirable for comfortable side-by-side walking and to allow for two people in wheelchairs to pass each other.

Our street has unusually wide grass strips, 9 feet, so it would seem to me that adding another 2 feet would not be a problem, resulting in a 7 foot grass strip and a 6 foot sidewalk. We do have new white oak trees planted in the strip, and adding two feet would mean locating the edge of the sidewalk within 2 feet 6 inches of the center of the trunks. Assuming a mature white oak tree trunk grows to a radius of 2 feet, this would result in the tree getting as close as 6 inches to the new sidewalk, certainly inviting trouble. One option to address this concern would be to keep the 6 foot width and narrow the sidewalks near the trees to 4 feet 6 inches with a semicircular cutout around each tree (4 feet 6 inches is admittedly tight for two people walking side-by-side, but it is only this dimension at a point so I think it could work). This would result in about a minimum 2 foot buffer around each mature tree trunk and the edge of the wider sidewalk.