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 looks live as hell in this video. Little do you know that it only takes walking a few blocks for the urban environment to break down into pretty harsh territory for pedestrians. And the camera angles focus on large rush hour crowds that create an image that's not in line with reality. That's why streetview is better, imo, because I can get a better sense of the walkable environment. I can go on streetview and look at cities I've never been to and know that I'd walk for miles. Then there are other cities where I know I'd only walk for blocks.
That "neighborhood" would be considered five or six out East. LA's 90+ population could concievably be much higher if the areas being graded were more neighborhood-like in size.
I don't care what the score is. It could be 130 and it wouldn't matter to me. If you could slice out Koreatown and give it to Boston and then cut a similar footprint around Back Bay/South End and give it to LA, who do you really think is coming out ahead in that deal?
The bottom line is that walkability is not something that can be determined by a computer. And it's also something that can be completely divorced from density. Koreatown is denser than London's densest neigborhood. More walkable?
I don't care what the score is. It could be 130 and it wouldn't matter to me. If you could slice out Koreatown and give it to Boston and then cut a similar footprint around Back Bay/South End and give it to LA, who do you really think is coming out ahead in that deal?
The bottom line is that walkability is not something that can be determined by a computer. And it's also something that can be completely divorced from density. Koreatown is denser than London's densest neigborhood. More walkable?
Have you been to K-town? It's pretty damn walkable with 2 subways.
Above 90 walkscore:
New York: 4,768,050
San Francisco: 341,160
Chicago: 334,395
Philadelphia: 246,181
Los Angeles: 163,967
Washington: 137,889
Boston: 128,406
Seattle: 117,798
Miami: 13,702
By percentage of total population (above 90):
New York: 57.19%
San Francisco: 41.31%
Washington: 21.81%
Boston: 20.17%
Seattle: 18.56%
Philadelphia: 15.91%
Chicago: 12.32%
Los Angeles: 4.25%
Miami: 3.31%
Never realized New York had more 90 plusers than the entire population of Boston, San Francisco, or Phoenix MSA's, respectively. Impressive how much Seattle's caught up to Washington and Boston.
I know your question in the thread was an exercise in repeated discussion of all things discussed on this forum every day, however the population w/above 90 WS above is as close to an accurate answer to your question as any. The % doesnt mean anything in context to your question because you confined it to 10 sq miles.
I've been to Koreatown and many of the areas are pedestrian hostile, too airy and not compact enough meaning longer distances must be crossed for more things. Drivers there get up to higher speeds, don't yield as often to pedestrians, many driveways intersecting the sidewalk, which becomes even worse if you are running in these type of areas. It's not just about being able to go to a store and get your groceries.
Haha, Atlanta definitely does not look that, at least not often. Never seen it that busy. In fact I've been in that same area and been literally the only person on the street. Have walked through midtown and maybe pass somebody else every 2-3 blocks. I have quite a few pictures of DT and Midtown where it's just an empty street.
I don't care what the score is. It could be 130 and it wouldn't matter to me. If you could slice out Koreatown and give it to Boston and then cut a similar footprint around Back Bay/South End and give it to LA, who do you really think is coming out ahead in that deal?
The bottom line is that walkability is not something that can be determined by a computer. And it's also something that can be completely divorced from density. Koreatown is denser than London's densest neigborhood. More walkable?
Of course you don't, it doesn't confirm your bias. It refutes it.
London almost certainly has huge swaths with 100-95 walk scores, with millions living in them, so no need to deflect. US city, no need to deflect. Boston isn't in that area code as far as walkability, neither is LA.
I know your question in the thread was an exercise in repeated discussion of all things discussed on this forum every day, however the population w/above 90 WS above is as close to an accurate answer to your question as any. The % doesnt mean anything in context to your question because you confined it to 10 sq miles.
Minimum had to be 10 square miles. Not confined to just it.
Also I don't have a dog in this fight. I was just posting information that was asked for.
My personal preference is New York but I've always been able to handle the scale-backs with Toronto and Chicago nicely. See, I'm a car owner, and I quite love my car as well, however my ideal environment is an urban and walkable one. Where my car is for longer range trips.
What's the solution? An urban design that's balanced with all modes, pedestrian and bike friendly, as well as adaptable nicely for vehicles. Honestly, the older I get, the more this sort of design appeals more to me. Though, the scale-backs is the reason why neither Chicago nor Toronto can sustain the vibrancy Manhattan has or the density.
For someone like me though, I consider it the next leg up in favorable design.
I'm not so familiar with Los Angeles anymore. Haven't seen the city in ages honestly speaking, haven't had any issues with it either, so my opinions on it's urban design is useless since it's been years (4-5) since I've seen it. I like Los Angeles plenty, also respect it, one day I'll get around to seeing the new Los Angeles.
Should do a walkscore then adjust it for income to make sure it is not just a walkable ghetto. While this would take considerably more time for NYC, it would be pretty fast for others. I am not surprised by Seattle at all, it gives off a bigger city feeling in parts than DC, at least in Downtown/Belltown/etc due to narrower streets and highrises. Their populations and density are pretty close.
Why does income matter much? Walkable is walkable.
Adjusting for income, rofl. You guys are trying soooo hard to hold onto your LA biases, its hysterical.
That's why you're deluding yourselves that Seattle is more walkable than Chicago (based on percentage of city limits population).
Why isn't it though? Because Chicago has greater absolute numbers in 90+? What about all the people living in 70-? Whereas Chicago has 3 times more people in 90+ neighborhoods, it probably has (i am guessing) 5 times more people living in 70-. Why should all those people be ignored? If we are comparing Chicago to Seattle then we are comparing *all of Chicago* to *all of Seattle*. Anything else is just statistical manipulation. That's why I said -- walkscore is fine, but you gotta take the good with the bad.
Your position that we should prioritize absolute numbers over percentages is no more tenable than MichVegas' claim that NYC is more Asian than Hawaii because it has greater absolute numbers of Asians. (I guess that also means that NYC is more Mexican than most cities in Mexico, more Italian than most cities in Italy and more Jewish than virtually all cities in Israel)
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.
