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.
If one doesn't have destinations to walk to then the neighborhood isn't walkable, though like any neighborhood, you can pretty much walk around for health reasons if you choose to.
In any neighborhood you can walk if you choose to but because you have no place to go is not possible to walk. I understand now.
Absolute highest level of walkability in my book. No vehicles except bicycles, scooters and small police cars, which is impractical over any significant footprint in all major American cities. Side streets are still lined with ground level retail, which is uncommon in American cities outside of CBDs. Small streets make you measure distances in footsteps rather than quarter mile, half-mile estimates.
Was the two lane driveway to the garage really necessary here?
Since the laws of physics prevent two pieces of matter - cars, for instance - from occupying the same space at the same time, I'd say the two-lane driveway to the garage is really necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
This is pretty much the core of walkability - the use of a public space not only as a method of conveyance, but as "room" that one lives part of their lives in. If you're walking on the sidewalk, and you run into a friend, you can stop and have a chat. Or you could decide to pause and look at a house being constructed across the street - you can "live in" the location, rather than just briefly observe it on the way somewhere.
So ... wait. Not only does an area have to be interesting in order to be walkable, and have an number of possible destinations (unless that destination is a park), and be safe, and easy to walk through ... now that area must substitute as a social gathering place in order to be walkable?
What other ridiculous, arbitrary and wholly subjective criteria do y'all have up your sleeves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
^^And do note that many students can't wait to get out of the dorms, or into suites or whatever. There are plenty of other places to congregate besides the hallways of the dorms.
Amen to that. People don't need artificial constructs like dorms to socialize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Fine, everywhere is walkable. You seem to find an excuse for everything so why bother
Sounds good to me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Of course then the "debate" isn't really a debate but rather a discussion of personal preferences. Some posters are simply unable to accept that others do not share their personal preferences as to what constitutes "walkable".
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Then it sounds like where you live might be classified as somewhat walkable, but where you do live did rank low on walk score.
Walk Score is bullcrap and we all know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
If one doesn't have destinations to walk to then the neighborhood isn't walkable, though like any neighborhood, you can pretty much walk around for health reasons if you choose to.
You make it sound like that's a bad thing. Fresh air, sunshine, exercise -- sure is better for you than sauntering to your favorite hipster coffee bar and slugging down all that unhealthy caffeine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
In any neighborhood you can walk if you choose to but because you have no place to go is not possible to walk. I understand now.
Yeah, don't listen to that nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Why not? One would think that's the whole premise!
You make it sound like that's a bad thing. Fresh air, sunshine, exercise -- sure is better for you than sauntering to your favorite hipster coffee bar and slugging down all that unhealthy caffeine.
huh? who said anything about hipster bars?
It's a bad thing in the sense it's not interesting from a practicality or transportation sense. I don't associate walking in a neighborhood with exercise myself, at least in warmer weather, I get exercise from bicycling.
Of course then the "debate" isn't really a debate but rather a discussion of personal preferences. Some posters are simply unable to accept that others do not share their personal preferences as to what constitutes "walkable".
Note the authors did what researchers are supposed to do. They came up with an idea and tested it to see if it was true. In their case, the answer was "no". That's not what you hope will happen with that type of research. However, it's why you do research instead of relying on "common sense", and the like to form policy.
That's fine, whether their results are applicable to more walkable areas is the issue I have with it. It's outside the realm of the study, so it doesn't tell us much. And having some urban planning knowledge would be helpful in formulating what would urban structures might have an effect on people's behavior.
Why not? One would think that's the whole premise!
I am capable of walking to things three miles away. Are they walkable? No.
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.
Bingo
