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.
9.5 is probably fine on a residential-only street. But on a business strip, any little barrier (like an A-frame sign or a light pole) can mean it's down to two people in width. Or some as*hole with a six-foot leash can block the whole thing. Better to be at least 15 feet. With sidewalk cafes, go up from there.
I disagree. 10-15 feet is about the average width for sidewalks in central london, which has considerably more foot traffic than any of the cities being discussed, and 9.5 feet is probably wider than the average in central Paris, which has tons of 4-6 foot sidewalks. I've never heard anyone complain about sidewalk widths in London, although Paris can be ridiculous and people often walk in the street in places with few cars, but lots of pedestrians.
And I just checked. Sidewalks are wider in LA than Seattle, so I don't know what you're on about. I see lots of 6.5 ft sidewalks in Seattle on commercial streets, while those are very infrequent in LA. Sidewalks that were expanded next to new development in Seattle appear to be 15 feet while the same in LA is 20-30 feet.
Yes there are complaints in London (I have family and have spent several months there). They get past it, sort of, by frequently walking in the streets, limiting signs and poles, and generally being more thoughtful pedestrians in my experience. Plus, major retail streets typically have wider sidewalks than that (Regent, Oxford, etc.) and some are fully pedestrianized. In my week or so of Paris experience, it seems to have similar dynamics.
I don't know why you're bringing up Seattle. It's sidewalks are obviously narrow per my standards. We can post comments about things without referring to our own cities.
Yes there are complaints in London (I have family and have spent several months there). They get past it, sort of, by frequently walking in the streets, limiting signs and poles, and generally being more thoughtful pedestrians in my experience. Plus, major retail streets typically have wider sidewalks than that (Regent, Oxford, etc.) and some are fully pedestrianized. In my week or so of Paris experience, it seems to have similar dynamics.
I don't know why you're bringing up Seattle. It's sidewalks are obviously narrow per my standards. We can post comments about things without referring to our own cities.
Ok. I compared to Seattle because that is the point of the thread and I thought that's what we were discussing.
I don't think that LA has enough pedestrian traffic that 9.5 feet fully paved will be an issue outside of specific areas (downtown, Hollywood, near subway stations, etc). I think that our busiest pedestrian area is the Fashion District, (which is near universally 9.5 feet) and while it can be busy enough that it gets very crowded and you can't walk at normal speed for bits, it's still ok to me.
LA also lacks many of the basic principles of urban design that people tend to associate with urbanity. DTLA has wide roads and narrow sidewalks, major throughfares are often suburban retail format, strip malls, or single story retail in many areas.
I live in DTLA so could you please explain this? Where exactly are these wide streets, narrow sidewalks, strip centers and so on in DTLA?
I live in DTLA so could you please explain this? Where exactly are these wide streets, narrow sidewalks, strip centers and so on in DTLA?
That looks like Spring Street and Broadway (and maybe 7th). The few streets that are the exception to the norm that I have mentioned in earlier posts.
Apologies for my bad wording though, I meant those three clauses to be separate. As in, DTLA has wide roads and narrow sidewalks, (citywide) LA has strip malls and single story retail on major throughfares, and (citywide) LA has etc. Etc.
That looks like Spring Street and Broadway (and maybe 7th). The few streets that are the exception to the norm that I have mentioned in earlier posts.
Apologies for my bad wording though, I meant those three clauses to be separate. As in, DTLA has wide roads and narrow sidewalks, (citywide) LA has strip malls and single story retail on major throughfares, and (citywide) LA has etc. Etc.
It depends on how you are defining "downtown" LA. If you are talking about the central core of DTLA, there are no wide streets and it is as urban as nearly any city. A poster several pages ago posted the street views, which are the true core of DTLA. Now depending on how you are defining the boundaries of "downtown," once you get out of the traditional downtown area (where the clusters of skyscrapers are and the busy street activity), you may start seeing what you describe, but that is not what I would consider "downtown proper."
It depends on how you are defining "downtown" LA. If you are talking about the central core of DTLA, there are no wide streets and it is as urban as nearly any city. A poster several pages ago posted the street views, which are the true core of DTLA. Now depending on how you are defining the boundaries of "downtown," once you get out of the traditional downtown area (where the clusters of skyscrapers are and the busy street activity), you may start seeing what you describe, but that is not what I would consider "downtown proper."
I keep posting the numbers, but people have "feelings" that streets in LA are wide for a variety of reasons. It's just a fact that downtown DC has several streets wider than any street in DTLA (Connecticut and K St for example) and many intersections wider than any intersection in DTLA. Even more if I counted the intersections at the traffic circles. Can someone chime in on the pedestrian experience walking the traffic circles? It looks terrible.
Now Seattle on the other hand really shines with this metric. Both LA and DC have many street intersections throughout their cores with widths between 60-80 ft. The widest that I could find in a quick search for Seattle was a single street called Broad Street and I think that it was only 50-55 feet. Seattle has very few, if any streets in their core that I would consider to be wide. Maybe someone from Seattle can correct that if that's off.
The widest in greater DT Seattle would be Mercer, a six-lane boulevard in South Lake Union, getting to seven lanes at intersections. Much of this is its role as a gridlocked waiting line for an I-5 ramp. Mercer was rebuilt a decade ago after decades of being part of a one-way couplet. In the 60s-70s there was an attempt to build a freeway in this corridor (the Bay Freeway), which was turned back.
There's also three blocks of 7th Ave N that used to be part of Highway 99 where it left a short tunnel (replaced by a deep tunnel the length of Downtown) and have rebuilt it as a surface street. It's still at the old ROW width, in part because it's the main access to Highway 99 where the new tunnel comes out.
We're currently building a boulevard on the former Highway 99 Viaduct route along the waterfront. This is typically four lanes +parking along with significant public space, but there will be a much wider part near the ferry terminal to handle multiple turn lanes and bus lanes.
Seattle's streets are on average too wide in my opinion. We're gradually putting a lot of them on road diets but still. Our widest aren't outrageous but our side streets aren't narrow like in some cities.
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.
