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.
All density numbers tell you is that there are x many people living in x amount of space. The scale and way in which those people are accommodated determines how "walkable" a place is.
This is very true. The densest place in America is in Chevy Chase, MD, just over the DC line. But no one who lives there or who has spent time there would consider it to be particularly walkable. There's just a lot of people living in a very small space.
This is very true. The densest place in America is in Chevy Chase, MD, just over the DC line. But no one who lives there or who has spent time there would consider it to be particularly walkable. There's just a lot of people living in a very small space.
Source? I find this VERY hard to believe. More dense than parts of Manhattan?
This is a very misleading metric. Here is the description from the link wikipedia link:
Friendship Village: As of the census of 2000, there were 4,512 people, 2,995 households, and 1,003 families residing in the area. The population density was 31,657/km² (81,992/sq mi): this is the highest population density of any census-designated place in the United States. According to the United States Census Bureau, Friendship Village has a total area of 0.05503 square miles (0.142527 km²).
So essentially, there is a census block that contains approximately 4,500 people that is 1/20th of a square mile in size, which is the equivalent to approximately 82,000 people per square mile (not that there are not 82,000 people within this square mile area). I'm sure you could find densities that far exceed this in equivalent areas of Manhattan (or other cities for that matter).
This is a very misleading metric. Here is the description from the link wikipedia link:
LOL, yes I read the link. I'm the one that provided it. And I made no claims to it being misleading or not; I only provided it as ancillary support for the argument that density does not equal walkability. Here's a very dense (albeit tiny) place, that is not a particularly "walkable" neighborhood. That's all. I'm not, as you seem to be thinking, trying to compare it with Manhattan.
And for the record, Chevy Chase isn't in the middle of nowhere: this particular place is across from a Metro station and down the street from one of the District's premiere shopping areas.
Vancouver's density is undeniably very strong. However, the second photo really reveals something that stands out about Vancouver, that being that many of the new residential structures have a similar look. To me, that is not appealing. On closer inspection, this looks to be a mock-up photo...not sure.
A few things turned me off while walking in Vancouver, which included the loudness of the streets from heavy auto traffic, the incredible amount of exhaust fumes from cars and ships in the harbour, and the dust from all the construction. I'm highly sensitive to smells and noise and Vancouver exceeds the threshold of comfort when it comes to odors and noise. I find SF and Portland, OR to be more pleasant to walk in because they have are more quiet streets, they have less traffic, and they are less smelly overall. Another thing that turned me off in Vancouver was the preponderance of ugly glass condos.
A few things turned me off while walking in Vancouver, which included the loudness of the streets from heavy auto traffic, the incredible amount of exhaust fumes from cars and ships in the harbour, and the dust from all the construction. I'm highly sensitive to smells and noise and Vancouver exceeds the threshold of comfort when it comes to odors and noise. I find SF and Portland, OR to be more pleasant to walk in because they have are more quiet streets, they have less traffic, and they are less smelly overall. Another thing that turned me off in Vancouver was the preponderance of ugly glass condos.
San Francisco's streets are louder, grittier, and more vibrant than Vancouver's, at least in terms of pedestrian activity and public transit. But, I agree that Vancouver's seem louder in terms of automobile traffic. It really depends on where you are in either city though, there are parts of SF that have heavy auto traffic as well.
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.
