Apparently Eagan isn't so safe.. (Minneapolis, St. Paul: townhome, safe area, theatre)

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I just put in an address in Rosemount and came up with a walkability of 78 which is why you can't say that "suburbs aren't walkable and the city is". I put in my SIL's address in Highland Park, 52, put in a nice neighborhood where a friend lives in NE MLPS, got 74, put in another address about 6 blocks away and got a 68. So, what is more walkable?

Um, most people here HAVE NOT been saying the "suburbs aren't walkable and the city is." They are saying that in many cases the city is more walkable than the suburbs, but it's not an absolute. And if I started this tangent, it was to point out the modern type of suburb that is designed not to be walkable. You must have come across some of these suburbs while living in Minnesota - there are plenty of them around. This is not a discussion of whether or not Rosemount is walkable or not. So it is. Great. Some other neighborhoods and sububs aren't. They should be.

And, for what it's worth, the walkability score also doesn't measure walkability in terms of on-the-street details - things like sidewalks, busy street, etc (as seen in the previous post). They readily acknowledge that. The scores simply give you a good starting place to see what's around. The city and more established suburbs are more likely to have sidewalks, and I think that (especially in a snowy climate) sidewalks are essential to a truly walkable community.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Um, most people here HAVE NOT been saying the "suburbs aren't walkable and the city is." They are saying that in many cases the city is more walkable than the suburbs, but it's not an absolute. And if I started this tangent, it was to point out the modern type of suburb that is designed not to be walkable. You must have come across some of these suburbs while living in Minnesota - there are plenty of them around. This is not a discussion of whether or not Rosemount is walkable or not. So it is. Great. Some other neighborhoods and sububs aren't. They should be.

And, for what it's worth, the walkability score also doesn't measure walkability in terms of on-the-street details - things like sidewalks, busy street, etc (as seen in the previous post). They readily acknowledge that. The scores simply give you a good starting place to see what's around. The city and more established suburbs are more likely to have sidewalks, and I think that (especially in a snowy climate) sidewalks are essential to a truly walkable community.

We have sidewalks or bike paths on every road around here. Not an issue at all. And yes, most of the city dwellers have been saying that the suburbs are not walkable and the city is in this post and every other post like this. Eagan is the same, bike paths or sidewalks everywhere. Most of the newer developments in the suburbs have sidewalks. The 60's-70's rambler neighborhoods are where you find they don't have sidewalks. As for busy streets, of course there are busy streets in the suburbs--but there are plenty of them in the cities too. Why would this make a difference? We don't get anything but local traffic on our street, nor do 90+% of the streets in town. There are main thoroughfares in all towns to keep traffic off residential streets.

[uptown_urbanist]

Again, not every suburb doesn't have sidewalks. We're not talking in absolutes here.

As far as busy streets, I was talking about the big busy streets in areas where there aren't a lot of pedestrians (those main thoroughfares you mention). You tend to find those more in the suburbs. If you ask how that would make a difference to walkability then it suggests that you don't walk much - it's dangerous and scary to cross those types of streets. Walking is not just about walking around a residential neighborhood - it's about walking from your home to another location. I think I see where we're not seeing eye-to-eye here; I'm not talking about rambling walks with the dog in a residential zone, I'm talking being integration of different types of uses and being able to walk to and from the restaurant, library, movie theater - even if that means crossing a main thoroughfare or walking along it. It's great if you can do that safely and pleasantly in your neighborhood, but if so, your neighborhood does not reflect every neighborhood in the Twin Cities.

[Slig]

Originally Posted by golfgal

We have sidewalks or bike paths on every road around here. Not an issue at all. And yes, most of the city dwellers have been saying that the suburbs are not walkable and the city is in this post and every other post like this. Eagan is the same, bike paths or sidewalks everywhere. Most of the newer developments in the suburbs have sidewalks. The 60's-70's rambler neighborhoods are where you find they don't have sidewalks. As for busy streets, of course there are busy streets in the suburbs--but there are plenty of them in the cities too. Why would this make a difference? We don't get anything but local traffic on our street, nor do 90+% of the streets in town. There are main thoroughfares in all towns to keep traffic off residential streets.

I'm not sure how this argument had anything to do with quantity of sidewalks. I would say sidewalks is one of the many characteristics that can make an area walkable but it is definitely not the determining factor. The Eagan neighborhood I lived in had side walks on the major roads but not on the neighborhood streets and like I mentioned before, it was very unwalkable. I'm not sure what local traffic has anthing to do with walkability either. You can have out of town traffic and still be very walkable, which is how I would describe my current neighborhood. There are sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian only areas which allow a person to avoid coming into contact with traffic. An exurb example but we were at the Albertville Outlet Mall on Sunday and to get from one part of the mall to the other we had to quick run across a road where cars were flying at 40-50mph...definitely not walk-friendly. I've never been in this situation in Minneapolis.

You can go ahead and point out certain rare exceptions but we all know that if you look at the overall walkability of Minneapolis/St. Paul with any suburb and the cities are much more walkable. I'm talking the overall walkability spectrum, a combination of sidewalks/walking/biking paths, proximity to amenities, parks and entertainment, accessibility to public transportation whether it be buses, taxis, rails, underground walkways, skyways, appropriate signage and crossing signals, etc. etc. etc. The suburbs don't stack up to the cities and there isn't even enough to be able to argue that with a straight face...enough with the foolishness.

[uptown_urbanist]

Anyone interested in issues relating to walkability and community will find this local website of interest:

Welcome to Twin Cities Streets for People | Twin Cities Streets for People

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I just put in an address in Rosemount and came up with a walkability of 78 which is why you can't say that "suburbs aren't walkable and the city is". I put in my SIL's address in Highland Park, 52, put in a nice neighborhood where a friend lives in NE MLPS, got 74, put in another address about 6 blocks away and got a 68. So, what is more walkable?

I'm going to guess you entered an address somewhere around 150th St W. & S. Robert Trail? If your dream walkable community consists of having the ability to walk to McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen, Taco John's, and Starbucks within a 3 block radius, then by all means- this section of Rosemount is the place to be. I'll take my neighborhood's handful of locally owned and operated neighborhood businesses over the concentrated sprawl of Rosemount's fast food/ big box retailer developments anyday.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

I'm going to guess you entered an address somewhere around 150th St W. & S. Robert Trail? If your dream walkable community consists of having the ability to walk to McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen, Taco John's, and Starbucks within a 3 block radius, then by all means- this section of Rosemount is the place to be. I'll take my neighborhood's handful of locally owned and operated neighborhood businesses over the concentrated sprawl of Rosemount's fast food/ big box retailer developments anyday.

And having never been to Rosemount you have no idea what you are talking about. No, I entered an address that is close to the schools and downtown with our locally owned shops, post office, etc. It just so happens that it is also close to McDonalds and other shops as well.

Uptown--have you ever walked on University Ave, Ford Parkway/Cleveland Ave. Both of those areas are constantly touted on here as being so walkable but the traffic is horrible--much, much worse then you will find here or in most "busy" streets in the suburbs. I don't understand your argument that there are busy streets in the suburbs thus making them unwalkable-same issue in the cities.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

The bottom line is there are trade-offs. If you want 2 acres of wooded privacy like I have that is backed up to a multi-acre park, then there isn't enough population density to support a higher concentration of shops. As a family, we have learned how to adapt (combining trips, buying more in bulk, evenings at friends homes versus restaurants etc). Of course, we are within 15 minutes of everything we need but the constant drive gets old. Assuming we live in MN longer term, I'm ready to take the compromise of a smaller lot by going into a more dense suburb that has done a decent job of planning.

Some people are satisfied with just enough restaurants and just enough stores that are walkable. I'm in that camp. Others may strongly prefer mass transit options and others might want a night life. That isn't important to me.

But for me, I would only raise my family in the Burbs. Others find it advantageous to have their family raised in a metropolitan area. If we all picked the worse place we can think of to raise our family in MN, they probably have there reasons and trade-off.

[MNdude]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Uptown--have you ever walked on University Ave, Ford Parkway/Cleveland Ave. Both of those areas are constantly touted on here as being so walkable but the traffic is horrible--much, much worse then you will find here or in most "busy" streets in the suburbs. I don't understand your argument that there are busy streets in the suburbs thus making them unwalkable-same issue in the cities.

I used to live two blocks south of Ford Pkwy/Cleveland ave and while there was a lot of traffic I found it to be very pedestrian friendly and I never once feared for my safety. The sense of safety is helped by the fact that the main intercession of Ford/Cleveland has no right turn on red signs. Also while these areas and Uptown has a lot of traffic there is one key difference between that and lets say Pilot Knobb Rd just north of Farmingtown. The traffic in Uptown and Ford/Cleveland moves at a significantly slower pace, Uptown is reminiscent of a parking lot at some times during the day. While it sucks for drivers, it is way more pedestrian friendly to have more cars near by going 5-10 mph vs cars going 40-45 mph on Pilot Knobb Rd.

[Slig]

Originally Posted by MNdude

I used to live two blocks south of Ford Pkwy/Cleveland ave and while there was a lot of traffic I found it to be very pedestrian friendly and I never once feared for my safety. The sense of safety is helped by the fact that the main intercession of Ford/Cleveland has no right turn on red signs. Also while these areas and Uptown has a lot of traffic there is one key difference between that and lets say Pilot Knobb Rd just north of Farmingtown. The traffic in Uptown and Ford/Cleveland moves at a significantly slower pace, Uptown is reminiscent of a parking lot at some times during the day. While it sucks for drivers, it is way more pedestrian friendly to have more cars near by going 5-10 mph vs cars going 40-45 mph on Pilot Knobb Rd.

I couldn't have said it better myself. We walk around in that area semi-regularly and I personally find it far more walkable than walking around in Eagan on Pilot Knob, Lexington Ave, Yankee Doodle, etc. where cars are traveling twice as fast and in my experiences aren't nearly as aware and looking for pedestrians.

Going by the overall fairly reliable stats of walkscore.com I've decided to see how walkable some randomly selected Rosemount addresses on the MLS are:

4699 137th St = 18 - Car Dependant
3616 Clare Downs Path = 26 - Car Dependant
14083 Delta Court = 20 - Car Dependant
4265 Upper 150th st = 51 - Somewhat walkable
3554 144th st = 60 - Somewhat walkable
3015 Lower 147th st = 69 - Somewhat walkable
12542 Danbury Way = 9 - Car Dependant
2152 128th st = 0 - Car Dependant
14361 Atwater Way = 12 - Car Dependant
15687 Crocus Ave = 35 - Car Dependant

Average score from sample = 30 - Car Dependant

I could take a larger sample but it probably wouldn't deviate from this average more than 5 or 6 points at the most.