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.
Which is ironic, because I agreed with everything said in this thread until the last post. Looks like Towerman is busy trolling again.
"Until the last post".
IOW, you disagreed with me just for the sake of disagreeing with me and arguing/trolling. Thanks for verifying what I said about you. LOL.
Quote:
Even more ironic, as I never claimed my opinions were facts
Yes actually, you did.
I simply said that NYC is not the most walkable city I've been to in the United States. That was not an invitation for you to butt in and state your useless opinion. I was just stating mine. Nobody really cares if you agree with me or not. And nobody was interested in hearing your response to my initial comment.
Quote:
And here you prove you're just making up stuff, and haven't walked Manhattan
Now you're lying. I have. Over many, many hours actually.
Quote:
as there are only eight wide north-south avenues in Manhattan
And that's almost every North-South Avenue there is in Manhattan. Look at a friggin map.
Quote:
and the average street width in NYC is among the narrowest in the U.S. Three of the five busiest north-south streets are wide, two are narrow. More than 90% of Manhattan streets are relatively narrow, including almost all east-west streets excepting a few.
That's great pal. Nobody cares. You're the one who started this stupid argument by responding to me first. I didn't respond to you first. I stated that I didn't find NYC to be particularly walkable, and that to me a city like Philadelphia is more walkable. I was not interested in your opinion on my comments. I never asked you. Nobody did. You just decided to troll by interjecting yourself. It's what you do.
Quote:
The wide north south streets enable the density and transit orientation that makes Manhattan so unique. If you didn't have the wider streets, Manhattan would be less walkable, not more walkable, because it never would have been developed to the same scale.
Blah blah blah blah blah. NO ONE is interested in your opinion. Nobody asked. No one cares. I stated mine, because it was directly related to the title of the thread. That should have been the end of it. Until NOLA TROLO came in and started trolling.
If you want to state your opinion, respond to the OP/first post in the thread. Not to other people who never asked for your opinion.
The only person who should have been responding to me was the OP, "abrandnewme18", since it was his thread title that I was responding to. Nobody is interested in your response to my comments. Since my comments weren't directed towards you, troll.
Three of the five busiest north-south streets are wide, two are narrow.
No, the five busiest north-south Avenues through Midtown Manhattan are all over 40 feet from curb to curb. Five lanes (50-55 feet), such as 5th Avenue, is not "narrow".
Quote:
as there are only eight wide north-south avenues in Manhattan
ROFLOL! Manhattan only goes from 1st to 12th Avenue. So eight is more than half, and nearly all. Even the "narrow" Avenues like 5th are 50 feet wide.
Just to show how annoying your trolling is, I'm going to start responding to your comments in other threads even though you never asked for my opinion.
New York is the most urban city, but it's far from the most walkable. To me at least. Too many of the main streets are 60+ feet wide from curb to curb, including nearly all the major north-south avenues in Manhattan.
I would put a place like Philly as more walkable.
Lol, it's a forum. Everyone can respond to anyone about anything. That doesn't mean it's an argument though.
Regarding your quote above however, this is the first time I'm seeing this claim. It's actually quite comical to be honest. An average walker/tourist/resident. etc will not stop in the Village or Brooklyn Heights or Soho and say "No! This city isn't walkable because the streets are 60+ feet wide" etc. Like you said to Nola "No one cares". People will conclude that walkability is the ability to get around a city with ease, without a car. The title didn't ask which city was the most "pleasant" or what do you prefer. Furthermore the title was clear "besides New York. . ."
While Philly, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago etc have patches of their cities that are "walkable" (mostly in and around their Downtown/CBD cores) - those patches wouldn't outweigh those in NYC. Especially the most walkable Brooklyn & Manhattan. When you factor in parts of the Bronx and Western Queens ??? . . . . This is why New York was left out.
About 85% of NYC is urban and walkable...so about a good 300 square miles or so(and then you have the urban suburbs to the east)...it truly feels like a world capital...no other city in America does including Chicago.
New York is the most urban city, but it's far from the most walkable. To me at least. Too many of the main streets are 60+ feet wide from curb to curb, including nearly all the major north-south avenues in Manhattan.
I would put a place like Philly as more walkable.
COMPLETELY AGREE! I was just in NYC two weeks ago with some friends. We planned our trip to spend two nights in Philly, three nights in NYC and one night in Baltimore. We ended up getting bored with NYC after one night and decided to go back to Philly for the other two nights. New York is just too unwelcoming to enjoy a stroll in IMO. Philly is definitely more rough around the edges, but the narrow streets and appropriately scaled architecture made is so much more enjoyable. Walking through Central Park was the only part of the city we all enjoyed. I walk across the Roebling Bridge in Cincinnati every day (you know, the original Brooklyn Bridge...) so we had to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge just to say we walked them both. The Roebling Bridge is definitely more beautiful and fun to walk across. Bigger does not always equal better.
This is the same principle that cause me to move from Chicago to Cincinnati as a car-free urbanite who loves walking everywhere. Chicago was just not fun to walk around in every day. It's a cold and heavy environment. Cincinnati is beautiful and intimate and far more engaging to walk in.
Obviously this is all subjective, but I just can't agree with the common assertion that bigger cities are better in all of these categories just because they have more stuff. How that stuff is packaged really matters.
will not stop in the Village or Brooklyn Heights or Soho and say "No! This city isn't walkable because the streets are 60+ feet wide" etc.
Most of the hotels are in Midtown Manhattan though. That's going to be most people's first impressions of the city, and likely where they will spend most of their time.
COMPLETELY AGREE! I was just in NYC two weeks ago with some friends. We planned our trip to spend two nights in Philly, three nights in NYC and one night in Baltimore. We ended up getting bored with NYC after one night and decided to go back to Philly for the other two nights. New York is just too unwelcoming to enjoy a stroll in IMO. Philly is definitely more rough around the edges, but the narrow streets and appropriately scaled architecture made is so much more enjoyable. Walking through Central Park was the only part of the city we all enjoyed. I walk across the Roebling Bridge in Cincinnati every day (you know, the original Brooklyn Bridge...) so we had to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge just to say we walked them both. The Roebling Bridge is definitely more beautiful and fun to walk across. Bigger does not always equal better.
This is the same principle that cause me to move from Chicago to Cincinnati as a car-free urbanite who loves walking everywhere. Chicago was just not fun to walk around in every day. It's a cold and heavy environment. Cincinnati is beautiful and intimate and far more engaging to walk in.
Obviously this is all subjective, but I just can't agree with the common assertion that bigger cities are better in all of these categories just because they have more stuff. How that stuff is packaged really matters.
Completely agree with you as well! I live in Philly now, so you know how great of a walking city it is. Manhattan is walkable but hectic. I lived in Chicago and felt the same; wide, windswept streets, not fun to walk in everyday.
Compact central cities like Philly are the best for walking.
Notice how you can see every building and basically every street in San Francisco's cluster of buildings (though it is still dense)
Except...you can't see every street. Not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215
while in contrast the view of Philadelphia you cannot see most of the buildings and streets looks and the buildings look like they are right up on each other due to the narrower streets of Philadelphia.
Uh, ok. Truly a scientific comparison you just did there, by glancing at a few photos that are all taken from different heights and angles LOL
Philly is a great city with plenty of density, but despite having a larger number of narrow streets than SF, it just can't match the population density you see in the contiguous chunk of downtown SF that includes the tenderloin, nob hill and chinatown (a large section of which has a density of over 100,000 people per square mile, peaking at just over 161,000 in the Tenderloin...whereas Philly peaks at around 70,000 per square mile in Rittenhouse square).
Some aerials of the the Tenderloin, Nob Hill and Chinatown:
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.
