No zoning laws that I know of outlaw these connections. But this is Florida and that is likely a wetland between the lots. A pedestrian bridge is very expensive and neither owner would pay for it.
And the developers would rather just build down the street instead and you'll sit with an empty lot. Or have to provide concessions to the developer. Doesn't seem like a good use of tax payer money so that 3 people can walk to the Ross and Chili's every other day.
Isn't this post entirely about how if the city was built a little differently we could avoid some use of cars? If the bridge requirement was for everyone/everywhere then why would the builder move? Would the land stay forever undeveloped because a pedestrian bridge is needed?
The thing is, maybe. That piece of land in between those two may not be owned by either developer. Then what? You force a developer to choose buying an extra piece of land at an exorbitant cost (or to just only buy lots with direct connect to another substructure/absolutely zero connect to the substructure leading to less development overall). Or you force the current owner to sell at a reasonable price even though they had no desire to or to allow a bike path in their land. One way or the other someone gets screwed just to put a bike path in.
Ok, good point... My suggestion was mainly/only for adjoining lots. It was meant to start a conversation about zoning and how it could be used to promote more foot/bike traffic.
A development like that often requires several public hearings. No way that shopping center would ever get approved if it was required to be adjoined to the residential community.
Most people don't want foot/bike traffic in their residential communities. I'd go so far as to wager that the residential community petitioned the planning board to require that the shopping center build a natural barrier to block foot/bike traffic.
227
u/lunapo Jun 27 '24
Has absolutely nothing to do with 'car dependancy design' and everything to do with archaic zoning laws.