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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-30-2014, 11:20 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,178 times
Reputation: 1348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Whatever happened to just walking from point A to point B was that the built form and layout of cities changed away from being people-centric to vehicle-centric.

What's so wrong with trying to describe why people don't walk as much as they used to? As a nurse, would you expect a doctor to tell a patient who has come in with neck pain to quit being whiny? You'd probably expect the doctor to examine the patient and figure out why ou has neck pain. Few pedestrians is a symptom, just like neck pain, and is something to be examined and dealt with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Analogy fail.
Response fail.

Okay, you disagree. You think my analogy is inaccurate. At least provide some detail, some criticism.

Here's my position:

Though I don't think historic-ness is necessary for a healthy, well-walked neighborhood--walkability is somewhat impartial to if the specific architectural design is Victorian, Spanish, etc.--I believe that, because such neighborhoods predate auto-centricity, and as such were designed for a slower scale, they are fundamentally walkable.

But to say that isn't satisfying. It's a description of a thing, not an understanding of what's happening. We're asking why one street sees almost no foot traffic, but another is packed. And we're asking why specific eras seem to have consistently produced neigborhoods which see more or less foot traffic. Is there correlation? Is the link causal? We won't know without actually trying to answer these questions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-30-2014, 11:55 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Moved most of the off topic posts that don't with historic-ness at all to another thread. Please continue the discusssion here:

What makes a place or space walkable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 12:07 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
But to say that isn't satisfying. It's a description of a thing, not an understanding of what's happening. We're asking why one street sees almost no foot traffic, but another is packed. And we're asking why specific eras seem to have consistently produced neigborhoods which see more or less foot traffic. Is there correlation? Is the link causal? We won't know without actually trying to answer these questions.
You would to compare neighborhoods that are built at similar densities, perhaps street connectivity to see if there's something about historic neighborhoods that make them have more pedestrians. [Obviously an old (historic?) neighborhood that does get lots of foot traffic not all of them do. You would be hard-pressed to find recent New England examples, the DC area, western US and Canada would have more examples in North America. Outside, there should be good examples of newer pedestrian-oriented developments.

In the Bay Area outside of San Francicso, there seems to be two models of suburban downtowns. Older railroad-style suburbs, found in many penisula towns. Even if much of their growth was in the postwar era when nearly all suburbanites had cars, the origional layout was from a time when many weren't driving. Burlingame is a good example:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=burli...alifornia&z=16

East Bay (outside of Berkeley and Oakland) and Silicon Valley in general seem to have less old parts. Many of the downtowns are infill in areas that were designed to be auto-oriented. I think Walnut Creek is a good example:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Walnu...alifornia&z=16

[Correct me if I'm wrong, I've been to neither and am not from the Bay Area, but it seeme like a good US example]

Both are walkable and have some dense residential near the center, but the design isn't the same. Does one get more pedestrians than the other? Or is it only an aesthetic difference that one would make one favor the older one? In the Northeast (excluding DC, which many don't consider part of the Northeast anyway), all the walkable suburbs are much more like the first kind, so I don't have a good sense how well newer downtowns work pedestrian-wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 12:39 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Response fail.

Okay, you disagree. You think my analogy is inaccurate. At least provide some detail, some criticism.

Here's my position:

Though I don't think historic-ness is necessary for a healthy, well-walked neighborhood--walkability is somewhat impartial to if the specific architectural design is Victorian, Spanish, etc.--I believe that, because such neighborhoods predate auto-centricity, and as such were designed for a slower scale, they are fundamentally walkable.

But to say that isn't satisfying. It's a description of a thing, not an understanding of what's happening. We're asking why one street sees almost no foot traffic, but another is packed. And we're asking why specific eras seem to have consistently produced neigborhoods which see more or less foot traffic. Is there correlation? Is the link causal? We won't know without actually trying to answer these questions.
I'm not sure we're on topic or not, but I'll give it a whirl.

Yes, if the patient showed up with neck pain, the doctor would examine the patient. In fact, when I'm working the phone desk and suggest someone make an appointment, many of them ask, "what will they do?", generally in a tone of voice suggesting they think it's pointless to be seen. I always say, "they'll do a history and a physical".

However, I didn't get that the question was a "why" question, especially the question in the OP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 12:46 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,193,406 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Moved most of the off topic posts that don't with historic-ness at all to another thread. Please continue the discusssion here:

What makes a place or space walkable?

So, you don't see the connection between historical neighborhoods/buildings and walkability?
Kind of an odd choice of threads to play the "off topic" card.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 12:50 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
So, you don't see the connection between historical neighborhoods/buildings and walkability?
Kind of an odd choice of threads to play the "off topic" card.
Not in posts that didn't mention historic-ness at all. See the moved posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 12:55 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33058
How about this:

Historic (using the word in the sense of "old") areas are walkable. That does not mean non-historic areas are NOT walkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 12:57 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
I'd say some historic (using the word in the sense of "old") are not walkable, or barely so (only a couple shops, etc. in walking distance). Sure, there are non-historic areas that are walkable. But on average, historic areas are more walkable than non-historic areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
How about this:

Historic (using the word in the sense of "old") areas are walkable. That does not mean non-historic areas are NOT walkable.
This is very true, I have been in a number of nice walkable areas that were fairly new construction. The Pearl District is a great example of this in Portland, as well as a number of urban neighborhoods throughout the metro like Orenco Station.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 01:35 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,265,101 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not in posts that didn't mention historic-ness at all. See the moved posts.
I thought it was pretty much implied that historicness has a lot to do with what makes a place walkable.
I didn't feel the need to mention it in every post, because it was implied.
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
Similar Threads
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