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.
Oh really? How many people do you know walk across entire cities at one time?
I mean, Manhattanites don't even do that.
In my experience, most people walk across 1-3 neighborhoods at a time.
It's not about walking across the entire city but getting from one neighborhood to another. New York is walkable not because of cute neighborhoods like Greenwich Village but because it's easy to get around by subway. The whole city thus becomes walkable. Even if you're not going to walk from the Financial District to the Upper West Side, it's east to get from the Financial District to the Upper West Side.
Walkability is about transportation, not simply milling around a few blocks of a particular neighborhood. There are cool, walkable areas all over the country, even in famously unwalkable cities like Houston. However, getting around the city without a car is very, very difficult.
It's not about walking across the entire city but getting from one neighborhood to another. New York is walkable not because of cute neighborhoods like Greenwich Village but because it's easy to get around by subway.
But I get the sense that you think SF neighborhoods are not connected by transit when indeed they are.
Quote:
The whole city thus becomes walkable.
The whole city of NY is not walkable. Staten Island isnt exactly a pedestrian paradise and much of Queens and Brooklyn is also better seen by car than by foot-I have relatives who live in Rego Park, Bayside and Jamaica Estates and they all drive more than they walk. Just like much of SFs western and southern neighborhoods. Transit there is an option, but driving is preferable.
1. New York City, New York - 26,403.8 people per square mile
2. Paterson, New Jersey - 17,764.5 people per square mile
3. San Francisco, California - 16,632.4 people per square mile
4. Jersey City, New Jersey - 16,111.1 people per square mile
5. Cambridge, Massachusetts -15,836.7 people per square mile
6. Daly City, California - 13,634.3 people per square mile
7. Chicago, Illinois - 12,752.2 people per square mile
8. Santa Ana, California - 12,471.5 people per square mile
9. Inglewood, California - 12,371.4 people per square mile
10. Boston, Massachusetts - 12,172.3 people per square mile
Hmm, I don't see Philadelphia anywhere on this list.
Well as far as major cities go, Boston would be #4. Philly would be soon thereafter. Also, where's Somerville, MA on that list? It's got over 18,000 per square mile. It's weird to count cities like Cambridge and Somerville as outside of Boston considering they're both considerably closer to Boston Common than Middle Village, Queens is to Central Park.
It's not about walking across the entire city but getting from one neighborhood to another. New York is walkable not because of cute neighborhoods like Greenwich Village but because it's easy to get around by subway. The whole city thus becomes walkable. Even if you're not going to walk from the Financial District to the Upper West Side, it's east to get from the Financial District to the Upper West Side.
Walkable is about transportation, not simple milling around a few blocks of a particular neighborhood. There are cool, walkable areas all over the country, even in famously unwalkable cities like Houston. However, getting around the city with a car is very, very difficult.
San Francisco's neighrborhoods are quite interconnected. Neighborhoods run right into each other and transit options are actually quite good. Getting from North Beach to the Castro isn't that difficult by transit...
Also, even outside of the obvious downtown neighborhoods (Union Square, Chinatown, North Beach, SOMA, etc.) neighborhoods tend to run right into each other without much "dead space" in between. For instance, *Haight/Ashbury* connects to *Lower Haight*, which connects to *Church Street/Duboce trinagle*, which connects either the to *Mission* or the *Castro*. The other way from Lower Haight going north leads to the *Fillmore District*, which connects to *Pacific Heights*, which connects to the *Marina District*. Go east from Pac-Heights and you're in *Russian Hill*, which leads right into the main *Polk Street* area, which connects to downtown and the many neighborhoods there. You could walk all of this and it would be interesting and very urban (not to mention, you have the BART, streetcar, buses, Muni lightrail etc, if you so need).
Now, a city that has walkable neighborhoods that are very isolated from each other through transit or walking is Seattle.
Lots of great little walkable neighborhood centers (i.e. Ballard, Columbia City, etc.) but very difficult to get between them, with the exception of the downtown core neighborhoods...
San Francisco's neighrborhoods are quite interconnected. Neighborhoods run right into each other and transit options are actually quite good. Getting from North Beach to the Castro isn't that difficult by transit...
Also, even outside of the obvious downtown neighborhoods (Union Square, Chinatown, North Beach, SOMA, etc.) neighborhoods tend to run right into each other without much "dead space" in between. For instance, *Haight/Ashbury* connects to *Lower Haight*, which connects to *Church Street/Duboce trinagle*, which connects either the to *Mission* or the *Castro*. The other way from Lower Haight going north leads to the *Fillmore District*, which connects to *Pacific Heights*, which connects to the *Marina District*. Go east from Pac-Heights and you're in *Russian Hill*, which leads right into the main *Polk Street* area, which connects to downtown and the many neighborhoods there. You could walk all of this and it would be interesting and very urban (not to mention, you have the BART, streetcar, buses, Muni lightrail etc, if you so need).
Now, a city that has walkable neighborhoods that are very isolated from each other through transit or walking is Seattle.
Lots of great little walkable neighborhood centers (i.e. Ballard, Columbia City, etc.) but very difficult to get between them, with the exception of the downtown core neighborhoods...
I lived in Lower Haight without a car. Despite being one of the best connected neighborhoods in the city I felt stuck.
Good point about Seattle. It's a more extreme version of San Francisco and illustrates the point better. I lived on Capital Hill (without a car) for a while and felt even more stuck than in San Francisco.
I suppose I'm an extreme example but I have never owned a car in my life (and never want to). To me a "walkable city" some more or less synonymous with a city where you don't need a car at all. Lamentably there are very few cities in the country where this is the case: Boston, Chicago and some part of Phlly. You can get by without a car in SF, but it's not as easy.
I disagree about that...I lived in Boston and have spent much time in Chicago. I feel SF is actually easier to get around. Not sure how you felt stuck in lower Haight, although I dont think its the most connected neighborhood in the city at all. But you can still get to so many places by bus, bike, foot, muni, etc in very short time.
Id say there are enough cool neighborhoods outside of downtown which are directly by a transit node (unlike Lower Haight) if that was a top priority for you. Living in the Mission, for instance, youre a short bart ride from tons of neighborhoods. In the Castro or Church street youre right by the MUNI, etc. etc...I know people who live all over the city without cars (from South Park near Soma to the Civic Center/Hayes Valley to the Outer Sunset) and most feel easily connected to the rest of the city.
I also agree about Seattle...it is very extreme there how isolated neighborhoods are from each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc
I lived in Lower Haight without a car. Despite being one of the best connected neighborhoods in the city I felt stuck.
Good point about Seattle. It's a more extreme version of San Francisco and illustrates the point better. I lived on Capital Hill (without a car) for a while and felt even more stuck than in San Francisco.
I suppose I'm an extreme example but I have never owned a car in my life (and never want to). To me a "walkable city" some more or less synonymous with a city where you don't need a car at all. Lamentably there are very few cities in the country where this is the case: Boston, Chicago and some part of Phlly. You can get by without a car in SF, but it's not as easy.
Ad nauseum (posted before in another thread discussing walkability of both Chi and SF):
Again, Chicago has the second largest walkable area. Yes SF is close, but overall since Chicago has over 1.3 million people in its densest 49 sq miles (the size of SF - which has ~800k), you have to go with Chicago on this one.
Again, SF ranks higher in density and walkablity score due to the tiny size of the city, and absence of industrial areas, airports etc, that are all within Chicago city limits.
I would be cautious about some of these maps, Roboto. They are helpful (and I am rating you up) but I have to say I disagree with some of it. For instance in addition to airports being deep red --- so are large parks. Middle class Staten Island, which is mostly red on the map is actually quite walkable through the large greenbelt system on the island. Other places that are shown green (walkable) like The South Bronx are not areas I would recommend to take a stroll --- unless you are a cop on the beat!
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.
Hmm, I don't see Philadelphia anywhere on this list.
