Here is a section of sidewalk in Boston made from brick pavers. It’s clear that the lack of uniform sizes and heights could pose challenges for the disabled or elderly pedestrian. Photo credit Seldom Scene Photography.

Designers, planners, and members of the public have recently come into conflict over Boston’s historic use of molded brick in sidewalks and public spaces.  Some think the use of bricks represents the face of Boston, while others condemn them as obstacles to the disabled and elderly. The different viewpoints amount to an ownership debate on the city’s public space.

The City’s Commission for Persons with Disabilities maintains that traditional, molded bricks are unable to provide the smooth surfaces (meaning no height variations greater than a quarter of an inch) that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires. However, other professionals (landscape architects, historical preservationists, and the brick industry) affirm that the material itself is not to blame, but rather improper installation and maintenance. 

Montgomery County, Maryland, recently revised its own building codes with respects to brick pavers, and it saw a more immediate result than Boston’s stalled efforts. According to the “Bethesda Standard” of practice, traditional brick pavers are permitted if they are laid along with the traffic flow (to reduce vibrations for wheelchairs and potential height discrepancies) and are used in situations where future repairs are likely to be made.

The very nature of the debate brings to light the different actors staking claim to their part of a “complete street,” a term used to describe streets built for all users: bikers, walkers, drivers, etc. But one thing that is assured is that safe and functional walkways are requisites for safe and functional areas. More can be read about the situation in Boston and Montgomery County in “The Trouble With Brick,” published by Landscape Architecture Magazine.