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.
And how many of those people are walking down the street? The only way to use pedestrian counts is to actually perform a count without people walking through multiple intersections. That is why train exits is way better. How do you know the person walking in one intersection isn't being counted again when the counts are taken for another intersection another day. Using El data is way better.
What difference does it make if it's the same person or not from the vibrancy perspective? If you want to know how many people there are in each downtown period, you've got those stats too. Chicago's CBD has greater employment and employment density, greater population and population density, and it is pretty obvious that it also has far more tourists. The pedestrian counts simply back up the rest of the data. I don't know what there is really to argue about.
Out of curiosity, MD, where have you lived other than DC? And I mean for like a 2 or 3 year stretch.
I have never lived in Chicago if that is what you are asking. I do know that people in the Midwest seem to not be as intense as people on the east coast. They just don't have the same type of personality. As for downtown boundaries, if you are walking and the buildings don't change in downtown, how can you say you have left the core? This is really a discussion about urban intensity when we talk about the core. Let's take this to academia. As long as the urban canyon is maintained and zero lot development is maintained, that should be considered the core. Do you not agree?
Yes, but it does give a better understanding of how many people are coming by transit and not being double counted. D.C.'s downtown is just way larger than Chicago so people are exiting the train over a much greater distance. That is why this is really hard to compare anyway. The smaller the blocks, the harder it is to get an accurate pedestrian count. People can get block to block much faster and create a more intense vibrancy. It's like a car going around in circles creating traffic.
What difference does it make if it's the same person or not from the vibrancy perspective? If you want to know how many people there are in each downtown period, you've got those stats too. Chicago's CBD has greater employment and employment density, greater population and population density, and it is pretty obvious that it also has far more tourists. The pedestrian counts simply back up the rest of the data. I don't know what there is really to argue about.
What I was getting at is, the smaller blocks in Chicago and the smaller footprint of the core pack vibrancy into a small area. I can show you the area I am talking about on google if you want. If downtown Chicago was bigger, those people would be spread over a much greater distance. You can either have a really vibrant small downtown or a very large downtown with people spread over a larger distance. That is really why this is apples and oranges. I never made the argument that people walking around makes a city fast paced anyway. When I say D.C. is fast paced, I'm talking about the work atmosphere. We live to work here. Most cities work to live.
Which numbers? DC has higher transit ridership than Boston, but then Boston's pedestrian activity pummels DC's into the ground. It's also denser than DC.
So which one matters more? How crowded a train is? Or how crowded the streets are? Of course, you guys will claim the former because it favors your argument.
DC doesn't even have 24-hour train service. So that ends the "fast paced" argument right there.
No city has 24 hour train service but NYC. And please dont mention Chicago. 2 lines out of 7? Really. Suppose you have to transfer????
I have never lived in Chicago if that is what you are asking.
I'm not asking if you've lived in Chicago. I'm asking how many places you've lived in that are not in the DC metro area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
I do know that people in the Midwest seem to not be as intense as people on the east coast.
I don't find DC to be intense. I'm not even sure I find NYC to be intense (in pedestrian traffic, yes, but not in personality). New York is a more of a medley of personalities from Type A banker to the Dreamer who works at a guitar shop. Philly is a tougher city than NYC, imo, and has more of a reputation for grit, corruption and toughness (they don't call it Fightin' Philly for nothing). I don't think it's particularly fast-paced...at least outside of Center City.
Physically, both DT areas are almost the same size. They are also close in office space as well. Why do people in Chicago fd that difficult to believe. Pull up the numbers.
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.
