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.
Brooklyn has really short blocks and their packed. Lower Manhattan has short blocks and they're packed. I think the largeness of blocks themselves aren't what's making this work, and if anything, I'd say shorter blocks are more conducive to walking though Midtown Manhattan's sheer density (jobs and people), transit links, odd passages that cut through mid-block and vibrant culture of jaywalking mitigates its long blocks quite a bit as does having very short north-south blocks between streets.
Lower Manhattan is also incredibly dense and nearly everyone arrives by transit and walks. Possibly a factor?
Brooklyn has busy spots but aside from the peak areas (shopping districts etc.) the pedestrian traffic isn't huge.
Small blocks make a more walkable city. But I bet the effect I'm talking about has several times the effect that this does regarding concentration on Manhattan avenues.
Measuring pedestrian activity by metro population is flawed for obvious reasons. If we look at that alone, places like LA, Phoenix, and Houston metros should be at the top of the list in terms of pedestrian foot traffic.
I think it has to do with many factors, including but not excluded to:
- transit coverage AND ridership; presence and implementation of transit-oriented development policies that encourage non-auto travel patterns
- availability of pedestrian friendly streetscapes
- population density in and around a city's core
- general attitude among the population on topics like transit and automobile usage
And of course, pedestrian foot traffic varies drastically from neighborhood to neighborhood. In Toronto's case, it can be a night and day difference between its suburbs like Mississauga vs. more urban (non-CBD) neighorhoods like Davisville or Leslieville.
Well, of course normally it would be flawed, but all of the cities you listed -- LA, Phoenix, and Houston -- are sprawling, driving cities where foot traffic is sparse. Comparing a sprawling city to a compact city would be apples to oranges.
Using metro populations to compare foot traffic in Chicago and Toronto makes sense, since they are BOTH compact, walking cities with virtual identical population densities, where you would expect the foot traffic to be (nearly) a direct reflection of the size of the metros.
Last edited by Codederick; 02-04-2018 at 04:41 PM..
Lower Manhattan is also incredibly dense and nearly everyone arrives by transit and walks. Possibly a factor?
Brooklyn has busy spots but aside from the peak areas (shopping districts etc.) the pedestrian traffic isn't huge.
Small blocks make a more walkable city. But I bet the effect I'm talking about has several times the effect that this does regarding concentration on Manhattan avenues.
Brooklyn's side streets often have a considerable amount of foot traffic
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 Codederick
Which North American city, between America and Canada, has the 2nd most foot traffic?
NYC is #1 by a landslide.
So is #2 Chicago or Toronto?
At first glance, I figured it was definitely Chicago, as Chicago has 9.5 million residents in its metro as opposed to 6 million in Toronto.
Then again, Toronto has a moderately higher public transit ridership which lends itself to more foot traffic.
I wouldn't associate a 9.5 million metro of Chicago, with foot traffic in downtown. There aren't 9.5 million people walking around. Smaller cities across the globe like Barcelona has about 1.5 million in the city and 4.7 in the metro with more foot traffic than any North American city not named NYC.
I wouldn't associate a 9.5 million metro of Chicago, with foot traffic in downtown. There aren't 9.5 million people walking around. Smaller cities across the globe like Barcelona has about 1.5 million in the city and 4.7 in the metro with more foot traffic than any North American city not named NYC.
Yeah, I'm not understanding really any of the reasons given in this thread. LA has 19 million in its CSA, yet has fewer people walking around downtown than a Spanish city of 200k.
I think most people who are well-traveled would say Chicago or SF are #2 in U.S./Canada, and Toronto, Montreal, DC, Boston and Philly aren't too far behind.
Yeah, I'm not understanding really any of the reasons given in this thread. LA has 19 million in its CSA, yet has fewer people walking around downtown than a Spanish city of 200k.
I think most people who are well-traveled would say Chicago or SF are #2 in U.S./Canada, and Toronto, Montreal, DC, Boston and Philly aren't too far behind.
Clearly your definition of "well travelled" doesn't include travelling to Toronto before coming to that ridiculous conclusion.
During the day I would say Chicago is far busier than Toronto. Both have huge financial districts but Toronto has the God-awful Underground City so a lot of pedestrian traffic that would be at street level in other cities is funnelled like a bunch of mice under the buildings. The difference is much less pronounced the summer as Torontonian office workers are more likely to avoid the Underground City to enjoy the weather but even then Chicago's streets are busier. I would say SF is busier than Toronto in the winter as well and probably comparable in the summer.
At night however, I find the reverse is true. Toronto seems to be busier after 6pm than it is before. Chicago's crime rate hurts it's night pedestrian flow. Although the clubs are busy I find people tend to take taxis to get there whereas Torontonians walk, meander, and sit outside on the endless number of cafes and patios which are not near as common in Chicago. Canadians in general are MUCH more likely to sit outside than Americans and you can see it in the number of cafes/patios in Canada compared to the far fewer in American cities. SF I also find busier at night than Chicago.
During office/business hours 1st Chicago, 2nd SF, 3rd Toronto.
At night and weekends 1st Toronto, 2nd SF, 3rd Chicago.
Yeah, I'm not understanding really any of the reasons given in this thread. LA has 19 million in its CSA, yet has fewer people walking around downtown than a Spanish city of 200k.
I think most people who are well-traveled would say Chicago or SF are #2 in U.S./Canada, and Toronto, Montreal, DC, Boston and Philly aren't too far behind.
I explained all of this in post #12.
Comparing Chicago to Toronto, in terms of metro populations, is apples to apples, since they are both compact, walking cities where a large portion of people walk and/or take public transit.
A city like LA has no relevance to the discussion, since it is a sprawling, driving city where virtually no one walks and/or takes public transit.
A sprawling city, no matter how big, will always have poor foot traffic.
I’ve been to both SF and Toronto. The foot traffic is significantly greater in Toronto.
Depends on how you’re measuring it. I think the busiest feeling streets outside of NYC I’ve seen are actually of Philadelphia and SF owing to their fairly decent density and mixed-use-ness and the many narrow streets, but the topic seems to be edging more towards larger avenues and pedestrians perhaps?
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.
