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.
Wow, a 40 minute walk that should have only took two minutes to do, compare that to a 6 minute drive, and that creates an environment that isn't walkable. Sure, one could stroll around their own neighborhood without any real destination for basically recreational purposes, but even the bus seems to be a bit of a hike from that start point.
It's always possible to cherry pick an extreme circumstance, and I will say I think the NE, particularly NYS since that's what I'm familiar with, has some lousy land use planning. My educated guess (educated from having lived in places like this) is that there is an unofficial foot path one could use to connect the two.
It's always possible to cherry pick an extreme circumstance, and I will say I think the NE, particularly NYS since that's what I'm familiar with, has some lousy land use planning. My educated guess (educated from having lived in places like this) is that there is an unofficial foot path one could use to connect the two.
Yes, I was picking an extreme example to make a point, but regardless those designs making walking distance harder. My example is from California, not New York. My experience is that often you're stuck and there is no foot path, though sometimes there is. From what you've said, it sounds like what you're familiar with of New York State is upstate NY. Upstate NY has little in common with downstate NY. From what I can tell, much of Long Island isn't worse from a walkability standpoint compared to most suburban areas in the country, it's probably a bit better than most (I can find parts where most do live within 1/2 mile to stores, for example and a few high-frequency bus service). I had trouble finding a circuitous cul de sac route for New York, though I only checked Long Island briefly. That's why went umm, west.
It's always possible to cherry pick an extreme circumstance, and I will say I think the NE, particularly NYS since that's what I'm familiar with, has some lousy land use planning. My educated guess (educated from having lived in places like this) is that there is an unofficial foot path one could use to connect the two.
With cul-de-sac neighborhoods, it isn't really cherry picking, it is basically the reality of those types of suburban development. They aren't built for pedestrian efficiency, though I have posted examples of Canadian suburbs that have made cul-de-sac developments efficient for pedestrians, it just requires proper planning.
Also, those "unofficial foot paths" are typically someone else's private property. We use to have a few of those we used when we were kids to get to our friends' houses until the neighbors put up fences because they didn't want kids walking through their yard.
Yes, cities have zoning too, and a number of cities suffer from segregated zoning as well which makes destinations one would go to out of the walking distance one would do on a regular basis.
Zoning doesn't prevent me from walking anywhere. It doesn't prevent "destinations" from cropping up in the commercial districts that border my residential neighborhood. What it does prevent is my neighbor turning his house into a butcher shop or a dry cleaners. And isn't it wonderful that we live in a country that protects homeowners who do not want to live next to a dry cleaners or pizza parlor?
Quote:
Cul-de-sacs create much bigger problems due to their lack of connectivity. Yes, they are connected on one side, but what if you need to go the other direction and there is no cut through for pedestrians?
There's a shopping center behind my house. I can hop the fence or walk around. What's your point?
Quote:
I ask these questions because this is the type of suburbs I grew up in, and they are the type of suburbs I have seen across this country.
Well, once again, not all suburbs are the same.
Quote:
Had we still built suburbs like we did during the streetcar suburb era, we would have much better walking neighborhoods, and you would be able to increase the density of your home and add a business (which sounds like Cincinnati might have regressive zoning laws.)
My Cincinnati neighborhood was built in the 1920s. Even city planners back then were wise enough to separate residential and commercial uses, and zone in neighborhood business districts so that people could live close by to the services they need, but not on top of them.
Yes, I was picking an extreme example to make a point, but regardless those designs making walking distance harder. My example is from California, not New York. My experience is that often you're stuck and there is no foot path, though sometimes there is. From what you've said, it sounds like what you're familiar with of New York State is upstate NY. Upstate NY has little in common with downstate NY. From what I can tell, much of Long Island isn't worse from a walkability standpoint compared to most suburban areas in the country, it's probably a bit better than most (I can find parts where most do live within 1/2 mile to stores, for example and a few high-frequency bus service). I had trouble finding a circuitous cul de sac route for New York, though I only checked Long Island briefly. That's why went umm, west.
I thought those names looked California-ish, but you always post stuff from the NE. Oh, well. I do note that each little neighborhood on that map looks fairly connected to the other houses in the hood.
I will also note that cities tend to have some of these barriers too. Not so much cul-de-sacs, but a street will just end somewhere b/c of a creek or something.
There's a shopping center behind my house. I can hop the fence or walk around. What's your point?
The point is it makes walking longer, especially if you can't hop the fence. [with groceries!]. For example, this layout makes getting to the supermarket about three times longer on foot than it would be otherwise.
My Cincinnati neighborhood was built in the 1920s. Even city planners back then were wise enough to separate residential and commercial uses, and zone in neighborhood business districts so that people could live close by to the services they need, but not on top of them.
Some people seem like the want to live on top of the stores on main street, I don't myself. But I don't see why that should be prevented or how that's wise.
You need to get out more if you've observed no one walking in a suburb.
Might also be a matter of perspective. My aunt, who lives in a not particularly walkable area of London (walk score is 50, for what it's worth) found one of the first things noteworthy about her brother's neighborhood in suburban Chicago (either Schaumberg or Hoffman Estates, can't remember where he was at the time) was that very few people walk in the neighborhood. Houses might be odd, but the streets felt kinda dead.
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.
