Let's not be naive to the fact that all this greenery costs money, our tax money. When it comes down to choosing they will for sure choose the more economical option regardless on whether people like them or not. Not to mention this is frankly wasted space in the eyes of development. They would very rather use to for gfa on building than to make a nice fancy garden in the middle of the road.
Btw once 16th grows to the the point of expanding these median lawns will probably be the first to go
That's my point... maintaining these is expensive, and spending money on "luxury items" is low on the priority list. Had we had a more "pedestrian/transit friendly" culture, I honestly doubt things like maintenance would be much better.
Well, apart from the fact that people desire to live in places like this....
First, I think you'll have a hard time finding people who "desire" to live in places like these, or that think that these areas are somehow peak visual and aesthetic design. The majority of people simply don't really care, and don't want to pay more taxes to make the neighbourhoods look nicer. Seriously, have you ever met what you'd consider an "average suburbanite" go on vacation to Napoli or Barcelona, and say that they hated the visual design and how they make things look nice? I seriously doubt it. They go to Napoli, say "wow this city is beautiful", then go back. If you'd ask them if they'd want their taxes increased to make the arterials nicer, they'd likely say no because the status quo is perfectly adequate and functional (and well... it is).
You're right that it has to do with being cheap, but it's much easier to get away with cheaping out on this stuff when the majority of people using this place will be doing so in a car. If you recall Not Just Bikes' tale of walking in Houston, it is telling that basically no one walks here, so the public realm was permitted to be degraded in such a way. To a motorist, an ugly landscape is a brief ugly thing they see before they move on. To a pedestrian that moves much slower, they become one with the scenery. There is no hope for them of a fast reprieve.
Ok first, NJB, ugh
Second, you might be right on in that streetscape is less important than in a car, so let's look at some other cities shall we?
NYC, 64% of the city travels on modes that aren't car, namely subways. The Subway stations? Degraded mess filled with sludge. The streets? Bland and soulless. Maintenance has been completely whack for decades as the city rested on its laurels accomplishing basically no maintenance work. Please explain to me how "Car Culture" led to stations like Chamber Street reaching where they are today.
Want a non-american example? Check out Copenhagen Denmark, a city where transit is highly favoured, yet politicians routinely scale back transit project turning them into something that would make 2000s era go stations look anxious.
This is Copenhagen's
BRAND NEW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Station.
No Canopies, no washroom, literally absolutely nothing.
Here's a bus renovated bus stop:
Yes I did post that in the correct order, that second crap shelter is in fact the "new" shelter.
Here's the render for the new tram route along Orbital Ringway 3:
That is in fact a render, and it makes Eglinton look like an architectural marvel.
Now please, I want to hear about how Copenhagen is a car culture city and how transit riders a treated as second class citizens, instead of Copenhagen simply having a cheapskate culture where everything is done as cheaply and as minimalistic as possible.
Remember, Correlaction != Causation, and we should absolutely be aiming our ire at the correct issues, not tangentially related scapegoats.