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.
I think after looking at how cute and walkable that street is it should be clear why population density and amenities mean nothing when it comes to walkability. Just look at the constant street wall, no curb cuts, garages, etc!! Beat that LA!
I think after looking at how cute and walkable that street is it should be clear why population density and amenities mean nothing when it comes to walkability. Just look at the constant street wall, no curb cuts, garages, etc!! Beat that LA!
Nobody said amenities don't matter. I said amenities don't really matter that much when it comes to walkability. Baltimore was built as a walkable city because there weren't too many other ways to get around cities in 1870. "Amenities" have essentially become the bragging point of former suburbanites who "discovered" that these cities existed in 2006 or so. But those amenities really have no bearing on walkability. East Baltimore may not be loaded with the "restaurants, bars and coffeeshops" that are so important to the designers of Walkscore, but it does have a pedestrian life on a scale that doesn't exist in L.A.
No, the rationale is that LA scores high on Walkscore due to amenities, but LA is generally not a walker-friendly environment, so people don't really love the Walkscore metric, and I agree. Their rationale sounds fair to me.
Sounds like they're upset Walk score doesn't confirm their bias to me. Poor debating IMO.
Quote:
Actually, yes. A Google streetview scan is a hell of a lot better way to analyze potential walkability than the Walkscore algorithm.
That's laughable. I'm taking data every time.
Quote:
No, you just made this up. Bed Stuy has the same general walkscore of Koreatown, yet is 100 times more walkable.
Walk score
92 - Bed-Stuy
90 - Koreatown
100x more walkable? You have a profound gift for hyperbole.
Nobody said amenities don't matter. I said amenities don't really matter that much when it comes to walkability. Baltimore was built as a walkable city because there weren't too many other ways to get around cities in 1870. "Amenities" have essentially become the bragging point of former suburbanites who "discovered" that these cities existed in 2006 or so. But those amenities really have no bearing on walkability. East Baltimore may not be loaded with the "restaurants, bars and coffeeshops" that are so important to the designers of Walkscore, but it does have a pedestrian life on a scale that doesn't exist in L.A.
If you're strictly talking about urban form then no amenities don't matter, but when I hear the term walkability I'm kind of under the assumption there are things to actually walk to.
Perhaps, I haven't been to Baltimore but I honestly question how familiar you are with LA outside of Google maps and census data.
Sounds like they're upset Walk score doesn't confirm their bias to me. Poor debating IMO.
.
Actually, you're right. When an area has a high walk score, and everyone knows it isn't walker-friendly, it doesn't pass the smell test, and look to the source. Obviously the source has a flawed methodology if they can't distinguish between walker-oriented and auto-oriented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
That's laughable. I'm taking data every time.
Walk score
92 - Bed-Stuy
90 - Koreatown
I don't think you understand the context of the term "data", as used in quantitative research.
Posting random numbers isn't posting "data". Give us Census statistics, or peer-reviewed numbers, then it's data. Random numbers from an online algorithm aren't "data".
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
100x more walkable? You have a profound gift for hyperbole.
Ok, 25x more walkable. In any case, Bed Stuy is walk-and transit-oriented, and Koreatown is car-oriented, yet Walkscore doesn't seem to be able to recognize this.
Perhaps, I haven't been to Baltimore but I honestly question how familiar you are with LA outside of Google maps and census data.
Knowledge of Google maps and Census Data would be all you need to know, really, to understand relative walkability. From these sources you know who walks and why, you know what the streetscape looks like, and you know how neighborhoods function.
If you're strictly talking about urban form then no amenities don't matter, but when I hear the term walkability I'm kind of under the assumption there are things to actually walk to.
These people do have places to walk to. They walk to church, to see family, to the cornerstore, to the hairdresser, etc. Then there are a lot of people just hanging outside. They don't have "amenities" the way recently-transplanted suburbanites think of them, but the neighborhoods generate pedestrian traffic because the urban form dictates walking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Perhaps, I haven't been to Baltimore but I honestly question how familiar you are with LA outside of Google maps and census data.
So people are hanging out in front of those Jack in the Boxes?
Sounds like they're upset Walk score doesn't confirm their bias to me. Poor debating IMO.
That's laughable. I'm taking data every time.
Walk score
92 - Bed-Stuy
90 - Koreatown
100x more walkable? You have a profound gift for hyperbole.
What do you mean "data" ... Visual data can be measured just as whatever algorithm walkscore has said is going to be good to sell real estate. There is good data and bad data. I think most of walkscores data is irrelevant as far as walkability or how nice a neighborhood is. This is most definitely the case in Chicago and New York.
Knowledge of Google maps and Census Data would be all you need to know, really, to understand relative walkability. From these sources you know who walks and why, you know what the streetscape looks like, and you know how neighborhoods function.
Real world and actual experience trumps both imo but I'm not surprised you would think that. Nothing wrong with using Google Maps or census data until you act like some expert on a city you actually have little to no experience with. But that's City vs City for you.
Knowledge of Google maps and Census Data would be all you need to know, really, to understand relative walkability. From these sources you know who walks and why, you know what the streetscape looks like, and you know how neighborhoods function.
He wouldn't disagree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Yes disconnected neighborhoods largely woven together by large arterials and cars, not an ideal urban fabric by most standards.
Hey, but ya know, people will suddenly do an about face when they feel the big bad East Coast is ganging up on one of their own.
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.
