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 10-17-2014, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12635

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
How so? The OP doesn't. The title says "what makes a place or space walkable". A neighborhood is a place, obviously. So, I'll rewrite to satisfy the nitpick, and hopefully someone could actually respond to what I'm saying

If few are walking and almost everyone drives in a place it probably everyone drives, it's unlikely to be walkable and certainly isn't a walking city. instead looking at subjective characteristics on what might make people walk, just look at places where people do walk.
Not to be pedantic, but few people are walking on 101 through San Francisco (hopefully). San Francisco is still a walkable city. A less ridiculous example would be the Big Box area of San Francisco (Best Buy, Costco, so on). It's really not all that walkabe in my mind. Certainly more than the average suburban Best Buy but definitely more auto-centric than most of San Francisco. You can't really generalize anything about San Francisco's walkableness based just off Best Buy or Portrero Center (big strip mall in the middle of San Francisco).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2014, 08:59 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Not to be pedantic, but few people are walking on 101 through San Francisco (hopefully). San Francisco is still a walkable city. A less ridiculous example would be the Big Box area of San Francisco (Best Buy, Costco, so on). It's really not all that walkabe in my mind. Certainly more than the average suburban Best Buy but definitely more auto-centric than most of San Francisco. You can't really generalize anything about San Francisco's walkableness based just off Best Buy or Portrero Center (big strip mall in the middle of San Francisco).
I agree, though I'm not sure how that disagrees with my post, or how it connects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:06 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
First, I've been there once. By any list or statistic I've seen of US cities, it's never ranked highly. It's certainly doesn't have many if any dense neighborhoods so it's liable for things to be rather spread out. Perhaps Phoenix is an unknown hotbed of pedestrians. Maybe those Phoenix neighborhoods were only walkable compared to other nearby Phoenix neighborhoods, so a rather low standard.
Here's a CD thread about walkability in Phoenix with some people reporting walkscores of as high as 86.Post your walkscore and give general area......

Here's another link showing neighborhood walkscores in Phoenix. Old course, those scores are not as accurate.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Funny those claiming Phoenix essentially unwalkable never thought to look up this information.

Last edited by Yac; 10-30-2014 at 08:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I agree, though I'm not sure how that disagrees with my post, or how it connects.
"If few are walking and almost everyone drives in a place it probably everyone drives, it's unlikely to be walkable and certainly isn't a walking city."

Few walk in the Big Box neighborhood of San Francisco. The Big Box neighborhood of San Francisco is a place in San Francisco. San Francisco is a walkable city. Ergo, just because few are walking and almost everyone drives (and take transit, which is also not walking -- although it's mostly still drive hence the huge parking lots), it's unlikely to be walkable (true) and certainly isn't a walking city (false, San Francisco is a walking city). You just cannot generalize from one neighborhood what the city is like.

Similarly, you can't exactly go the other way either and say just because a city has a neighborhood that's highly walkable it's a walking city. Sacramento would be a good example of that. Midtown is very walkable. The rest of Sacramento really isn't. The not-so-walkable areas vastly outweigh the walkable ones in Sacramento. How much that matters, I really don't know. You have some people that are extremely pro-walkable (wburg) that seem to do just fine even though Sacramento isn't a very walkable city.

Really, Sacramento isn't much more walkable than the suburbs wburg likes to malign so much. Roseville likewise has a similar semi-walkable downtown area. I think the main difference is really that it isn't large enough to hit a critical mass like Midtown/Downtown Sacramento is.

Last edited by Malloric; 10-17-2014 at 09:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:14 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
"If few are walking and almost everyone drives in a place it probably everyone drives, it's unlikely to be walkable and certainly isn't a walking city."

Few walk in the Big Box neighborhood of San Francisco. The Big Box neighborhood of San Francisco is a place in San Francisco. San Francisco is a walkable city. Ergo, just because few are walking and almost everyone drives (and take transit, which is also not walking -- although it's mostly still drive hence the huge parking lots), it's unlikely to be walkable (true) and certainly isn't a walking city (false, San Francisco is a walking city).
Arg my original was full of typos, I corrected them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
If there's a 3 year old in daycare, someone has to pick him/her up.
True, and that person would probably want to have a car...though that doesn't mean that there is a need for two cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
But by the definition in wiki that is right as opposed to all others, that is not a problem. It's a series of "ors." It doesn't matter that no one lives there as it meets the other criteria quite well. Plus you can always live nearby and drive there easily and then walk around so that's no really a problem either if you're looking at a larger scale than just what's immediately right there.

Seriously, a definition of walkable without anything to do with walking is just never going to get it even remotely.
Palladio is an outdoor mall in California, California has lots of outdoor malls. This mall is no more walkable than a typical suburban mall. We both know this, so there is no point in arguing about anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Palladio is an outdoor mall in California, California has lots of outdoor malls. This mall is no more walkable than a typical suburban mall. We both know this, so there is no point in arguing about anything.
I don't think we're arguing that Palladio is walkable. We both seem to agree that it's not walkable because walkable means more than you can walk around it after you drive there, or at least it does to you and me. For Eschaton, that's not the case. That's the issue. Some people do consider Palladio walkable. Without a consensus on what is and what isn't walkable, there really isn't a way to discuss what makes a place walkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I don't think we're arguing that Palladio is walkable. We both seem to agree that it's not walkable because walkable means more than you can walk around it after you drive there, or at least it does to you and me. For Eschaton, that's not the case. That's the issue. Some people do consider Palladio walkable. Without a consensus on what is and what isn't walkable, there really isn't a way to discuss what makes a place walkable.
Walkability is both subjective and objective. To the individual, walkability is subjective because what is walkable for one might not be walkable for other. Walkability is objective when it comes to the overall.

Now there are things like areas being walkable once you get there, but you need to use a form of transportation to get to it. That is like me saying downtown Portland is very walkable, but it isn't in walking to me because I don't live within walking distance of it.

If you want a basis of what is considered to be walkability, you would want to go off of what this site points out.
http://communitybuilders.net/walkability/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 10:19 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,558,119 times
Reputation: 4048
The walkable part of Old Roseville is my favorite part. I grew up out that way and rode my bike to the Roseville library all the time. It's the unwalkable parts of a city (or a suburb) that I prefer to malign.

Generally, when we mean "walkable" we're talking about "is it walkable for people who live there?" Meaning, can they go about most of their daily business without a car? Just because you don't live in a neighborhood and drive there doesn't mean it isn't walkable, just as the physical act of being able to walk 5 miles on the unpaved side of a highway to the nearest store doesn't make such a place walkable.

Where exactly is the "Big Box" neighborhood of San Francisco? I'm not familiar with it.
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