Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 09-11-2008, 10:30 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,717 posts, read 16,349,098 times
Reputation: 2975

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias View Post
I disagree with LA. When I was there, we couldn't do anything without a car.
That's because LA has so much. If you need to go to the store or meet your friends at a bar, it's easily done by walking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2008, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
1,342 posts, read 3,245,632 times
Reputation: 1533
Philadelphia is the most UN-friendly pedestrian city. First, drivers ignore most stop signs and signals, parking across the crosswalks. Second, the city has decided that restaurants can use the sidewalks for extra seating, often leaving just a few feet open for pedestrians, it's particularly bad in Old City. Third, they've installed some new traffic lights in Old City to intimidate pedestrians from crossing. It will say "Walk" for about 7 seconds, and then a red hand appears which counts off the remaining seconds, sometimes as many as 13 seconds. I can cross the street twice in 13 seconds (I walk very fast). Fourth, there is no enforcement of sidewalk laws, bicyclists are allowed free access (against the law), as well as skateboarders. You mix all this together and you have a mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 04:41 AM
 
Location: Southwest Washington
2,316 posts, read 7,820,931 times
Reputation: 1747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Ryder View Post
LA is a very walkable city. You walk to your car.
Hahaha, so true. I don't get how it scored higher than Portland. That city is so walkable. Not saying Stumptown should be number 1 or anything, but it should be higher than LA for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Chicago- Hyde Park
4,079 posts, read 10,394,567 times
Reputation: 2658
Quote:
Originally Posted by calid00d View Post
LOL at L.A. being so high.

Houston should be higher - I never have to use my car. I get up, get on metro to work, walk around downtown, and when I get home, walk around my neighborhood.

SF and NY are very very walkable though.

Chicago...meh. Maybe inner loop.
you've obivously never walked around chicago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 08:25 AM
 
Location: outer boroughs, NYC
904 posts, read 2,872,989 times
Reputation: 453
^^^

He's got some weird beef with Chicago. Just let him be.

Anyway, though I've taken a look at their methodology, and it does have some problems, I think the list makes sense intuitively. LA is probably a tad high, but considering that it is denser than most Sun Belt cities, that it's above-average doesn't really surprise me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles-213.323.310.818/San Diego-619.858.760
705 posts, read 3,298,115 times
Reputation: 445
Here is an opinion by somebody who ACTUALLY lives in Los Angeles and not just visits.

LA is highly walkable but LA is hiuge and filled with freeways which gives the impression that you need a car to get around. Trust me, when I first moved here I thought that was the case. Communities like Westwood, Century City, downtown, Hollywood, Korea town, Los Feliz, and Southern communities of the valley are VERY walkable. UCLA is in Westwood and half the students dont own a vehicle. A close friend of mine lives in Korea town and he has never owned a car in his life but manages to get to work in Hollywood and school with ease.
Although LA does not have an enormous rail system, it's still efficient enough for a student in Long Beach to get to Cal State Northridge, USC, or UCLA without a problem.
Another instance would be that if I wanted to go to Old town Pasadena in the morning then Santa Monica in the afternoon and spend the night in Univeral city walk I would be able to do so without a car but just a couple train rides and bus rides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
2,245 posts, read 7,192,008 times
Reputation: 869
No Pittsburgh? Considering that long been one the most structurally dense cities in the country....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Manhattan, New York
371 posts, read 1,106,627 times
Reputation: 64
did anybody look at what they considered walkable
What Makes a Neighborhood Walkable
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 02:35 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,035 posts, read 10,295,470 times
Reputation: 3753
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Scarsdale, NY
2,787 posts, read 11,500,015 times
Reputation: 802
SF's not that walkable. It's walkable, but not even close to as walkable as NYC and Boston. In SF, the sidestreets are simply residential and way too long. In NYC and Boston, there are grocers, pizzerias, and cafes on residential streets. In NYC, people even live above stores, pizzerias, and cafes. And Vegas more walkable than Memphis? No, I've been to both and Memphis was easy to walk around... Vegas was a pain in the *** to walk around. Sorry, but I don't agree with this list.

LA's not walkable. Angelenos only think it's walkable because they don't know what walkable really is. Look at Street View on Google Maps and drive around West LA, East LA, and South LA, northern LA. There's nothing but houses with spacious front yards and a few apartment buildings taking up more land than they need to.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top