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.
Los Angeles is over 469 sq miles, has a population larger than the entire Seattle metropolitan area and STILL has a higher standard density (8,000k vs 7400k). There isn't any amount of "10 Mexicans living in house" BS spin that makes Seattle come out denser. You're delusional.
Nice links btw. Did you study them?
Walkscores above 80
Seattle: 206,016
Los Angeles: 586,484
You could tack on another 125k for Los Angeles if you include West Hollywood (Walkscore: 89) and Santa Monica (82), but as the numbers show, it really isn't necessary.
Walkscores above 70
Seattle: 414,000
Los Angeles: 1.97 million
70, 80... What about 90? Isnt that what we should be talking about for genuinely urban, walkable neighborhoods?
Seattle - 100k (16% of the population)
LA - 127k (3% of the population)
What say you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
3. Los Angeles doesn't really have the luxury of calling an area with 6-7000 people a neighborhood, or else the 70/80/90 scores throughout the basin would shoot up, including the Westside.
Oh I see... I guess you have finally found a flaw with Walkscore.
70, 80... What about 90? Isnt that what we should be talking about for genuinely urban, walkable neighborhoods?
Seattle - 100k (16% of the population)
LA - 127k (3% of the population)
I'd say on the whole Seattle is a little bit more walkable than Los Angeles. Especially when you take aesthetics into consideration (though LA is constantly improving on this).
One thing to note is that more than 127k people live at walkscores above 90 in Los Angeles (same with Seattle). For example I live at a walkscore of 95 in what I would argue is one of the most walkable parts of the city, however I am not counted in that 127k because the quite large neighborhood of Hollywood is a 87. Not that it makes a difference in comparing these two cities, just a general note.
70, 80... What about 90? Isnt that what we should be talking about for genuinely urban, walkable neighborhoods?
Seattle - 100k (16% of the population)
LA - 127k (3% of the population)
What say you?
Oh I see... I guess you have finally found a flaw with Walkscore.
Only 11% of Chicago is at walkscores above 90. You get an A for effort though.
It isn't really a walkscore flaw either. L.A. neighborhoods are drawn up way too big all the time. Doesn't Wikipedia have Hollywood listed at 20 sq miles?
Chicago has 30 neighborhoods with +90 walkscores; 18 of them have a population under 10,000. In contrast, the 586k residents in Los Angeles with +80 scores come from 11 neighborhoods total (!), and only one is under 10k (Chinatown). It's just a minor quibble though. I like walkscore for the most part.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 04-17-2013 at 07:44 PM..
Only 11% of Chicago is at walkscores above 90. You get an A for effort though.
It isn't really a walkscore flaw either. L.A. neighborhoods are drawn up way too big all the time. Doesn't Wikipedia have Hollywood listed at 20 sq miles?
Chicago has 30 neighborhoods with +90 walkscores; 18 of them have a population under 10,000. In contrast, the 586k residents with +80 scores come from 11 neighborhoods total (!), and only one is under 10k (Chinatown). It's just a minor quibble though. I like walkscore for the most part.
Did I say that Chicago has more people (proportionally) living in urban, walkable neighborhoods than Seattle? Maybe it doesn't, I don't know. Chicago does have a lot of SFH areas as well. In any event 11% is much closer to 16% than 3%... and 300k in a city of 2.7m is a heckuva lot better than 127k in a city of 3.8m.
I don't know but these numbers look pretty intuitive to me and seem to reflect urban reality much more accurately than density figures, that's for sure.
Did I say that Chicago has more people (proportionally) living in urban, walkable neighborhoods than Seattle? Maybe it doesn't, I don't know. Chicago does have a lot of SFH areas as well. In any event 11% is much closer to 16% than 3%... and 300k in a city of 2.7m is a heckuva lot better than 127k in a city of 3.8m.
I don't know but these numbers look pretty intuitive to me and seem to reflect urban reality much more accurately than density figures, that's for sure.
But those numbers are incorrect. I have no idea how you would get the correct numbers. Doesn't it seem a little weird that 120k people come in 2 neighborhoods, while Seattle has 10 neighborhoods to get a smaller amount (100k)?
I'd say on the whole Seattle is a little bit more walkable than Los Angeles. Especially when you take aesthetics into consideration (though LA is constantly improving on this).
One thing to note is that more than 127k people live at walkscores above 90 in Los Angeles (same with Seattle). For example I live at a walkscore of 95 in what I would argue is one of the most walkable parts of the city, however I am not counted in that 127k because the quite large neighborhood of Hollywood is a 87. Not that it makes a difference in comparing these two cities, just a general note.
interestingly enough, the satellite cities of L.A. are divided much smaller. Santa Monica, for example:
I bet half of the residents in walkscore's "Hollywood" live in +90 walkscores. We'll never know.
My friend just moved to an apartment in Mid-City West. It has a 94 walkscore but Mid City West, with its large borders and 47k population, only gets an 89. Sigh...
But those numbers are incorrect. I have no idea how you would get the correct numbers. Doesn't it seem a little weird that 120k people come in 2 neighborhoods, while Seattle has 10 neighborhoods to get a smaller amount (100k)?
What do you mean incorrect? I was going off of what RCL stated for Chicago - 11% - which comes to about 300k.
I don't know how their methodology works though and I never held much stock in Walkscore. But these numbers do seem much more intuitively correct than anything else I've seen.
Take Miami for example. Its average density is much higher than Seattle, but as anyone who has ever been to these cities can attest Seattle is a far more walkable and cohesive urban environment. The Walkscore numbers support this. While Seattle has 100k at 90+, Miami has a big fat zero (in fact none over 86).
What do you mean incorrect? I was going off of what RCL stated for Chicago - 11% - which comes to about 300k.
I don't know how their methodology works though and I never held much stock in Walkscore. But these numbers do seem much more intuitively correct than anything else I've seen.
Take Miami for example. Its average density is much higher than Seattle, but as anyone who has ever been to these cities can attest Seattle is a far more walkable and cohesive urban environment. The Walkscore numbers support this. While Seattle has 100k at 90+, Miami has a big fat zero (in fact none over 86).
That is exactly what I mean by the numbers are incorrect. Do you think there are zero people in Miami that live at a Walk Score over 90?
Same with me. As I posted before, my address scores a 95. Yet I am not counted in the 127k figure you are using (yes I know you didn't come up with the figure, but it is still incorrect).
Here is a visual representation:
Seattle
Los Angeles
Notice how Seattle's green sections are mostly within the borders of those 10 neighborhoods? Then take a look at Los Angeles... An area that is almost the size of Seattle's green areas is completely outside the borders of LA's two 90+ neighborhoods, Koreatown and DTLA.
Compare that to Seattle, in which one of their "neighborhoods" (Cascade) has as many people living in it as my 4-block census tract!
And just to reiterate, from what I have seen, I find Seattle to be more walkable than Central Los Angeles (I mean, that green in DT Seattle is dark). But the Seattle area really cannot compete with the sheer number of walkable areas in Los Angeles.
That is exactly what I mean by the numbers are incorrect. Do you think there are zero people in Miami that live at a Walk Score over 90?
Same with me. As I posted before, my address scores a 95. Yet I am not counted in the 127k figure you are using (yes I know you didn't come up with the figure, but it is still incorrect).
Like I said I am not quite sure how the methodology works, but why not? The score is a result of an algorithm, I assume, so I can not tell what is correct and incorrect without understanding how it's derived and what it's supposed to reflect.
But I can tell you what makes sense and what doesn't from a "naked eye" test. Have you ever been to Miami? It's got a few walkable pockets surrounded by largely auto-oriented development. If a score of 90 is supposed to denote "walker's paradise" then I am not sure that there is anything in Miami that would qualify (and I say that as someone who has lived there and is quite familiar with its urban landscape). Miami Beach, yes, but not Miami. You can't take a small urban pocket -- even if it offers most urban amenities within walking distance (like Coconut Grove for example) -- and declare it a "walker's paradise'' when you need to get into a car to go anywhere else. Otherwise anyone living near a shopping mall would be living in a walkers paradise. Anyway even if there is some undercounting it would apply to each city, wouldn't it?
It would be neat if someone took the time to rank top 20 cities or so (NYC excluded) based on the number of people living in walkscores of 95, 90, 85 and 80. I am too lazy to do it but that would be a nice reference tool.
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.
