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.
Here is an interesting article about walkable region's which is where the country is headed. We can't just focus on cities anymore, we need to focus on entire metro area's. What region's will become the most walkable in the nation over the next 10 years?
Obviously DC is one of them, but what other region's will become the most walkable outside the core? What kind of plans do region's have in place to connect their job center's by transit in the suburbs and how will they funnel housing into these walkable nodes?
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,008,050 times
Reputation: 7334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Obviously DC is one of them, but what other region's will become the most walkable outside the core? What kind of plans do region's have in place to connect their job center's by transit in the suburbs and how will they funnel housing into these walkable nodes?
If we're talking about suburban locales, by in large the answer is 'none' (including DC). I know it's all the rage to talk about "walkable nodes" and "retrofitting suburbia", but the truth is suburbia cannot be "fixed". It's a fundamentally broken design in regards to walkability.
Even if retrofitting does occur, and there are several "walkable nodes" connected by rail, what happens when someone wants to go somewhere that isn't served by that rail or within close walking distance? What is always left out of these conversations is the need for a secondary mesh network of buses to serve local destinations. Without that, the walkability is just an illusion.
Thirdly, and I know this a hard fact to accept for new school urban design folks, the majority of people in this country love driving everywhere. I personally don't understand it, but there is no room for doubt on this. The only thing that will break this car addiction most people in this country have (this includes most people in DC or NYC or anywhere else for that matter) is for oil reserves to run out and no cheaper alternative being found. That sounds dystopian, but it's been the truth ever since car companies started equated owning an automobile with freedom.
With that said, there's really no need to as who will be the most walkable region in the future. That doesn't even exist right now in any significant way.
EDIT: To be clear, when I say "suburbia" I mean post World War II developments. Suburban developments prior to then are by and large just fine.
Obviously DC is one of them, but what other region's will become the most walkable outside the core? What kind of plans do region's have in place to connect their job center's by transit in the suburbs and how will they funnel housing into these walkable nodes?
will be interesting to see. It looks like KOP will finally be getting a heavy rail expansion. only 15 years ago Tysons and KOP had a lot of similarities. Maybe KOP can take some cues from what is going on in Tysons even if not as grand a scale
If we're talking about suburban locales, by in large the answer is 'none' (including DC). I know it's all the rage to talk about "walkable nodes" and "retrofitting suburbia", but the truth is suburbia cannot be "fixed". It's a fundamentally broken design in regards to walkability.
Even if retrofitting does occur, and there are several "walkable nodes" connected by rail, what happens when someone wants to go somewhere that isn't served by that rail or within close walking distance? What is always left out of these conversations is the need for a secondary mesh network of buses to serve local destinations. Without that, the walkability is just an illusion.
Thirdly, and I know this a hard fact to accept for new school urban design folks, the majority of people in this country love driving everywhere. I personally don't understand it, but there is no room for doubt on this. The only thing that will break this car addiction most people in this country have (this includes most people in DC or NYC or anywhere else for that matter) is for oil reserves to run out and no cheaper alternative being found. That sounds dystopian, but it's been the truth ever since car companies started equated owning an automobile with freedom.
With that said, there's really no need to as who will be the most walkable region in the future. That doesn't even exist right now in any significant way.
Yes and no. But I do believe the ability to develop more densly along these corriders makes better use of the places. Though to your point the developments are generally small and not as cohesive. Reston along the new silver line in NOVA is an example as it has a few square blocks of walkable cohesion and gives way to suburbia in the traditional form pretty abrubtly but the expansion of the rail is a good thing on the whole IMHO. I wouldnt call these walkable in the city sense but more a better use of the more valuable/viable land for more dense development which is a good thing.
will be interesting to see. It looks like KOP will finally be getting a heavy rail expansion. only 15 years ago Tysons and KOP had a lot of similarities. Maybe KOP can take some cues from what is going on in Tysons even if not as grand a scale
Yes, I also think what is happening in L.A. proper can serve as a bench mark for suburban area's around the nation. L.A. is doing a wonderful job turning a suburban style city into walkable nodes. Area's like KOP and Tyson's Corner have a wonderful chance to develop around new street grids and transit. Walkable communities are the wave of the future and I doubt developers will ever go back to subdivision building. Atleast not in major cities.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,008,050 times
Reputation: 7334
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Yes and no. But I do believe the ability to develop more densly along these corriders makes better use of the places. Though to your point the developments are generally small and not as cohesive. Reston along the new silver line in NOVA is an example as it has a few square blocks of walkable cohesion and gives way to suburbia in the traditional form pretty abrubtly but the expansion of the rail is a good thing on the whole IMHO. I wouldnt call these walkable in the city sense but more a better use of the more valuable/viable land for more dense development which is a good thing.
It certainly is a good thing to expand rail and build these nodes, but alas they are just bandaids to a bigger wound.
If we're talking about suburban locales, by in large the answer is 'none' (including DC). I know it's all the rage to talk about "walkable nodes" and "retrofitting suburbia", but the truth is suburbia cannot be "fixed". It's a fundamentally broken design in regards to walkability.
Even if retrofitting does occur, and there are several "walkable nodes" connected by rail, what happens when someone wants to go somewhere that isn't served by that rail or within close walking distance? What is always left out of these conversations is the need for a secondary mesh network of buses to serve local destinations. Without that, the walkability is just an illusion.
Thirdly, and I know this a hard fact to accept for new school urban design folks, the majority of people in this country love driving everywhere. I personally don't understand it, but there is no room for doubt on this. The only thing that will break this car addiction most people in this country have (this includes most people in DC or NYC or anywhere else for that matter) is for oil reserves to run out and no cheaper alternative being found. That sounds dystopian, but it's been the truth ever since car companies started equated owning an automobile with freedom.
With that said, there's really no need to as who will be the most walkable region in the future. That doesn't even exist right now in any significant way.
EDIT: To be clear, when I say "suburbia" I mean post World War II developments. Suburban developments prior to then are by and large just fine.
I don't know if I can agree with you here. I have studied a city to great degree that was one of the first to embrace new urbanism principals Gaithersburg MD. The city used to be a sprawling typical city full of subdivisions, but is now remaking itself with massive redevelopment and new urbanism everywhere. A city with 60,000 people over 10 sq. miles will soon be a model for infill new urbanism redevelopment for post WWII suburbia.
As for transit in the form of buses and BRT, that is a given for most major area's. I know Montgomery County MD in the DMV region gets 90,000 daily riders on their bus system RIDE ON alone. The city Gaithersburg MD I am referring to has 13 bus routes alone and the city is only 10 sq. miles.
Here are multiple new urbanism communities either built, planned, or underconstruction.
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.
