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.
how can a place have zero wlakability? Not even Venice has zero walkability. You know some parts of Houston have walkability scores in the 90's right?
that is a retarded comment
I said almost zero walkability, and I dont think that statement is that far off....I saw a great deal of the inner city of Houston, and most of it was not very walkable. I ate dinner one night in the Montrose neighborhood, and while was charming, and nice, it stll seemed somewhat suburban to me in development, with "walkable areas" and not really a walkable neighborhood as a whole. I also spent a great deal of time in Midtown and again, "walkable" by sunbelt standards, but wouldnt call it very urban.
I stand by my comment that Houston has almost zero walkability.
yes that is interesting and I have asked Kidphilly to comment on it but he shys away from it here is the UA's by density:
1. Los Angeles 2500 (SUNBELT)
2. San Fran 2200 (SUNBELT)
3. Phoenix 1900 (SUNBELT who is always slammed)
4. Miami 1900 (SUNBELT)
4. New York 1800
5. Chicago 1500
6. DC 1500
7. Houston 1400 (SUNBELT)
7. Dallas 1400 (SUNBELT)
8. San Diego 1400 (SUNBELT)
9. Detroit 1200
10 Seattle 1200
11.Tampa 1200 (SUNBELT)
12. Baltimore 1200
13. Minn/St Paul 1100
14. Philly 1100
15 St Louis 1000
16. ATL 900 (Sunbelt)
17. Boston 900
look at those sunbelt cities go.
PHILLY doesn't really have a dense UA but Kidphilly loves mentioning UA and density but never together
1. Los Angeles 7068 (West Coast)
2. San Fran 7004 (West Coast)
3. New York 5309
4. Miami 4407 (SUNBELT)
5. Chicago 3913
6. Phoenix 3638 (SUNBELT who is always slammed)
7. San Diego 3418 (West Coast)
8. DC 3400
9. Detroit 3094
10. Baltimore 3041
11. Houston 2951 (SUNBELT)
12. Dallas 2946 (SUNBELT)
13. Philly 2861
14. Seattle 2844
15. Minn/St Paul 2671
16.Tampa 2570 (SUNBELT)
17. St Louis 2506
18. Boston 2322
19. ATL 1783 (Sunbelt)
So yes you are right the density of the UAs in Philly, Houston and Dallas are all very comprable, just Philly is sizably larger
its not my stats hun, your fellow PA poster posted the stats on density. I have yet to post my own on density at the UA level. All I did was comment on the ones he posted.
If he says that Philly's density at the UA level is below 1000 ppsm, then that is what I tend to believe. why would your fellow PA poster lie?
once again, I never listed any sq mileage for Philly, those numbers came from your buddy, at it did not list the density below 1000, it listed it at 1100
You do understand this is a mathmatic impossibility, correct? But then again why not agree it fits your story, why let the FACTS get in the way of good story...
I said almost zero walkability, and I dont think that statement is that far off....I saw a great deal of the inner city of Houston, and most of it was not very walkable. I ate dinner one night in the Montrose neighborhood, and while was charming, and nice, it stll seemed somewhat suburban to me in development, with "walkable areas" and not really a walkable neighborhood as a whole. I also spent a great deal of time in Midtown and again, "walkable" by sunbelt standards, but wouldnt call it very urban.
I stand by my comment that Houston has almost zero walkability.
1. Los Angeles 7068 (West Coast)
2. San Fran 7004 (West Coast)
3. New York 5309
4. Miami 4407 (SUNBELT)
5. Chicago 3913
6. Phoenix 3638 (SUNBELT who is always slammed)
7. San Diego 3418 (West Coast)
8. DC 3400
9. Detroit 3094
10. Baltimore 3041
11. Houston 2951 (SUNBELT)
12. Dallas 2946 (SUNBELT)
13. Philly 2861
14. Seattle 2844
15. Minn/St Paul 2671
16.Tampa 2570 (SUNBELT)
17. St Louis 2506
18. Boston 2322
19. ATL 1783 (Sunbelt)
So yes you are right the density of the UAs in Philly, Houston and Dallas are all very comprable, just Philly is sizably larger
Just to nitpick, but Los Angeles, San Diego and (arguably) San Fran are all Sunbelt cities. I always get a chuckle when people think Sunbelt is just another term for the South. Especially since Los Angeles was the first Sunbelt city...
1. Los Angeles 7068 (West Coast)
2. San Fran 7004 (West Coast)
3. New York 5309
4. Miami 4407 (SUNBELT)
5. Chicago 3913
6. Phoenix 3638 (SUNBELT who is always slammed)
7. San Diego 3418 (West Coast)
8. DC 3400
9. Detroit 3094
10. Baltimore 3041
11. Houston 2951 (SUNBELT)
12. Dallas 2946 (SUNBELT)
13. Philly 2861
14. Seattle 2844
15. Minn/St Paul 2671
16.Tampa 2570 (SUNBELT)
17. St Louis 2506
18. Boston 2322
19. ATL 1783 (Sunbelt)
So yes you are right the density of the UAs in Philly, Houston and Dallas are all very comprable, just Philly is sizably larger
how can Philly's be larger when on your list it is lower than both Houston and Dallas? lol and why don't you list LA and SF as sunbelt cities? why do you hate the sunbelt so much? give it its due respect dude. 88% of the countries growth over the next 20 years is predicted to be in the sunbelt
I don't know why people who don't know crap about crap make themselves look stupid by posting stupid lies about Houston.
0 walkability? what an idiotic thing to say
These Dense crazed queens on this site.. Its going to be a never ending story. Htown why do we even bother we should should let them have this so they can feel better in there spirit
1. Los Angeles 7068 (West Coast)
2. San Fran 7004 (West Coast)
3. New York 5309
4. Miami 4407 (SUNBELT)
5. Chicago 3913
6. Phoenix 3638 (SUNBELT who is always slammed)
7. San Diego 3418 (West Coast)
8. DC 3400
9. Detroit 3094
10. Baltimore 3041
11. Houston 2951 (SUNBELT)
12. Dallas 2946 (SUNBELT)
13. Philly 2861
14. Seattle 2844
15. Minn/St Paul 2671
16.Tampa 2570 (SUNBELT)
17. St Louis 2506
18. Boston 2322
19. ATL 1783 (Sunbelt)
So yes you are right the density of the UAs in Philly, Houston and Dallas are all very comprable, just Philly is sizably larger
LA San Diego both of those are sun belt cities sir
You do understand this is a mathmatic impossibility, correct? But then again why not agree it fits your story, why let the FACTS get in the way of good story...
Actually, I believe that is per sq KM rather than mile.
I don't know why people who don't know crap about crap make themselves look stupid by posting stupid lies about Houston.
0 walkability? what an idiotic thing to say
You can not deny that for a city the size of Houston, it lacks an abundance of walkable neighborhodos. Yes the areas you posted are fairly walkable, but the public transit (which is part of walkability IMO), sucks. 90% of the people who dont live directly in those neighborhoods drive there. Hell, I would bet that the peopel who DO live in those neighborhoods probably drive in that area.
THose neighborhoods are more walkable in the sense that there are a few square blocks that you can park your car and walk around for lunch and shopping....
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.
