The 100% Truth About Good Ol Pittsburgh (Washington, Sewickley: get credit, houses, live)

[suzeeq521]

Oh, and I forgot to acknowledge the bridge comment - many, many of the bridges have pedestrian walk-ways. On a daily basis, I use one of the three sisters (all of which are pedestrian friendly) and walk from downtown to the North Side/Shore/whatever they call it.

I can name many bridges that I have crossed on the pedestrian walk-way, to all different parts of town.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by supersoulty

Well... most of the neighborhoods are seperated by topography, thats how they got their unique identity. I think what they are looking at speficically is how many neighborhoods/areas stand out alone as being "walkable" in which case Pittsburgh has far more than the average city. Shadyside, Downtown, The Strip, Bloomfield, Southside, parts of North Shore, Oakland, Squirrel Hill, I'm sure there are others... are all places where you can walk to get pretty much anything you might need. And usually, you can walk to get from one to another too... I usually walk to get to Barnes and Noble on Squirrel Hill. Is it an easy walk, no... but I can do it and it helps keep me in shape.

As I have said on other threads, one of the things I love about Pittsburgh that I can't say about any other place I have ever lived is that I can literally forget where I parked my car because I don't use it more than once a week.

The whole problem with walkability is that it's something we lost many years ago. When we had little neighborhoods, the grocery stores delivered, or you didn't have to buy every thing there because a milkman delivered, so you go to the butcher and pick up dinner meat, and go the green grocer for veg and the bakery for bread. BUT in a lot of places those markets have died and we now have supermarkets that provide everything. And because we are so busy we shop for a week or so. Which is definitely NOT walkable.

And as a country -- a young country -- we really embraced the car culture. In Europe, where they had hundreds on hundreds of years of city development before they had cars -- they didn't. That's why European cities are far more walkable than ours and always will be.

This doesn't mean we should give up on walkability, but I think we have to understand the reasons why it seems so hard to achieve here.

For instance here -- I live in a very urban area (Oakland CA) and my neighborhood has a walkability score of 73 -- not walkable. I've got lots of housing all around and one close grocery and that's it. (And that grocery SUCKS).. so even in urban areas there's a long way to go with it.

[BrianTH]

If this is a reference to the same Brookings study I have seen, the basic methodology was to focus on something called a "regional-serving walkable urban place," which means a place that has regionally significant employers, cultural institutions, services (hospitals, public transit, etc.), and residences all within walking distance. By their definitions only Downtown, Oakland, and the South Side counted, but that was enough to place Pittsburgh pretty high in the rankings because even three such places is a lot for a city of its size. For comparison, Portland, Oregon, a similarly-sized city, did even a bit better because it had four such places. New York and LA did a bit worse because even though they had many more such places (21 and 15 respectively), they had fewer per capita.

I gather neighborhoods like Shadyside or Squirrel Hill might have counted as "local-serving walkable urban places", but missed one or more of the requirements for "regional-serving" status. And I guess it is true, for example, that many people who live in places like Shadyside or Squirrel Hill actually work in Oakland or Downtown.

Being able to walk across the entire city was not a consideration. Frankly, I'm not sure why it would be either, and in any event I think the point was more to identify the places within cities that counted as a walkable place, not to identify entire cities which were one single walkable place. Indeed, the more such places the study found per capita the better, so a city with multiple such places would finish higher than a city the same size but only one such place.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If this is a reference to the same Brookings study I have seen, the basic methodology was to focus on something called a "regional-serving walkable urban place," which means a place that has regionally significant employers, cultural institutions, services (hospitals, public transit, etc.), and residences all within walking distance. By their definitions only Downtown, Oakland, and the South Side counted, but that was enough to place Pittsburgh pretty high in the rankings because even three such places is a lot for a city of its size. For comparison, Portland, Oregon, a similarly-sized city, did even a bit better because it had four such places. New York and LA did a bit worse because even though they had many more such places (21 and 15 respectively), they had fewer per capita.

I gather neighborhoods like Shadyside or Squirrel Hill might have counted as "local-serving walkable urban places", but missed one or more of the requirements for "regional-serving" status. And I guess it is true, for example, that many people who live in places like Shadyside or Squirrel Hill actually work in Oakland or Downtown.

Being able to walk across the entire city was not a consideration. Frankly, I'm not sure why it would be either, and in any event I think the point was more to identify the places within cities that counted as a walkable place, not to identify entire cities which were one single walkable place. Indeed, the more such places the study found per capita the better, so a city with multiple such places would finish higher than a city the same size but only one such place.

Yes, that was the study.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by supersoulty

There are alot of southern and western cities where you really can't walk anywhere. I read the report in the Post a month or so back. I said that Pittsburgh ranked very highly in terms of "walkable spaces" and included Oakland, Downtown and the Southside as being prime examples of locations where you can walk almost anywhere you might need to be.

Actually, most western cities have sidewalks even in the suburbs and are very walkable.

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

I drive more than I should, but I know so many people in Pittsburgh who don't own cars, which leads me to believe that most city areas are pretty dang walkable.

There are places in the suburbs that aren't walkable at all--I was out in Robinson once, and noticed several bus shelters, but no sidewalks or crosswalks. So the unlucky people who have to bus it are forced to walk in the ditches by the sides of the roads.

This was the complaint of my niece when she lived in Wexford.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

Actually, most western cities have sidewalks even in the suburbs and are very walkable.

Yeah, I know that Pheonix and L.A. in particular are pedestrian nirvanas. I know what you mean, San Fran, Denver, Portland, Seattle... but many others, like Colorado Springs (which is pretty much just a big suburb), the other two I mentioned, Dallas, and any other western city that owes its existance to the last 50 years all tend to be built strictly around car culture.

[BrianTH]

I think the SW cities did tend to do poorly (except Denver). Given the methodology, I suspect that is largely a result of rapid and recent growth in the suburban populations of those cities. Given the study's definitions, it is difficult for most new suburbs to qualify as regionally-serving urban walkable places: you may be able to walk around the neighborhood, but the definitions require regionally important employers, services, cultural institutions, etc. within walking distance, and that is not very common in modern suburbs.

To put the same point another way, if the Pittsburgh metropolitan area had recently doubled in population (what it would have taken to rival cities like Dallas, Houston, or Phoenix), it probably wouldn't have done very well either because all those extra people would likely have to be out in the suburbs, and that would have lowered Pittsburgh's score (assuming no new qualifying places).

[oktaren]

Also, to add to the walkability concern, the city has major problems plowing, shoveling, salting sidewalks. It is always great to walk up a big hill or stairs with a ton of snow on them. Other cities have no problems plowing the sidewalks, but I haven't seen too many clean today, and we got an inch or less of snow. Add to that ice, and no, its not very walkable.

[oktaren]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If this is a reference to the same Brookings study I have seen, the basic methodology was to focus on something called a "regional-serving walkable urban place," which means a place that has regionally significant employers, cultural institutions, services (hospitals, public transit, etc.), and residences all within walking distance. By their definitions only Downtown, Oakland, and the South Side counted, but that was enough to place Pittsburgh pretty high in the rankings because even three such places is a lot for a city of its size. For comparison, Portland, Oregon, a similarly-sized city, did even a bit better because it had four such places. New York and LA did a bit worse because even though they had many more such places (21 and 15 respectively), they had fewer per capita.

I gather neighborhoods like Shadyside or Squirrel Hill might have counted as "local-serving walkable urban places", but missed one or more of the requirements for "regional-serving" status. And I guess it is true, for example, that many people who live in places like Shadyside or Squirrel Hill actually work in Oakland or Downtown.

Being able to walk across the entire city was not a consideration. Frankly, I'm not sure why it would be either, and in any event I think the point was more to identify the places within cities that counted as a walkable place, not to identify entire cities which were one single walkable place. Indeed, the more such places the study found per capita the better, so a city with multiple such places would finish higher than a city the same size but only one such place.

So its flawed, like any statistical study, got it.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think the SW cities did tend to do poorly (except Denver). Given the methodology, I suspect that is largely a result of rapid and recent growth in the suburban populations of those cities. Given the study's definitions, it is difficult for most new suburbs to qualify as regionally-serving urban walkable places: you may be able to walk around the neighborhood, but the definitions require regionally important employers, services, cultural institutions, etc. within walking distance, and that is not very common in modern suburbs.

To put the same point another way, if the Pittsburgh metropolitan area had recently doubled in population (what it would have taken to rival cities like Dallas, Houston, or Phoenix), it probably wouldn't have done very well either because all those extra people would likely have to be out in the suburbs, and that would have lowered Pittsburgh's score (assuming no new qualifying places).

That's part of it, but a large part of it has to do with the way the cities themselves are built.

As I previously mentioned, Colorado Springs is basically like a big suburb without a central city... it might actually be the MOST extreme example, but a number of these places were built almost exclusively outward in "perfectly zoned" parcels so that most commercial, residential and business areas never even come close to touching. The flip side of this is Houston where there is basically no zoning at all... but the real focus here is the outward building.

A good number of Southern and Southwester cities are basically like Monroeville... and that's the city not the suburbs.