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.
Yesterday, 06:10 PM BLAXTOR121
Senior Member befriend
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New York, NY
388 posts, read 127,190 times
Reputation: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovinDecatur I find that these grand pronouncements are usually made by people that have either never been to these downtowns or not for a very long time. The last few times I was in downtown Atlanta, it was quite well trafficed. Among other things, there are three major universities in its vicinity.
Ok then try this logic on for size. Both D.C. and Atlanta are about the same size then tell me why D.C.'s downtown has more pedestrian life than Atlanta's?
While you're at it, tell me why Phoenix lacks that same edge over Seattle even though both are the same size. How about Houston compared to Boston? Dallas compared to Philly? Miami compared to SF? LA compared to NYC or Chicago?
The sunbelt isn't an awful place and I won't sit here trying to convince you that it is BUT its not as traditionally urban. Pedestrian life in the sunbelt exists but every neighborhood takes the energy away from the core to do it. It's possible LA has as many pedestrians as Chicago but you wouldn't ever think that by only looking at the cores of each city, where LA and the rest of the sunbelt cities make up for it are the many districts spread around the metro.
All sunbelt cities for their sizes lack in the core compared to non sunbelt cities of similar sizes.
Ok then try this logic on for size. Both D.C. and Atlanta are about the same size then tell me why D.C.'s downtown has more pedestrian life than Atlanta's?
While you're at it, tell me why Phoenix lacks that same edge over Seattle even though both are the same size. How about Houston compared to Boston? Dallas compared to Philly? Miami compared to SF? LA compared to NYC or Chicago?
The sunbelt isn't an awful place and I won't sit here trying to convince you that it is BUT its not as traditionally urban. Pedestrian life in the sunbelt exists but every neighborhood takes the energy away from the core to do it. It's possible LA has as many pedestrians as Chicago but you wouldn't ever think that by only looking at the cores of each city, where LA and the rest of the sunbelt cities make up for it are the many districts spread around the metro.
All sunbelt cities for their sizes lack in the core compared to non sunbelt cities of similar sizes.
Interestingly, what you're saying here also applies to DC to an extent. Now downtown DC is physically dense and has a ton of daytime activity, which Atlanta does too (although not quite as much due to stronger competition for office workers from the suburbs), but after-hours, people in DC head to U Street and Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle and Georgetown; they don't stay in downtown. It's the same in Atlanta where most people are going to Midtown and VaHi and Little Five Points and East Atlanta Village after hours.
your talking as if all 18 million people are in the city of LA, I am comparing downtown to downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, have you visited both cities before? If you did you would know LA's pedestrian activity is almost equal to that of Chicago's even with a crappier PT
No, he means those people *should* swell into downtown. NYC, Chicago, SF get busy b/c of commuters coming into the city, the people you see on the streets aren't necessarily residents. I mean, you could get super technical, but going off the metro population is a fairly decent gauge.
LA pedestrian activity is definitely not on par with Chicago unless you visited there in the Winter
That's true however LA still has plenty of pedestrian activity within those square miles, that was my whole point from the very begining of this thread when someone used LA as an example, though I agree that in their respective square miles of each of the cities you listed above they are more walkable and have higher pedestrian activity none of them is head and shoulders above LA, in other words LA is no slouch in that department eventhough as the second largest city in the nation it should be higher
Uhh, that is the point, LA is the second largest city in the country population wize for both the city and metro, does it have the 2nd amount of pedestrian activity? No.
Therefore, LA was nominated.
Nobody is saying LA doesn't have pedestrian activity, but being the #2 city and whatever it is for density, it doesn't match up.
Interestingly, what you're saying here also applies to DC to an extent. Now downtown DC is physically dense and has a ton of daytime activity, which Atlanta does too (although not quite as much due to stronger competition for office workers from the suburbs), but after-hours, people in DC head to U Street and Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle and Georgetown; they don't stay in downtown. It's the same in Atlanta where most people are going to Midtown and VaHi and Little Five Points and East Atlanta Village after hours.
The two cities are very different. Atlanta's walkable footprint is tiny in comparison to DC's. Nearly all of the dense development in Atlanta is concentrated along one corridor (Peachtree) and the built environment reverts back to an auto-centric one rather quickly once you're a couple of blocks away from that corridor (Hollywood Boulevard is similar in this respect). Downtown DC is far structurally denser and walkable over a much larger footprint. In fact, the walkable footprint of Downtown DC alone is larger than all of the walkable places in the Atlanta metropolitan area in aggregate.
While DTDC does empty out after office hours, I'd still say its pedestrian activity as a whole is several orders of magnitude greater than Atlanta's.
The two cities are very different. Atlanta's walkable footprint is tiny in comparison to DC's. Nearly all of the dense development in Atlanta is concentrated along one corridor (Peachtree) and the built environment reverts back to an auto-centric one rather quickly once you're a couple of blocks away from that corridor (Hollywood Boulevard is similar in this respect). Downtown DC is far structurally denser and walkable over a much larger footprint. In fact, the walkable footprint of Downtown DC alone is larger than all of the walkable places in the Atlanta metropolitan area in aggregate.
While DTDC does empty out after office hours, I'd still say its pedestrian activity as a whole is several orders of magnitude greater than Atlanta's.
Hollywood Blvd is not a good example... Franklin, Sunset, Santa Monica and Melrose all continue the pedestrian friendly development after it supposedly "breaks down". Not to mention La Brea, Cahuenga, and Vine are pedestrian-friendly north/south streets. There may be a block or two on each street that is not pedestrian friendly, but to say it "breaks down" would be a misstatement - it may break down for half a block or a block, but starts right back up on the next arterial street. As far as pedestrian activity, every street in Hollywood has strong pedestrian presence, even along the worst offenders of pedestrian friendliness, like Highland (wouldnt call it car-friendly either, the lack of parking and traffic makes I pretty much just terrible for everyone). That being said, downtown Atlanta is structurally more dense than the Hollywood Blvd area, as it is the center of not just a city, but an entire region. Hollywood is simply an urban residential neighborhood, and not even in the top 3 in "urban feel" and walkability in its city (in its region, it falls even further).
Wilshire Blvd in Westwood is a much more fitting comparison. It completely breaks down outside of a corridor of highrises, which are surrounded by almost exclusively medium-size lot SFHs.
Last edited by munchitup; 07-08-2012 at 11:39 AM..
Interestingly, what you're saying here also applies to DC to an extent. Now downtown DC is physically dense and has a ton of daytime activity, which Atlanta does too (although not quite as much due to stronger competition for office workers from the suburbs), but after-hours, people in DC head to U Street and Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle and Georgetown; they don't stay in downtown. It's the same in Atlanta where most people are going to Midtown and VaHi and Little Five Points and East Atlanta Village after hours.
D.C. is so walkable, though. You can walk from Dupont Circle to Adam's Morgan and back down to Foggy Bottom (I have).
The inner city of Rochester lacks the same level of pedestrian activity seen in similar sized cities due to a weak downtown, a suburban car-centric mentality and poor urban planning.
Yeah, except for maybe the East End, you're right. I think the loop messed things up there. With that said, the Southeastern quarter of the city has some good activity.
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.
