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.
What about them exactly? Are you referring to the style that they're built?
Like this:
It's just not very urbane. Compare that with the picture I posted on here earlier or these in Inman Park:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
If you could combine Atl new urbanism with Houston grid...and Boston/SF/Philly architecture and old world charm and Chicago size...and NYC transit infrastructure..and DC grandness. Lol
Street grids are kind of overrated...you can build urbanity in non-grid like cities as long as they are not superblocks.
Density has increased but it's still not walkable. You have narrow sidewalks and you have obstructions on the sidewalks as well. Then the more you walk, the chances of the sidewalk disappearing exists.
The Atlanta-Houston argument is going to garner a lot of laughs. Just saying.
Atlanta may build a [slightly] better product (relatively speaking to what other major cities are building) than Houston, but it has serious connectivity issues and very low density, and I'd say Atlanta is notorious for superblocks or disjointed blocks, even close into its core.
Houston may put up a lot of crap, but it does have significantly higher density and a grid, which will serve it well in the long run.
I do agree with the rankings somewhat, but I think LA is seriously negatively affected by having the San Fernando Valley in its city limits. Everyone knows it as the epitome of suburban living and aside from a few urban pockets, it's basically all SFR on streets that often don't even have sidewalks with many neighborhoods built into hills and mountains.
Basically the entire stretch from the beach in Santa Monica/Venice/Marina del Rey through areas like Brentwood, Westwood, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Miracle Mile and ending in Koreatown, MacArthur Park and Downtown LA. That whole stretch of land is very urban and walkable. Bigger than most cities as a whole. Then you have the smaller pockets of densities like Old Town Pasadena, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and coastal Long Beach.
I get how the rankings work, but it's slightly a misrepresentation of LA when "LA" how people think of is the stretch from the beach to downtown, and that is truly the "core" of the metro. With such a large size of a city, it's harder. Especially, for example, cities like SF and NYC have neighborhoods that are only a few blocks in size or in general there are just many many many smaller neighborhoods. But when you leave the city limits of SF, you're in suburbia everywhere you look basically.
For one town with a rather walkable center. Lower than I expected, I'm wondering if it's weighted by population? Because I think most of the population is in the green area. Site says it is,
o rank cities and neighborhoods, we calculate the Walk Score of approximately every city block (technically a grid of latitude and longitude points spaced roughly 500 feet apart).
Each point is weighted by population density so that the rankings reflect where people live and so that neighborhoods and cities do not have lower scores because of parks, bodies of water, etc.
I think it mostly reflects population density, check a population density map, say the NYTimes map. Those areas have the most consistently dense suburbs, as opposed to patchy density.
Interesting. My zip is 81, and the most walkable in the city.
The Atlanta-Houston argument is going to garner a lot of laughs. Just saying.
Atlanta may build a [slightly] better product (relatively speaking to what other major cities are building) than Houston, but it has serious connectivity issues and very low density, and I'd say Atlanta is notorious for superblocks or disjointed blocks, even close into its core.
Houston may put up a lot of crap, but it does have significantly higher density and a grid, which will serve it well in the long run.
Neither city is all that walkable.
Lol true. Neither is so much better than the other.
The Atlanta-Houston argument is going to garner a lot of laughs. Just saying.
Atlanta may build a [slightly] better product (relatively speaking to what other major cities are building) than Houston, but it has serious connectivity issues and very low density, and I'd say Atlanta is notorious for superblocks or disjointed blocks, even close into its core.
Houston may put up a lot of crap, but it does have significantly higher density and a grid, which will serve it well in the long run.
Neither city is all that walkable.
How does Houston have significantly higher density? What is significantly higher? Atlanta region as a whole is much less dense than these Houston region, but that's because of how the suburbs are built in the east vs. the west. Atlanta's inner 36 square miles back in 1940 was around 9k ppsm. I'd imagine it's somewhere between 10k-15k ppsm now. Not the most impressive, but it's not low either.
Atlanta's core is much easier walk as a whole because of smaller streets and wider sidewalks(look at the sidewalks in Houston), then you have the beltline which makes traversing the Eastern neighborhoods very easy. You can essentially bike from Krog Street Market to Midtown in 15 minutes because of the beltline.
It sounds you haven't been to Houston and you still hold the resentment towards Atlanta. As someone said on another thread, density does not 100% mean urbanity and walkability.
I actually do think that Houston's grid specifically inside the loop could work as an advantage if they had smarter planners. Houston doesn't do urban well at all. It's what frustrates me about the city. An urban planner could do so much with this street. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7792...8i6656!6m1!1e1
That's how most of 610 looks with narrow streets within the neighborhoods. But instead, you would think you are on in a small town instead of a large metropolis.
Me, personally, I don't mind some suburbanism (?) mixed in with my urban. I prefer it actually. What's important to me is bike lanes and the ability to walk to most of what I need. It doesn't have to look like New York or even Chicago.
Houston could benefit from a form based code, though.
It's just not very urbane. Compare that with the picture I posted on here earlier or these in Inman Park:
Street grids are kind of overrated...you can build urbanity in non-grid like cities as long as they are not superblocks.
That's how I feel about the building styles you posted above. It seems like you prefer a strictly European format. I don't think it's necessary in order to have a walkable community.
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.
