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.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I agree with this.
I also think DC and LA are likely to join this pack about a decade from now, but by then maybe one of these cities will have clearly pulled ahead of the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
I think all these cities have comparable pedestrian numbers as Toronto (and would probably include DC, which has intense M-F business traffic in its core), with SF a half-step ahead of the rest.
I'd slot DT DC ahead of DTLA a bit.
Yes the DC rush hour is definitely up there, lots of business foot traffic, and vehicular downtown.
Unlike Yonge and Dundas, Downtown crossing isn't a single intersection, it's a busy area made up of several streets and many different intersections, so of course when you add up all of the pedestrian activity entering the whole area you get a high number (you could do the same for some place like Kensington Market in Toronto).
I don't think there is any single intersection in Boston or any other American city that is not NYC that has a higher daily pedestrian count than Yonge and Dundas.
Yea, I think currently DT DC is closer to the others than DTLA, but DTLA has more room to grow and is doing it quickly. I wrote a decade from now, and I think it's probably about that time when DTLA joins this tier of downtowns in terms of pedestrian activity.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Yea, I think currently DT DC is closer to the others than DTLA, but DTLA has more room to grow and is doing it quickly. I wrote a decade from now, and I think it's probably about that time when DTLA joins this tier of downtowns in terms of pedestrian activity.
We'll see, LA obviously already has the city population to fill in the gaps. The last time I was in DTLA it seemed about an average pace. Definitely people out and about, just not resembling the Eastern cities + SF in terms of foot traffic.
We'll see, LA obviously already has the city population to fill in the gaps. The last time I was in DTLA it seemed about an average pace. Definitely people out and about, just not resembling the Eastern cities + SF in terms of foot traffic.
Yea, it’s definitely not there yet. It’s adding a lot of transit and replacing the parking lots at a rapid pace, sometimes with skyscrapers, but mostly with five to seven story buildings. Walking among parking lots isn’t the greatest and for a long time downtown LA was pretty skippable for tourists. Two decades ago, Downtown LA was a real mess, so it’s amazing to me every time I go back. With the infrastructure projects and the rapid pace of development, downtown LA’s future is looking pretty bright.
I reckon it’s a decade or so for DTLA to be firmly in this group for everything except for jobs since employment is quite decentralized in LA and LA has a massive amount of people who do gigs rather than 9 to 5s.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-06-2018 at 07:22 PM..
The problem with that is time of day and time of year of the streetview.
There’s a lot of other things to factor in besides that like how busy side streets and other streets are to what distance, the weather and the ease of walking (like for San Francisco, the hills can be an issue).
Toronto’s certainly a strong candidate across the board though.
Very true.. I was at Y/D square over the Xmas holidays and it was way busier than the video Burns supplied and it was quite cold, but also people were out busy shopping. You also get a lot of festivals and concerts at Y/D as it has been chosen by the city to be one of the main venues for such festivities. At those times the place is a zoo and if someone from outside the city visited during one of these events they'd think the place was nuts.
I've been to Chi and from Tor and my experience is that daytime ped traffic mon-fri in Chicago is of a higher intensity in general than Toronto. I think T.O may have a greater intensity in certain areas more than any in Chicago but general daytime goes to Chicago. After 5 and things change quickly - Toronto actually picks up and Chicago dies down. I think this is owing to T.O's more seamless integration of its residential/commercial build up within its DT core vs Chicago. I'd also give it Toronto on the weekends all times of day/night.
I'd also say Toronto has long term advantage across the board owing to a much faster population growth rate in the core than Chicago. In 15 years I don't think there will be any debate about which city is number 2 in Canada/U.S for ped vibrancy in the DT core or urban core.
If we are talking number 2 in N.A neither of these cities can touch NYC or M.C in terms of ped vibrancy and probably never will.
I've been to Chi and from Tor and my experience is that daytime ped traffic mon-fri in Chicago is of a higher intensity in general than Toronto. I think T.O may have a greater intensity in certain areas more than any in Chicago but general daytime goes to Chicago. After 5 and things change quickly - Toronto actually picks up and Chicago dies down. I think this is owing to T.O's more seamless integration of its residential/commercial build up within its DT core vs Chicago. I'd also give it Toronto on the weekends all times of day/night.
I'd also say Toronto has long term advantage across the board owing to a much faster population growth rate in the core than Chicago. In 15 years I don't think there will be any debate about which city is number 2 in Canada/U.S for ped vibrancy in the DT core or urban core.
If we are talking number 2 in N.A neither of these cities can touch NYC or M.C in terms of ped vibrancy and probably never will.
All I'll say is that Chicago's core is still booming and population there rising and other regions further away from the core... is were the big drop comes to keep it as if no growth. But there is no huge boost in immigrants as Toronto gets in selective immigration in favor of high-skilled over those not educated.... with much slimmer chances of getting in. Such a scenario the US may try to adopt in immigration fully favoring educated immigrants.
I personally do not see NYC high-traffic levels desirable. A point of getting too much of what is a good thing... then no longer impresses then. Toronto surely will stay on high-gear in high-rise construction as its the preferred. Though Chicago's core gets its share as most high-rise and skyscraper construction is residential and especially apartments. With largest projects both. Its densities and growing areas still are in and surrounding the core outward. State and city pension debt and if the US economy goes into recession are what could effect it more in the future. Time will tell if doomsayers predictions happen. Chicago was one US city that did build a large high-rise living population. Most clearly near Lake Michigan and today the core gets most.
I travel to Toronto to work now on a weekly basis, and would like to dispute the claim that these are "compact, walkable cities". Sure, certain neighborhoods of these cities are walkable, but to say that these are "compact walkable" cities you are implying that they are somehow on par with actual "compact and walkable cities" - London, Madrid, Berlin, Munich, NYC, which is misleading and simply not the case.
The City of Toronto proper may have walkable areas - but even then - there are large swaths of the city proper like North York, Scarborough, and Etobicoke which are predominantly single family bedroom communities. Even in immediate areas around downtown Toronto, it's relatively easy to find wide 4 or 5 lane streets that have little pedestrian activities and are designed for cars and cars only e.g. Mount Pleasant, Avenue Road, University Avenue.
Also, when you lump in 6 million for Toronto's metro population, you are including suburbs like Mississauga, Brampton, and Ajax, which are hardly walkable by any objective standard.
I totally see where you're coming from.
Compared to London or NYC, Toronto does not seem too compact or walkable.
Even in spite of those districts, Toronto still is far more compact, walkable, dense, and public-transit friendly than the average North American city. If it weren't, there wouldn't be such a massive amount of foot traffic. Plain and simple.
71 walk score (significantly above the North American average of 50)
78 transit score (significantly above the North American average of 50) https://www.walkscore.com/CA-ON/Toronto
11,000 people/square mile (not sure what the average is but I can guarantee that is significantly above-average)
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.
