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 10-14-2014, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
It confuses me at all that anyone would argue against the humanization of our cities. Building for human beings--keeping in mind our preferences and needs for layout, scale, and design--is absolutely positive. They provide a better tax base, are more economically resilient, allow more mobility options, can be healthier, and can be better for the environment.

Obviously, walkability isn't a silver bullet for any of society's ills--it won't, in and of itself, make people absolutely healthy, fend off economic downturns, or make every job close--but it opens up opportunities and possibilities for healthiness and for job access.
Exactly.

The problem is that people have vastly different ideas of what building for human beings entails. Suburbs are built for human beings. Cities are built for human beings. You have bigoted individuals with overly rigid views who refuse to accept the simple fact that just because something isn't built to their exact specifications it's bad. They call it things like "built for cars," which is of course nonsense. It's built for people. Most people prefer to get around by car.

Nothing wrong with making suburbs more walkable, that's a great goal. But that really doesn't satisfy these people. Unless a place is so horrible to drive in that technological advances do not make life easier, they'll attack it and anyone who prefers that built environment as opposed to their preferred environment.

Walkable is vastly overstated, anyway. You know how many people commute to work by walking in San Francisco? 8%. Eight. That's it. San Francisco is pretty damn walkable, but only 8% walk. It's higher somewhere like Manhattan, at least for people living and working in Manhattan. Walking, biking, etc is over half. That's huge, don't get me wrong. But the nature of Manhattan means that most people cannot live there. There's far too many jobs in one location and as a result most workers are not living in Manhattan but rather commuting in. You know how many people commute in to Manhattan by other (walking, biking, motorcycle, telecommuting)? 4%. It's a trivial number, effectively none.

Walkable has more benefits for your daily life outside of work. It's just not realistic that people are going to walk to work. That gets back to the rigid views of the bigots who demand that a place be so hostile to driving that people are forced to walk out of sheer frustration with total disregard to the fact that most people are not going to walk to work anyway.

There's a large amount of the Peninsula and the East Bay, and sizeable portion of Silicon Valley that would meet a more reasoned view. They are walkable, selectively, for people who want to be able to walk for their daily life outside of work. Are you going to walk to work there? Extremely unlikely. But then it's extremely unlikely you'll walk to work in San Francisco either. More likely, but still very unlikely nonetheless.

I really have very little desire to live in San Francisco. It's just too difficult to live there. I'd prefer the East Bay or Peninsula over San Francisco. But I'm not a bigot, so just because San Francisco to me is too much of a hassle to deal with doesn't mean I go around lambasting it as not being designed on a human scale. It's just not for me. The shoe leather costs are too high for me personally. For others, the shoe leather costs in the suburbs are too high, even the highly walkable ones. Whereas I really like most of the Peninsula and East Bay (excluding the highly urban parts of Oakland, at least as far as living there), someone else may like San Francisco, urban Oakland. Yet another person might prefer giant stripmalls and windy roads of Dublin (although even Dublin has somewhat walkable part as well although it as admittedly the least walkable of the cities around it). I don't mind the stripmalls and windy roads, but it's not really my favorite format either. Big deal. Live where you like. It's no sweat off my back that people prefer places I personally find too urban. No reason for me to go around calling them inhuman places designed for worker bees rather than people to live just because it isn't for me.

Last edited by Malloric; 10-14-2014 at 03:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2014, 03:45 PM
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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
For all you know, the streetviews were taken when it was 110 degrees in the shade! I looked back through the old threads referencing this study, and the authors are from Arizona State U. They "wrote what they know". What a concept! This all came up last time, too. Maybe you should just bump the old threads.
City Landscape and Public Health
Urban vs Suburban Schools
(The firefight starts at post #170)

Let's get off Phoenix. Obesity rates almost everywhere are higher in the inner cities. In some cases that is contrary to the expectations of the researchers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Can we please quit talking about this freaking study? My God! It was accepted by a peer-reviewed journal, and here are a bunch of CD jockeys thinking they know more than the authors about a subject which is the author's area of expertise.
Why? I'd rather talk about the study than the walkability / public health topic in general.

Plenty of times on CD posters criticize studies for all I'm not saying it's incorrect nor do I know , I'm saying it's not informative. Their sample was neighborhoods that had relatively low walkability, it doesn't say much whether more walkable areas (which may not have been the subject of the study anyway) affect health; you can't extrapolate past the observed data in a study.

But if we must keep talking about this topic, how about a very clearly walkable area? New York.

https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics...eneral/g75.htm

Highest obesity rates are NOT in the inner city. They are in rural areas. In NYC itself, much wealthier but less walkable Staten Island [Richmond County] has a higher obesity rate than Brooklyn [Kings County]. Queens is below the state average, well off unwalkable Putnam County is above. What's going? There's one rather obvious factor besides walkability and income, I'll let interested posters guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 03:57 PM
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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Exactly. The problem is that people have vastly different ideas of what building for human beings entails. Suburbs are built for human beings. Cities are built for human beings. You have bigoted individuals with overly rigid views who refuse to accept the simple fact that just because something isn't built to their exact specifications it's bad. They call it things like "built for cars," which is of course nonsense. It's built for people. Most people prefer to get around by car.
No. An area "built for cars" is a spot where one normally drives past, it's a different landscape which isn't and can't be observed at the same scale. Greater space, more setback, typically signs are further away. A human scale is smaller. These neighborhoods are bad to me, I suppose I must add the obvious to me to every post to avoid a bigot label, I'm not sure why anyone should care either way.

Quote:
I don't mind the stripmalls and windy roads, but it's not really my favorite format either. Big deal. Live where you like. It's no sweat off my back that people prefer places I personally find too urban. No reason for me to go around calling them inhuman places designed for worker bees rather than people to live just because it isn't for me.
Most people have other more urgent and practical requirements on where to live than just urban built form, and many parts of the country have limited neighborhood options. In any case, just because you live a neighborhood doesn't mean your surroundings are similar which you visit. I actually assumed many people didn't really feel that strongly about the not so walkable neighborhoods they lived in that before this forum, I assumed people just lived there for other more practical reasons but weren't enthusiastic about the layout. Silly assumption, yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Many of the counties you listed are suburbs of SF which would mean that a good number of them probably walk a lot in SF where they probably work.

And yes, money does play a part in this when people can afford the cost and time to go to the gym regularly. That tends to be the main way to make up for the lack of walkability in a car centric community.
San Francisco isn't Manhattan or DC. Not that many people are really commuting INTO San Francisco. It actually has an interesting commute pattern. Marin commutes to San Francisco and the East Bay (not many jobs in Marin). The East Bay commutes to San Francisco and Peninsula/Silicon Valley. San Francisco commutes to the itself and the Peninsula with a few commuting to the East Bay and Silicon Valley. "Commute Hell" (Dublin, Concord, Tracy, Stockton) commute to the East Bay to replace all the workers commuting to San Francisco and Peninsula/Silicon Valley.

In total, San Francisco sees roughly only 260,000 people commute in with another 100,000 commuting out.

How San Francisco’s Population Ebbs and Flows Throughout the Day | The Lowdown
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
No. An area "built for cars" is a spot where one normally drives past, it's a different landscape which isn't and can't be observed at the same scale. Greater space, more setback, typically signs are further away. A human scale is smaller. These neighborhoods are bad to me, I suppose I must add the obvious to me to every post to avoid a bigot label, I'm not sure why anyone should care either way.
No, they're built for people. It's a reflection of how people get around. It's like saying a neighborhood is built for shoes if it's better to walk there than anything else. No, it's not built for shoes just because people use shoes to get around predominantly. Again, you may not be a bigot just because you can't recognize that, but there are several posters here who are.

An extreme example is the rest areas in other parts of the country with lots of diners and such. They are not built for cars. Your car does not care to stop for coffee, use the restroom, and get an ice cream cone. They are built for people. The rest areas in California tend to be much more basic but again are really not built for cars. They're built for people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Most people have other more urgent and practical requirements on where to live than just urban built form, and many parts of the country have limited neighborhood options. In any case, just because you live a neighborhood doesn't mean your surroundings are similar which you visit. I actually assumed many people didn't really feel that strongly about the not so walkable neighborhoods they lived in that before this forum, I assumed people just lived there for other more practical reasons but weren't enthusiastic about the layout. Silly assumption, yes.
I think many people do. I don't live where I live because I love it, per say. It's convenient, cost effective, I had a personal connection with landlord. I would not buy in this neighborhood. I'd buy a few miles a way in a neighborhood that is more walkable, although very clearly not what most people especially here would consider a place that an actual human would live rather than a car's possession.

Something like the Pocket neighborhood in Sacramento is walkable enough for me (which isn't very walkable). Aesthetically, I'd prefer something more like the less walkable areas of East Sacramento or Land Park, but I'm too price sensitive. Midtown Sacramento wouldn't be too bad assuming I had a private garage, although again I would be unlikely to pay the premium that it commands. I have other interests (motorcycles not growing feet) that are far more important to me than being able to walk to bars and restaurants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 04:27 PM
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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Why does walkable = walk to restaurants and bars? I haven't emphasized that much at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 04:30 PM
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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I think many people do.
Maybe within the same general area, though then things like schools and cost matters as well
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Why does walkable = walk to restaurants and bars? I haven't emphasized that much at all.
Or grocery stores, dry cleaning, trendy overprice botiques, coffee shops.

Walkable = walkable to something. I personally find it pretty nice to walk around where I live. There's a nice park, I can go out on the levees and let the dogs run around and get muddy. It isn't walkable since there's really nothing I can walk to that I can buy, which is what people mostly mean. I suppose museums and libraries might count as well, but mostly you're talking about being able to consume things by walking as opposed to just being able to enjoy taking a walk which I can do here even if the only thing that I can really walk TO is a gas station. There used to be a Starbucks I could walk to, but they closed that one unfortunately. I'd often walk there on Saturday with the dogs, have a coffee and read/catch up on paperwork for an hour on the patio, and then walk home. That was kind of nice. That's why I'd prefer something more walkable like Pocket which mostly has a walk score of 40-50 as opposed to where I live which is like 30 or something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 04:33 PM
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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Hmm. I would include having lots of actual pedestrian arounds, as an area where people actually walk
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