Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can also live in Largo, MD and be within .3 miles of a grocery store and other amenities. Yet this neighborhood doesn't look too walkable, huh? The mere fact that you can walk to a grocery store does not make a much larger area walkable.
The post also showed the nearest coffee shops and bars (multiple within a mile). I offered to show you how close other amenities are (that you can think of), and that offer still stands. There are two Metro stops within a mile, and being so centrally located, every stop on the system was within a reasonable distance.
It is the combination of close amenities, the dense, diverse population, the proximity to transit and the central location that makes it urban IMO. Aesthetics are purely subjective.
The post also showed the nearest coffee shops and bars (multiple within a mile). I offered to show you how close other amenities are (that you can think of), and that offer still stands. There are two Metro stops within a mile, and being so centrally located, every stop on the system was within a reasonable distance.
It is the combination of close amenities, the dense, diverse population, the proximity to transit and the central location that makes it urban IMO. Aesthetics are purely subjective.
Don't bother... let them believe that the West Coast is a giant suburb. You're talking to the same person who thought that Staten Island and Oakland were comparable.
And which is more urban: Englewood, NJ or Harlem, NY?
The title of the thread is which is more urban among five listed cities. It says nothing about northern New Jersey at all.
Harlem is more urban, but Harlem as a neighborhood is more urban than any neighborhood of any of these cities mentioned (also, Englewood is more on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to how dense northern New Jersey actually gets). There's no analogy to be made there--only the sad taint of associating anything, even if favorably, with New Jersey.
I understand your individual points about google street view as well as a lot of places being technically walkable, but no one actually does it. I'd say in regards to Los Angeles, the google street view issue holds for both ends of the argument such as your post of a very dense collection of apartment complexes (though that definitely does not qualify as suburban) as purely residential when in its vicinities were several retail areas that were readily accessible. As far as whether or not anyone actually takes advantage of the walkability of Los Angeles's core, you can go ahead and wander the area and you will see a good deal of walking about--this formerly included myself and still includes some friends who still live in the area. From my visits back, it's simply become more common for non-poor hispanic immigrants (when this was almost the only demographic doing so a decade ago) to simply walk or take mass transit. It's a good thing.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-01-2012 at 01:16 PM..
My point is that you can't prove how walkable a whole area is by pointing out a neighborhood's proximity to a grocery store.
but what about pointing out a neighborhood's proximity to the whole range of shops and services you would likely need (which is what walkscore is supposed to do) as well as multiple options for each of them and proximity to transportation so you can expand your range?
The core 60 sq miles around DTLA almost certainly double D.C.'s 600,000 residents. That's with about 8 sq miles worth of parks, so it isn't cherry-picked either. According to Walkscore, most of it is perfectly walkable?
To say that being with walking distance of amenities (like grocery stores) is not enough to make a neifhborhood walkable is nonsense.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 02-01-2012 at 01:43 PM..
Harlem is more urban, but Harlem as a neighborhood is more urban than any neighborhood of any of these cities mentioned. There's no analogy to be made there--only the sad taint of associating anything, even if favorably, with New Jersey.
Haha.
Urbanity is a sliding scale, right? For example, you just said that Northern Jersey was urban, and then admitted that it's not as urban as Harlem. Just because a place is urban on some level does not mean that all places are equally urban.
The thread requires a comparison of the urbanity of five cities, as you stated. The question is not, "Which cities are urban?" The answer to that would be "all of them." The question is "Which city is the most urban?" and it's very difficult to make the argument that Los Angeles is the most urban of these five cities because posters have already conceded that LA has unwalkable areas in its core. We've also read concessions that Los Angeles has suburban-looking areas in its core, which then gets dismissed as mere "aesthetics." Isn't that what a landscape is..."aesthetics?"
but what about pointing out a neighborhood's proximity to the whole range of shops and services you would likely need (which is what walkscore is supposed to do) as well as multiple options for each of them and proximity to transportation so you can expand your range?
None of that matters when we're talking about LA though. Don't you see those driveways and yards?
Urbanity is a sliding scale, right? For example, you just said that Northern Jersey was urban, and then admitted that it's not as urban as Harlem. Just because a place is urban on some level does not mean that all places are equally urban.
The thread requires a comparison of the urbanity of five cities, as you stated. The question is not, "Which cities are urban?" The answer to that would be "all of them." The question is "Which city is the most urban?" and it's very difficult to make the argument that Los Angeles is the most urban of these five cities because posters have already conceded that LA has unwalkable areas in its core. We've also read concessions that Los Angeles has suburban-looking areas in its core, which then gets dismissed as mere "aesthetics." Isn't that what a landscape is..."aesthetics?"
Funny, I've never seen this "sliding scale" come into play when east coast posters cite the O/A density of their cities to mean that they're more urban despite that they're often full of areas like this:
Urbanity is a sliding scale, right? For example, you just said that Northern Jersey was urban, and then admitted that it's not as urban as Harlem. Just because a place is urban on some level does not mean that all places are equally urban.
The thread requires a comparison of the urbanity of five cities, as you stated. The question is not, "Which cities are urban?" The answer to that would be "all of them." The question is "Which city is the most urban?" and it's very difficult to make the argument that Los Angeles is the most urban of these five cities because posters have already conceded that LA has unwalkable areas in its core. We've also read concessions that Los Angeles has suburban-looking areas in its core, which then gets dismissed as mere "aesthetics." Isn't that what a landscape is..."aesthetics?"
Just to clarify my opinion I think LA is the third most urban in the poll, not the most urban.
suburban-looking = "aesthetics."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
