U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 10-13-2014, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,782,374 times
Reputation: 1616

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I don't remember just which report you're talking about. The link I posted about walkablility in Phoenix did note that despite everything the urban planners tell us is necessary for walkablility in the low income neighborhoods, e.g. parks, grid system, etc, people there had high rates of obesity. It would seem to me that's an indictment of "Urban Planning 101" principals. Surprise, there's more to it than that!



Actually, the link I posted said there were parks and I believe shopping in these urban 'hoods. The study was done in Phoenix; not as much decay there as in the rust belt.
They probably used a fairly low threshold for walkability/urbanity.

The most walkable part of Phoenix according to WalkScore is Downtown Phoenix. It has been labeled a food desert by the US Dept of Agriculture.
Phoenix urbanites hunger for downtown grocery

The pre-WWII neighbourhoods surrounding Downtown Phoenix (in which I'm including the areas near the LRT south of I-10) are riddled with vacant lots and the "Central City" section of Phoenix which WalkScore defines as Downtown and adjacent neighbourhoods on a street grid has a Walkscore of 60 which is less than Etobicoke (62) and Scarborough (63), the most suburban parts of Toronto and areas mostly built after WWII around the automobile (especially Scarborough). The rest of Phoenix looks like it was mostly built around the automobile and from Walkscore, doesn't seem to be much more walkable than the suburbs.

Last edited by nei; 10-14-2014 at 12:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2014, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,782,374 times
Reputation: 1616
Also regarding Phoenix not having as much decay as the Rust Belt.

Population within 1 mile of City Hall, change from 2000 to 2010

Chicago: +84,7% (+28,938)
St. Louis: +50.6% (+5834)
Cleveland: +50.0% (3158)
Memphis: +28.8% (+2802)
Indianapolis: +4.8% (+649)
Baltimore: +4.3% (+1564)
Pittsburgh: +0.3% (+60)

Cincinnati: -1.6% (-285)
Phoenix: -5.0% (-929)
Buffalo: -7.7% (-1540)
Detroit: -10.3% (-1004)

Population within 2 miles of City Hall, change from 2000 to 2010

Chicago: +36.2% (+48,288)
St. Louis: +17.1% (+5881)
Cleveland: +10.9% (+3174)

Memphis: -4.1% (-1384)
Baltimore: -6.1% (-10,194)
Pittsburgh: -8.2% (-6614)
Cincinnati: -8.6% (-6112)
Indianapolis: -9.5% (-4739)
Detroit: -9.9% (-3601)
Buffalo: -12.4% (-7859)
Phoenix: -13.6% (-6874)

Population within 3 miles of City Hall, change from 2000 to 2010

Chicago: +11.1% (+31,824)

Cleveland: -5.0% (-3,388)
Baltimore: -6.7% (-18,645)
Pittsburgh: -8.3% (-13,833)
Cincinnati: -10.2% (-15,749)
Memphis: -10.9% (-7,806)
Indianapolis: -13.2% (-15,532)
Buffalo: -14.1% (-16,137)
Detroit: -14.7% (-11,019)
Phoenix: -15.1% (-17,361)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Salem the Witch City
80 posts, read 77,267 times
Reputation: 96
I understand the OP's question, but have no ****ing clue what you all are arguing about on pages 55 (if not earlier) through 58 (so far).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,714,232 times
Reputation: 7831
Not sure why some thing urbanist hate trees, but I for one think tree lined streets are a great idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 12:38 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,302,977 times
Reputation: 14811
Phoenix? Seriously? I'm not arguing against the overall conclusion, but calling Phoenix walkable is a stretch, it's too spread out for walking to practical, just about everyone drives. Not saying many of those rust belt cities are any better except for maybe a couple of neighborhoods. The article created a firestorm because it's a terrible city choice if you're looking at walkability.

Last edited by nei; 10-14-2014 at 12:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,714,232 times
Reputation: 7831
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Phoenix? Seriously? I'm not arguing against the overall conclusion, but calling Phoenix walkable is a stretch, it's too spread out for walking to practical, just about everyone drives. Not saying many of those rust belt cities are any better except for maybe a couple of neighborhoods.
I won't look to Phoenix for being a model for walkable cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 12:40 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,302,977 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbabyatskiy View Post
I understand the OP's question, but have no ****ing clue what you all are arguing about on pages 55 (if not earlier) through 58 (so far).
Agreed. Perhaps you could stay on the OP's question, the health debate has nothing to do with the OP's question and has been done many, many times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 12:48 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,302,977 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
This thread isn't about your mom, it is about making a place more walkable. For most people, walking is a good thing, there are some that can't walk but probably would if they could because it is a healthy activity.
No, it's not. It's about what makes a place more walkable. Not the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,160 posts, read 103,094,225 times
Reputation: 33211
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Phoenix? Seriously? I'm not arguing against the overall conclusion, but calling Phoenix walkable is a stretch, it's too spread out for walking to practical, just about everyone drives. Not saying many of those rust belt cities are any better except for maybe a couple of neighborhoods. The article created a firestorm because it's a terrible city choice if you're looking at walkability.
This is exactly how the conversation went the last time, which is why I didn't want to revisit it. Deja-vu all over again as Yogi Berra said.

However, since several people, including you our fearless leader do seem to want to discuss this, if you'd read the abstract the authors compared one area of Phoenix to another. Now, I daresay you haven't exactly done a block by block assessment of Phoenix. You don't know what walkable areas there are in that city. And the result surprised them. Having all these things that "Urban Planning 101" as one poster likes to call them, didn't lower the obestiy rate there. It's what people on this thread have implied, too. Maybe they should take a look at that study.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 08:23 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,302,977 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Now, I daresay you haven't exactly done a block by block assessment of Phoenix. You don't know what walkable areas there are in that city. And the result surprised them. Having all these things that "Urban Planning 101" as one poster likes to call them, didn't lower the obestiy rate there. It's what people on this thread have implied, too. Maybe they should take a look at that study.
No, I don't, though I have looked through it on streetview. None of it looked that walkable if it all. Nor were there many pedestrians. It didn't seem like a good choice of place to expect walkability to make any difference. I don't think it has "all of those things" or much of any.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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