U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2008, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,057 posts, read 29,742,612 times
Reputation: 10455

Advertisements

The thing is, the website was using lots of factors besides commuting--and if you're commuting, then you aren't necessarily walking--to evaluate "walkability." Factors such as shopping areas. Every neighborhood in the city has those; you certainly don't have to go to Manhattan to do your shopping (unless, of course, you insist on doing so). Now try to tell me that large areas of the city outside Manhattan aren't "walkable!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2008, 09:46 AM
 
214 posts, read 907,541 times
Reputation: 84
Large areas outside Manhattan are walkable, but generally aren't considered as walkable as the city of San Francisco.

If you look at the neighborhood-by-neighborhood breakdowns of walkscores, SF had no neighborhoods below a score of 66, and only 10 less than 80. NYC has 46 neighborhoods with a walkscore less than 80. Also take a look at nice frequency distribution at the top of every page per city. Statistically speaking, the curve for SF actually looks more skewed to the right than the curve for NYC.

Can you honestly say that neighborhoods in eastern Queens, northern Bronx, southern Brooklyn or Staten Island are as walkable as the middle-of-the-road neighborhoods like Noe Valley, Potrero Hill, and Bernal Heights?

Look at the neighborhood breakdown... I do think that NYC is a much more walking city than SF. But I guess it also shows that statisticians can skew the data any way they want to the end they want to achieve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2008, 01:12 PM
 
3,368 posts, read 10,282,395 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by passdoubt View Post
The key here is that a substantial portion of New York City is not walkable. Most of Staten Island, half of Queens, and small parts of Brooklyn and a small part of the Bronx score low in walkability.

That doesn't change the fact that Manhattan is the most walkable place in the US... Manhattan isn't its own city. San Francisco is comparatively small and the vast majority of people in the Bay Area don't live in San Francisco itself. So it's a misleading statistic to say that SF is more walkable, but it is technically true because it doesn't have as many suburban areas within its city limits.
It's only misleading if you don't understand the methodology behind it. Sure, NYC may feel more urban than SF in parts, but NYC's many suburban neighborhoods within city limits bring the average walkability down to a level that is slightly below that of SF. NYC could have the neighborhoods that are the most walkable in this country but some of the lower-density neighborhoods could bring down the average to a level below that of other cities (and here, below that of SF).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2008, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,057 posts, read 29,742,612 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-of-nowhere View Post
Look at the neighborhood breakdown... I do think that NYC is a much more walking city than SF. But I guess it also shows that statisticians can skew the data any way they want to the end they want to achieve.
Indeed! More than a hundred years back, Mark Twain observed, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2008, 02:56 PM
 
3,368 posts, read 10,282,395 times
Reputation: 1675
Statistics are only "lies" to people who don't bother to read the methodology used to collect them. People get caught up in the silliest things (that Houston is a bigger city than Miami, Boston, or San Francisco; that San Francisco is more walkable than NYC; that the LA metro is more dense than the NYC metro; etc.) because they don't stop to actually understand what the statistician is trying to say. If people would just put aside their preconceived notions about how things are or should be and read studies without being a selective reader/listener, maybe they would understand more and spread bad information less!

Example:
Person A: Did you know that the LA metro is more densely populated than the NYC metro?
Person B: No, it's not. Have you ever been to Manhattan?
Person A: Yes, and it's only a tiny fraction of the metro area.
Person B: And it's so much more dense than anywhere in LA.
Person A: Yes, but we're talking about metropolitan areas, not small sections of cities.
Person B: Look dude, everyone knows NY is bigger and denser than LA.
Person A: But I said originally and continue to say that we're talking about metro areas!
Person B: Whatever. Go ahead and confuse people with your statistics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2008, 04:13 PM
 
125 posts, read 99,205 times
Reputation: 17
Crisp don't confuse people with facts, methodology, and critical thinking....this is not what people do...they know what they know because they know it and that's it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2008, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,057 posts, read 29,742,612 times
Reputation: 10455
Confusing people with statistics is the easiest thing to do. The correct answer to the question, "What's the largest city in the United States?" is either New York (if you're talking about population) or Jacksonville, FL (if you're talking about area. Jacksonville recently annexed four or five entire counties, not necessarily because they project that kind of growth--it gave them technical bragging rights).

As to crisp, you certainly threw a lot of words out there. But you didn't respond in any way to the thread as far as walkability goes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM
 
3,368 posts, read 10,282,395 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
As to crisp, you certainly threw a lot of words out there. But you didn't respond in any way to the thread as far as walkability goes.
You're right; I responded to the criticism that this walkability ranking spawned. What do I think? I think that although NYC may have some of the most walkable neighborhoods in this country, the average walkability of NYC's neighborhood may really be slightly lower than the average walkability of SF's neighborhoods.

Example:'let's say that there are five neighborhoods in NYC and five in SF and these are their walkability scores:

NYC: 100, 90, 50, 20, 10
SF: 80, 80, 70, 60, 50

Though NYC has the two most walkable neighborhoods, it's average walkability score is 54. SF's average walkability score is 66. So, on average, SF is a more walkable city. Is this clear to everyone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2008, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Seattle
500 posts, read 806,127 times
Reputation: 182
No way Seattle is more walkable then DC and Portland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2008, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,057 posts, read 29,742,612 times
Reputation: 10455
Crisp, what you're doing there is known as splitting hairs. The website was skewed, or biased, or whatever anyone wants to call it. There was no need to defend their methodology (if, in fact, they had any to begin with).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top