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.
There seem to be conflicting ideas on "walkability." For some it means sidewalks and crosswalks. For others it means destinations are in a short distance. For others it is based on street design.
There seem to be conflicting ideas on "walkability." For some it means sidewalks and crosswalks. For other ex it means destinations are in a short distance. For others it is based on street design.
So in your eyes, how would you define walkable?
You really need both and that is why many burbs are not so walkable. The larger lots means more distance between houses and more distance to get out to the street and lack of side walk makes walking any distance dangerous or muddy. The cul de sacs don't help either.
Street design matters the least imho. Sidewalks, Crosswalks much more.
Anywhere I don't have to walk on the street. If sidewalks are impassable, and I have to walk on the street around a blocked sidewalk, it's not walkable.
I don't need a destination; I walk for the pleasure of walking, and for exercise.
Someone summarized it well on an earlier thread.
A walk needs to be useful, safe, comfortable and interesting.
For me, a walk with three of the above four is very walkable.
Get down to two of four and I might drive rather than walk.
I really don't care how long it is, if it is a nice sunny day, the longer the better.
And if a walk is safe, comfortable and interesting, I'll find a way to make it useful.
Sometimes just being outside is useful enough.
Safety is the top priority. Everything else is gravy. Of course, there are varying opinions on what constitutes safety.
I walk mostly for exercise now. Back in the day, when I walked for transportation, I didn't care if the walk was interesting, and comfort, while welcome, was not the highest priority.
When I thought of a walkable space, I thought it meant a place where walking was one of the main modes of transportation, and plenty of people are out walking.
I was under the impression that "walkable" in the context of this forum meant most of your common activities could be done by walking (as opposed to using a car or bus or train or plane).
I was under the impression that "walkable" in the context of this forum meant most of your common activities could be done by walking (as opposed to using a car or bus or train or plane).
Me too. Though if you're job or some trips are too far, it's still walkable. Otherwise, someplace like Brooklyn or many boston neighborhoods would count as not walkable. Walkable in the sense local neighborhood trips are easily done on foot but transit or car is needed to go further afield.
lol at plane. I'm imagining someone who walks for local trips and commutes by plane
I think that all of the posts are right at least to some degree. I think in the context of the forum, it is the ability to walk safely with the appropriate infrastructure in place, usually with a destination or destinations in mind and within a reasonable proximity.
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.