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.
Yes Boston is much better in that regard, all over the city really. I was going off of amenities within the downtown areas. They are about equal in grocery stores, restaurants, nightclubs, etc.
I don't think amenities really have that much to do with walkability. You can have only a few stores and generate tons of pedestrian traffic and you can have tons of stores and have far weaker pedestrian traffic and more auto use.
I wouldn't be surprised if Koreatown has more "amenities" than Bedford-Stuyvesant (both are about 2.7 sq. miles). Going on Yelp, for example, I see that Koreatown has 100 pages worth of restaurants whereas Bed-Stuy only has 30. Neighboring Clinton Hill (.62 sq. miles) adds another 40 pages. That makes Koreatown more "amenity" rich, but does it really make it more walkable or urban?
The Koreatown Galleria alone has more than 70 businesses. And then once you include all of the multi-level strip malls, I can see why it would come out way ahead.
I wouldn't be surprised if Koreatown has more "amenities" than Bedford-Stuyvesant (both are about 2.7 sq. miles). Going on Yelp, for example, I see that Koreatown has 100 pages worth of restaurants whereas Bed-Stuy only has 30. Neighboring Clinton Hill (.62 sq. miles) adds another 40 pages. That makes Koreatown more "amenity" rich, but does it really make it more walkable or urban?
This is a good illustration of why Walkscore's algorithm isn't very good. No one with functioning eyesight would say that Koreatown is more pedestrian friendly than Bed Stuy or Clinton Hill, yet Koreatown generally has a higher walkscore than either neighborhood.
Walkscore would be best if it took into account the quality of the walking experience, not merely whether it was physically possible to walk somewhere. As long as a drug score or sushi place or whatever is close by, they give you points, without accounting for the actual street-level experience.
This is a good illustration of why Walkscore's algorithm isn't very good. No one with functioning eyesight would say that Koreatown is more pedestrian friendly than Bed Stuy or Clinton Hill, yet Koreatown generally has a higher walkscore than either neighborhood.
Walkscore would be best if it took into account the quality of the walking experience, not merely whether it was physically possible to walk somewhere. As long as a drug score or sushi place or whatever is close by, they give you points, without accounting for the actual street-level experience.
According to Walkscore, Koreatown has 2,070 restaurants, bars and coffee shops. "People" in Koreatown (I suppose that means the average resident?) can walk to an average of 18 restaurants, bars and coffeeshops in 5 minutes. The walkscore for Koreatown is 90.
There are 1,722 restaurants, bars and coffeeshops in Bed-Stuy. People in Bed-Stuy can walk to an average of 9 restaurants, bars and coffeeshops in 5 minutes. It has a walkscore of 92.
So the difference in walkability between Bed-Stuy and Koreatown (2 points) is the same as the difference in walkability between SoHo and the East Village (also 2 points)?
Yeah, the algorithm, at least at the higher end, seems incapable of making relevant distinctions.
To illustrate, I used to live in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, in a section filled with very dense apartment buildings (Shore Road) but no street-level retail ultra-close (a few blocks over). The pedestrian environment was very, very good (pretty much as good as anywhere in the U.S. outside of Manhattan) yet Walkscore gives my old address an 80, while Koreatown is given an average 90.
Yet I had no car in this "80" environment, neither did most people I knew, an express bus to Manhattan stopped right in front of my building, the subway was three blocks away, and nearby 3rd Avenue had basically every retail amenity on earth. There were 0 strip malls, gas stations, surface parking lots and the like. It was totally urban and walkable, with everything oriented to the pedestrian and transit user (my large apartment building had no parking spaces).
I would go so far as to say that my "80" neighborhood was as walkable as almost any non-Manhattan neighborhood in the U.S.
why are you putting that in quotes?Have you been to Koreatown before? Serious question cause if you have actually walked around you wouldn't be so surprised. Nobody is trying to claim that LA is more walkable that Boston or NYC, but to claim LA, especially Koreatown, which is one of the most dense walkable areas is somehow pedestrian hostile is a pretty lame argument.
Yeah, the algorithm, at least at the higher end, seems incapable of making relevant distinctions.
To illustrate, I used to live in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, in a section filled with very dense apartment buildings (Shore Road) but no street-level retail ultra-close (a few blocks over). The pedestrian environment was very, very good (pretty much as good as anywhere in the U.S. outside of Manhattan) yet Walkscore gives my old address an 80, while Koreatown is given an average 90.
Yet I had no car in this "80" environment, neither did most people I knew, an express bus to Manhattan stopped right in front of my building, the subway was three blocks away, and nearby 3rd Avenue had basically every retail amenity on earth. There were 0 strip malls, gas stations, surface parking lots and the like. It was totally urban and walkable, with everything oriented to the pedestrian and transit user (my large apartment building had no parking spaces).
I would go so far as to say that my "80" neighborhood was as walkable as almost any non-Manhattan neighborhood in the U.S.
Bay Ridge actually scores a 91 as a whole. But your larger point still stands. That single point difference does reflect the true difference in walkability between Bay Ridge and Koreatown. And that's supposed to be the whole point of Walkscore.
, but to claim LA, especially Koreatown, which is one of the most dense walkable areas is somehow pedestrian hostile is a pretty lame argument.
Relative to Brooklyn, it's completely reasonable to say that Koreatown is relatively pedestrian hostile.
Koreatown, while dense, is primarily built for the automobile. Brooklyn is primarily built for the pedestrian and transit user. Take a look at where I used to live (Shore Road & 95th Street in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn), then compare to Koreatown, and tell me if you honestly believe that Koreatown should have a higher walkscore.
A good way to see if an area is walker-friendly is to see if non-poor people (i.e. those who have options) are actually walking around. In Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, everyone, from millionaires to paupers, walks around. In Koreatown, the non-poor typically aren't walking around all over the place.
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.
