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 10-18-2014, 06:12 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
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Re: the hipster bars-access to bars has been used if not in this thread, in others about walkability as one amenity that is almost a necessity to make an area walkable.
That's not what I've noticed, I've remember them mentioned more by "anti-urbanist" types than "urbanists" [can't think of a better label]. I haven't mentioned them much, I get rather frustrated to see these conversations moved back to them instead of anything I mention, it certainly is rather boring.

Quote:
I do NOT understand why people feel they must be constantly entertained on a walk. Some post that in order to get people to choose walking over driving, the walk has to be "interesting". While I disagree, what does that say about walking? I can tell you from growing up doing a lot of walking, walking is frequently seen as drudgery. But if you're making a choice to walk, you should be walking for the sake of wanting to walk, not b/c you can listen to street musicians or whatever on they way. Isn't choosing walking for health a good enough reason?
Weren't you responding to me there? I never mentioned anything about "constantly entertained". But since you asked, I'll respond for myself. As to the drudgery, I've heard some think that way (remember getting ride offers in high school while walking to school, some didn't get I wanted to walk), I never understood, always sounded like laziness to me. I'd prefer a 20 minute walk over a 20 minute drive most of the time. But obviously the trip time is much faster by car than foot. So for walking to be a convenient option, the distances can't too long or the added time will be impractically high. What's the difference in feel between a trip by car and a trip by foot? As mentioned, the speed is lower. In a car, you drive past everything quickly and when slow, often need to pay more attention to traffic and road conditions. On foot, you see and feel where you live better. But since you're at a slower pace, tedious, unattractive areas you'd go past on a car quickly are more noticeable on foot. In any decent walkable community, you'd bump into some of the people who live in your area, the details of the landscape, etc. If walking was completely uninteresting or unpleasant why would I choose to do it? Spending 10 minutes walking next to heavy traffic, surrounded by parking lots has no appeal, unless it's in the middle of a better walk or I have no choice, there's no reason why I'd waste my time. Health isn't really on the list of reasons why I'd choose to walk, and if one was interested in just health, you could drive to a park and walk or something.

A walk doesn't need to be interesting to be walkable, though at least pleasant is nice. The last time I had to run an errand (or go somewhere local — can't remember what exactly), it was fun because it was interesting. I like seeing the streescapes (both buildings and natural) of the local residential neighborhood (and yes, I do kinda like that the houses are somewhat close together and near the street) once I was in the commercial district the shopfronts were right nearby and have them right near by and have some architecture to look at. And there were people on the street. The same trip in an unworkable area wouldn't be as interesting, especially in the commercial districts. There would be far fewer people on the street, the wide road is mostly lined with parking lots. In comparison, a rather desolate experience that I would find much less appealing. One just feels good in a way to me the other can't. Note interesting has nothing to do with street musicians, I said something similar at the beginning of the thread.

And no, I'm not saying interesting is necessary a need. However, it does make one more interested in walking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2014, 06:30 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
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Auto-centrism has a strange way of creeping into urban design in even transit-rich places. This building is located 250 feet away from a subway stop.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Washi...=12,40.25,,0,0

Was the two lane driveway to the garage really necessary here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
The entrance is on Florida Avenue, which is not a major highway (nor is New York Avenue for that matter). They could have simply created a less intrusive curb cut just as they've done with every other building in the city.

I doubt there's a zoning law that requires a two lane driveway. I've never seen that before in an urban area. I can't really think of a reason why they would do it that way.
There's nothing on the other side of the building except an expressway, that driveway doesn't breakup any street scape of buildings against the street because it has already ended. Nor is there any space advantage for squeezing parking under the building, the adjacent lot is too small and too close to the expressway onramp.

Here's another break that opens up to a surface lot and then a garage:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4214...pjyi2v0-3g!2e0

Not really two lanes. Note the jaywalking barriers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 08:07 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,035 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I said low walkability. Those 80+ scores were both on the same street, near downtown and a university. It's not that hard for a spot right near a lot of shops to have a high walkscore, a neighborhood is different. I could find a bunch of areas of Long Island with similar neighborhood walk scores, a few maybe higher. But I would also consider Long Island rather car oriented, a study looking at just Long Island I'd perceive as oddly limited. Phoenix really isn't that different of a situation.
You're bound and determined to diss this peer-reviewed study because of your biases about Phoenix and because the study didn't show the results the urbanists claim on this forum, almost daily, that is, that living in a walkable neighborhood makes for healthier residents. You go on about limited, but that is how *real* research is done, one at a time. There is no doubt that the results are accurate for Phoenix. Not to mention, they probably only had the resources, e.g. funds, to study their own city. Sure, some of this tripe in urban blogs compares 50 cities, but that's why it's crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That's not what I've noticed, I've remember them mentioned more by "anti-urbanist" types than "urbanists" [can't think of a better label]. I haven't mentioned them much, I get rather frustrated to see these conversations moved back to them instead of anything I mention, it certainly is rather boring.
Oh, I could probably go back and do a search, but you don't like that, and anyway it's too much work. But just look at any thread discussing walking. People want access to bars. And what kind of bars do young urbanists frequent? You know, back in my days of a young person, it was "fern bars" that were popular. Now it's something else. And sometimes some of us like to bring them up as a joke.

Quote:
Weren't you responding to me there? I never mentioned anything about "constantly entertained". But since you asked, I'll respond for myself. As to the drudgery, I've heard some think that way (remember getting ride offers in high school while walking to school, some didn't get I wanted to walk), I never understood, always sounded like laziness to me. I'd prefer a 20 minute walk over a 20 minute drive most of the time. But obviously the trip time is much faster by car than foot. So for walking to be a convenient option, the distances can't too long or the added time will be impractically high. What's the difference in feel between a trip by car and a trip by foot? As mentioned, the speed is lower. In a car, you drive past everything quickly and when slow, often need to pay more attention to traffic and road conditions. On foot, you see and feel where you live better. But since you're at a slower pace, tedious, unattractive areas you'd go past on a car quickly are more noticeable on foot. In any decent walkable community, you'd bump into some of the people who live in your area, the details of the landscape, etc. If walking was completely uninteresting or unpleasant why would I choose to do it? Spending 10 minutes walking next to heavy traffic, surrounded by parking lots has no appeal, unless it's in the middle of a better walk or I have no choice, there's no reason why I'd waste my time. Health isn't really on the list of reasons why I'd choose to walk, and if one was interested in just health, you could drive to a park and walk or something.

A walk doesn't need to be interesting to be walkable, though at least pleasant is nice. The last time I had to run an errand (or go somewhere local can't remember what exactly), it was fun because it was interesting. I like seeing the streescapes (both buildings and natural) of the local residential neighborhood (and yes, I do kinda like that the houses are somewhat close together and near the street) once I was in the commercial district the shopfronts were right nearby and have them right near by and have some architecture to look at. And there were people on the street. The same trip in an unworkable area wouldn't be as interesting, especially in the commercial districts. There would be far fewer people on the street, the wide road is mostly lined with parking lots. In comparison, a rather desolate experience that I would find much less appealing. One just feels good in a way to me the other can't. Note interesting has nothing to do with street musicians, I said something similar at the beginning of the thread.

And no, I'm not saying interesting is necessary a need. However, it does make one more interested in walking.
I don't know if I was responding to you or to the posters on this thread in general. Certainly the entertainment factor, sometimes expressed as "interesting" is throughout the thread one of the criteria for a "place" (interesting word choice) being walkable.

I generally agree with the rest of your post, but I'll say when I lived a basically car-less none of the above mattered. What mattered was if I could get from point A to point B in a decent amount of time. I used to walk to work every day back in Champaign, to get to work at 3 PM, and I rarely saw anyone I knew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 09:13 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
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You're bound and determined to diss this peer-reviewed study because of your biases about Phoenix and because the study didn't show the results the urbanists claim on this forum, almost daily, that is, that living in a walkable neighborhood makes for healthier residents. You go on about limited, but that is how *real* research is done, one at a time. There is no doubt that the results are accurate for Phoenix. Not to mention, they probably only had the resources, e.g. funds, to study their own city. Sure, some of this tripe in urban blogs compares 50 cities, but that's why it's crap.
Where do you get the bolded? If you're going to make an accusation, you should support it. I rarely say much on the walkability and public health stuff, I'm not that interested. Nowhere did I say I disagree with the conclusion on Phoenix. My only criticism was that it says nothing about more walkable places, which might (or not) give a different result, I don't know, don't care enough to find out more. You've criticized studies all the time, I'm not sure why you're surprised at this one getting criticism.

Quote:
Oh, I could probably go back and do a search, but you don't like that, and anyway it's too much work. But just look at any thread discussing walking. People want access to bars. And what kind of bars do young urbanists frequent? You know, back in my days of a young person, it was "fern bars" that were popular. Now it's something else. And sometimes some of us like to bring them up as a joke.
You can find bars, and many other things, too.

Quote:
I don't know if I was responding to you or to the posters on this thread in general. Certainly the entertainment factor, sometimes expressed as "interesting" is throughout the thread one of the criteria for a "place" (interesting word choice) being walkable.

I generally agree with the rest of your post, but I'll say when I lived a basically car-less none of the above mattered. What mattered was if I could get from point A to point B in a decent amount of time. I used to walk to work every day back in Champaign, to get to work at 3 PM, and I rarely saw anyone I knew.
I thought "interesting" meant more as my previous post not entertainment, but I can't speak for others. Not sure what other word could be used besides place, or whether it would matter. I doubt I'd notice the difference.

I didn't comment on whether I saw people I knew, I don't that often either, though I've met more social people who are different. When I lived car-less, why I liked walking stayed the same, only difference was that there was no choice to drive. Distance and safety matter more. I said the same before as the group 1. But still, without the above walking to get around would have been only something to tolerate until I could afford a car, not something to like or be at all enthusiastic about. And all things being equal, if I could choose between two destinations that were roughly equal distance, I'd go for the one withe more interesting walk. For example, this drug store over that one. Or if there a two routes to the same place, take the nice more pedestrian friendly one. I made a comparison with two Brooklyn, where many aren't really choosing not to drive here:

What makes a place or space walkable?

More storefronts rather blank buildings in the one I rate as nicer, but the bigger improvement is quieter, narrower road. There are a lot more people walking in that one, so that hints that there's something objective on which one is the better parallel street.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,573,101 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
A train/ subway/ streetcar system can accomplish much the same. In some cases more, as rail tends to leads to centralized employment. Rail oriented large cities (say NYC and london) get enormous commuter flows into the city center. Automobile oriented cities tend to get less walking because densities are lower and uses are more segregated. It's common for downtowns to have a large proportions of people living in easy walking distance (in cities with large downtowns such as NYC and Toronto the transit share decreases as walking increases), but in most cities the proportion of the population is small, and no it would still be the case without urban renewal. Looking at London (page 42) walking + bicycling is 10% high for American standards, but most can't or won't live near work most of the decoupling has already occurred in the first half of the 20th century. Note in the following page the most downtown-like district "City of London" has the few % of walking commuters, there aren't enough residences for the 300,000+ commuters to walk to work.
Highways are what really changed everything, many of then tore through downtown neighborhoods and eliminated much of the housing that was within walking distance of downtown jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 09:58 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
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Highways are what really changed everything, many of then tore through downtown neighborhoods and eliminated much of the housing that was within walking distance of downtown jobs.
It would be hard to show that, but the area of highways isn't that large. There's no way most people could live within walking distance of downtown jobs. London has no highways near the city center, btw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,573,101 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It would be hard to show that, but the area of highways isn't that large. There's no way most people could live within walking distance of downtown jobs. London has no highways near the city center, btw.
If you look at most American cities, you will see a loop circling downtowns. These highways often times ran through once dense neighborhoods and often times separate downtown from inner city neighborhoods making it much harder to walk to downtown.

Places like London and Vancouver BC are examples of what should be done rather than what was done in most American cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 10:51 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,035 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Where do you get the bolded? If you're going to make an accusation, you should support it. I rarely say much on the walkability and public health stuff, I'm not that interested. Nowhere did I say I disagree with the conclusion on Phoenix. My only criticism was that it says nothing about more walkable places, which might (or not) give a different result, I don't know, don't care enough to find out more. You've criticized studies all the time, I'm not sure why you're surprised at this one getting criticism.
Re: the bolded-
the study didn't show the results the urbanists claim on this forum

Here are some places I "got" that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
It is amazing that some people fail to see the connection between our built environment and obesity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rzzz View Post
Perhaps the environment Americans live in contributes to the fact that 65% of them are overweight or obese.
Once again, CD's search engine failed me, and I really don't want to go all the way back through the thread. Those two said it best of the posts I could find in this thread. This notion of people living in walkable neighborhoods being healthier and less obese has come up again and again.

As for criticism, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I've never seen another study get so much criticism. This goes back THREE YEARS (from a couple different threads).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 11:02 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
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Re: the bolded-
the study didn't show the results the urbanists claim on this forum
None of those are by me, I'm not interested in those others quoted. Neither would a search of anyone else's posts provide any support.

Arg. You said:

You're bound and determined to diss this peer-reviewed study because of your biases about Phoenix and because the study didn't show the results the urbanists claim on this forum

The bolded saying: you're accusing me of disagreeing with the study because I dislike the results, is not true and offered no proof of that.

Quote:
As for criticism, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I've never seen another study get so much criticism. This goes back THREE YEARS (from a couple different threads).
There have been plenty, including a couple where people couldn't be bothered to read the full study and criticized before reading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 11:04 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,035 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
None of those are by me, I'm not interested in those others quoted. Neither would a search of anyone else's posts provide any support.

Arg. You said:

You're bound and determined to diss this peer-reviewed study because of your biases about Phoenix and because the study didn't show the results the urbanists claim on this forum

The bolded saying: you're accusing me of disagreeing with the study because I dislike the results, is not true and offered no proof of that.



There have been plenty, including a couple where people couldn't be bothered to read the full study and criticized before reading.
Arg yourself. I'm not responding just to you, as you should be able to tell by the use of the plural urbanistS. You are, however, the mod. And yes, I think you don't like what this study showed. But three years of discussing it should be enough.
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