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.
It's silly to compare San Francisco's 49 square miles to New York City's 304 square miles of land area. A more accurate comparison would be San Francisco and Manhattan. Manhattan has much better public transportation than San Francisco and is far more walkable. To make a comparison with New York City as a whole you'd have to include places like Oakland and Berkeley, and San Francisco's walkability quotient would drop dramatically.
Oakland and Berkeley have many walkable areas-Id guess either of those places by themselves would rank in the Top 10 in they were included in this list.
But I do get your point.
On the other hand, I've lived in New York and San Francisco and in my opinion, walking around San Francisco is more fun and I like being outside more in SF than in NY. I wonder if that had anything to do with their "research".
Also,
Maybe super large cities(aside from NY which crams 8 Million people into 300 sq mi) are so unwalkable because their borders are so broad that they cant focus on a truly walkable core. Boston, another small city being 3rd sort of supports my little suppositon. LOL
We're educated here. People on this site are mainly urban planners, developers, real estate investors, brokers, etc. What do you do, smart guy? You're real credible...
Oakland and Berkeley have many walkable areas-Id guess either of those places by themselves would rank in the Top 10 in they were included in this list.
But I do get your point.
On the other hand, I've lived in New York and San Francisco and in my opinion, walking around San Francisco is more fun and I like being outside more in SF than in NY. I wonder if that had anything to do with their "research".
Also,
Maybe super large cities(aside from NY which crams 8 Million people into 300 sq mi) are so unwalkable because their borders are so broad that they cant focus on a truly walkable core. Boston, another small city being 3rd sort of supports my little suppositon. LOL
The cool thing about walking in SF - though this may get old if you live there and have to drag groceries around and stuff - is how hilly it is. It's like an urban hike, interspersed with great views everywhere.
I'm not so sure on the size thing, though - being small be may be helpful, but Chicago (230 sq. mi.) and Philly (140 sq. mi.) aren't small, and they're both in the top five, in addition to NYC.
The cool thing about walking in SF - though this may get old if you live there and have to drag groceries around and stuff - is how hilly it is. It's like an urban hike, interspersed with great views everywhere.
I'm not so sure on the size thing, though - being small be may be helpful, but Chicago (230 sq. mi.) and Philly (140 sq. mi.) aren't small, and they're both in the top five, in addition to NYC.
I agree about SF being cool with the hills. But after I walked up and down them for a few days, it stopped thrilling me and I didn't even pay attention to them anymore. In NYC and Boston, you can always find something interesting whether it be 400 years old or brand new modern skyscrapers.
I agree about SF being cool with the hills. But after I walked up and down them for a few days, it stopped thrilling me and I didn't even pay attention to them anymore. In NYC and Boston, you can always find something interesting whether it be 400 years old or brand new modern skyscrapers.
But there has to be a reason that SF ranked higher than both of those places, and I dont think hills had anything to do with it.
Okay, here's what the ranking itself says...
About SF
Quote:
The top 17 neighborhoods in San Francisco are Walkers' Paradises. 90% of San Francisco residents have a Walk Score of 70 or above. 99% have a Walk Score of at least 50—and 1% live in Car-Dependent neighborhoods.
About NYC
Quote:
The top 38 neighborhoods in New York are Walkers' Paradises. 86% of New York residents have a Walk Score of 70 or above. 98% have a Walk Score of at least 50—and 2% live in Car-Dependent neighborhoods.
About Boston
Quote:
The top 4 neighborhoods in Boston are Walkers' Paradises. 74% of Boston residents have a Walk Score of 70 or above. 97% have a Walk Score of at least 50—and 3% live in Car-Dependent neighborhoods.
They look at how near amenities are to the average resident by foot.
We're educated here. People on this site are mainly urban planners, developers, real estate investors, brokers, etc. What do you do, smart guy? You're real credible...
aren't you actually in high school still?
On a previous post you said you were in 5th grade when 9/11 happened, which would put you in about a senior in high school right now.
I think most of those cities should be on there but I also think New Orleans should have been someplace on it. The French Quarter, Garden District, Marigny, Carrolton, Warehouse District, etc. Aside from the ample tourist foot traffic, think about it, about 35% of the population does not even own a car. Even if most of those rely on busses, they still generally have to walk numerous blocks to and from the bus stop from their home and the destination.
I think most of those cities should be on there but I also think New Orleans should have been someplace on it. The French Quarter, Garden District, Marigny, Carrolton, Warehouse District, etc. Aside from the ample tourist foot traffic, think about it, about 35% of the population does not even own a car. Even if most of those rely on busses, they still generally have to walk numerous blocks to and from the bus stop from their home and the destination.
Yeah, NOLA should be on there definately and would probably rank pretty high but this list doesn't include a fair amount of cities like Miami and such. New Orleans is such an easy city to walk around, never have needed a car when I've visited in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighland
Umm you're fighting with a high schooler.
"fighting", okay call it what you want but I'm just calling him out on his BS. Don't really think one should be putting themselves in the same category as educated professionals when they don't even have a high school diploma.
On a previous post you said you were in 5th grade when 9/11 happened, which would put you in about a senior in high school right now.
Yes, but it has one of the best reputations of excellence in the country, and it's also among the most physically fit schools in the country. I'm not stupid, I have an interview with the University of Miami (FL) soon and I've already talked with Boston College. More than likely, I'll be attending Boston College to study law and business, and when I get my degree I'm going to apply and train to become a federal agent.
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.
? 
