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.
I think there's a good point here, though I'd probably say it's a combination of density with street width. Wider streets but more built up can still be quite walkable. I think one of the larger issues for Southern California though is that some parts of major roads have no crosswalks for fairly long sections and that really is awful, because even with high built up density on either side, you might find yourself walking in a fairly roundabout fashion to get to the things on the other side.
Yes, they absolutely can.
Manhattan has lots of wide streets, yet is the epitome of walkability in NA.
Even accounting for metro area density, which I entirely acknowledge is FAR more uniform in West Coast metros like LA and SF, compared to East Coast metros like Philly and Boston, I think this kind of study fails to capture nuances in walkability.
Even looking at just suburbia, am I to believe that I'm living in a "pedestrian paradise" in Downtown Anaheim, with what looks like freeway next to an office building and a drive-thru on the corner, versus an intimate "village" like Downtown Ardmore--all because the latter doesn't have a massive amount of office space incorporated into it?
To me, walkability needs to account for street layout/continuity and the pedestrian "feel" just as much as simple proximity. Form matters just as much as function.
I get it and subjective criteria matter to me as well. The problem is that it's subjective and can lead to having to explain why "wide" streets are a problem in LA, while streets of the same width in Chicago, DC and NYC aren't a problem. Sill, Philadelphia really excels at that criteria and LA really doesn't, so when you have two cities with comparable objective criteria, it makes sense to use that to distinguish the two.
I haven't looked at the criteria, but what could be missing is a weighted score. That's really needed if comparing metro areas. Some metro areas have really bucolic suburbs, but the average person lives in a much more walkable area. Not as much of an issue for LA, which is much more uniform throughout.
I get it and subjective criteria matter to me as well. The problem is that it's subjective and can lead to having to explain why "wide" streets are a problem in LA, while streets of the same width in Chicago, DC and NYC aren't a problem
I'm guessing for the same reason the Philadelphia or Chicago metros have never been described as "sprawling" despite occupying a larger area than Los Angeles (which frequently is called sprawling) with less than half the population density.
I get it and subjective criteria matter to me as well. The problem is that it's subjective and can lead to having to explain why "wide" streets are a problem in LA, while streets of the same width in Chicago, DC and NYC aren't a problem. Sill, Philadelphia really excels at that criteria and LA really doesn't, so when you have two cities with comparable objective criteria, it makes sense to use that to distinguish the two.
I haven't looked at the criteria, but what could be missing is a weighted score. That's really needed if comparing metro areas. Some metro areas have really bucolic suburbs, but the average person lives in a much more walkable area. Not as much of an issue for LA, which is much more uniform throughout.
I think it's pretty easy to move it away from subjectivity by doing various density counts aside from just residential density and plotting walk times. At that point, it becomes pretty obvious why you get higher pedestrian counts in one area than another rather than some great mystery.
I do think LA often gets overlooked, but it really depends a lot on where in LA you're talking about as how walkable it is gets splotchy really quickly and a lot of the wider main roads often have quite a bit of distance between crosswalks. A good thing about narrow streets (especially when one way) is that they're generally more permeable to jay walking and pedestrian. It's gotten somewhat better in parts of LA (like go through the dates to see the change on this intersection for example), but there's plenty more work to be done and a lot more than just occasionally painting crosswalks with no lights or stop signs, because those *****es are for the most part not going to stop for you.
Yes lol. Absolutely. I like Tampa Bay as a whole better than Orlando, but the central parts of Orlando are far more walkable than Tampa. Not to mention, a more robust transit system that includes commuter rail and TOD. Tampa is lagging far behind in terms of urban form and walkability.
I'm not talking about Disney and I-Drive either. Orlando, the city... Downtown and surrounding areas. Critically underrated on these forums.
I think it's pretty easy to move it away from subjectivity by doing various density counts aside from just residential density and plotting walk times. At that point, it becomes pretty obvious why you get higher pedestrian counts in one area than another rather than some great mystery.
I do think LA often gets overlooked, but it really depends a lot on where in LA you're talking about as how walkable it is gets splotchy really quickly and a lot of the wider main roads often have quite a bit of distance between crosswalks. A good thing about narrow streets (especially when one way) is that they're generally more permeable to jay walking and pedestrian. It's gotten somewhat better in parts of LA (like go through the dates to see the change on this intersection for example), but there's plenty more work to be done and a lot more than just occasionally painting crosswalks with no lights or stop signs, because those *****es are for the most part not going to stop for you.
Good points, though I would say that "LA" is fairly consistent for distances between commercial streets. Like much of the western US, we're full of mile square grids with nearly all of the mile streets being major commercial streets. For most of the LA basin the middle street, 0.5 miles, is also a major commercial street and then in several corridors, DTLA, Koreatown, Hollywood, etc the major streets are 1/4 mile or even 1/8 mile apart. This happens way into LA suburbs to where the large majority of homes in places like North Orange County aren't more than 1/2 mile from a major commercial street.
Of course what commerce exists on those commercial streets is very often designed for cars, not pedestrians. I'd argue that much of that distinguishes how pleasant a walk is or isn't but that pleasantness isn't a requirement for walkability. Except of course when you have large roads with limited crossings. We have those even on some parts of roads in central LA (for example
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I think it's pretty easy to move it away from subjectivity by doing various density counts aside from just residential density and plotting walk times. At that point, it becomes pretty obvious why you get higher pedestrian counts in one area than another rather than some great mystery.
I do think LA often gets overlooked, but it really depends a lot on where in LA you're talking about as how walkable it is gets splotchy really quickly and a lot of the wider main roads often have quite a bit of distance between crosswalks. A good thing about narrow streets (especially when one way) is that they're generally more permeable to jay walking and pedestrian. It's gotten somewhat better in parts of LA (like go through the dates to see the change on this intersection for example), but there's plenty more work to be done and a lot more than just occasionally painting crosswalks with no lights or stop signs, because those *****es are for the most part not going to stop for you.
Good points, though I would say that "LA" is fairly consistent for distances between commercial streets. Like much of the western US, we're full of mile square grids with all of the mile streets being major commercial streets. For most of the LA basin the middle street, 0.5 miles, is also a major commercial street and then in a few corridors, DTLA, Koreatown, Hollywood, etc the major streets are 1/4 mile or even 1/8 mile apart. This happens way into LA suburbs to where the large majority of homes in places like North Orange County aren't more than 1/2 mile from a major commercial street.
Of course what commerce exists on those commercial streets is very often designed for cars, not pedestrians. I'd argue that much of that distinguishes how pleasant a walk is or isn't but that pleasantness isn't a requirement for walkability. Except of course when you have large roads with limited crossings. We have those even on some parts of roads in central LA (for example https://maps.app.goo.gl/ooUagiJchcc4JTPAA?g_st=ic) and definitely more of them as you go out.
Walkability involves countless variables. Weather protection (from sun, wind, and rain), street width, crossings, sidewalk width, real and perceived safety from cars, sign clutter, 10' dog leashes, visual interest, curb cuts, destinations, residential density, mix of uses, the availability or absence of parking at each end, and so on. Same with externalities that affect how much people walk, like their amount of free time and spending money. The true parallels for any one place would be rare to nonexistent.
I get it and subjective criteria matter to me as well. The problem is that it's subjective and can lead to having to explain why "wide" streets are a problem in LA, while streets of the same width in Chicago, DC and NYC aren't a problem. Sill, Philadelphia really excels at that criteria and LA really doesn't, so when you have two cities with comparable objective criteria, it makes sense to use that to distinguish the two.
I haven't looked at the criteria, but what could be missing is a weighted score. That's really needed if comparing metro areas. Some metro areas have really bucolic suburbs, but the average person lives in a much more walkable area. Not as much of an issue for LA, which is much more uniform throughout.
One thing I should point out about New York's avenues, which are the wide streets: They have short blocks, which probably compensates for their width. The east-west cross streets, save for the crosstown thoroughfares (Houston, 14th, 34th, 42d, 57th, 110th, 125th) are narrow.
Probably the long blocks more than the wide streets — though it does seem to me that a typical LA thoroughfare is a little wider than a Manhattan avenue, and a typical Long Beach thoroughfare actually a tad narrower — make much of LA's urban districts less walkable than they should be.
All of the streets in Center City Philadelphia are narrow save four: Broad Street, Market Street, JFK Boulevard and the Ben Franklin Parkway.
Good points, though I would say that "LA" is fairly consistent for distances between commercial streets. Like much of the western US, we're full of mile square grids with all of the mile streets being major commercial streets. For most of the LA basin the middle street, 0.5 miles, is also a major commercial street and then in a few corridors, DTLA, Koreatown, Hollywood, etc the major streets are 1/4 mile or even 1/8 mile apart. This happens way into LA suburbs to where the large majority of homes in places like North Orange County aren't more than 1/2 mile from a major commercial street.
Of course what commerce exists on those commercial streets is very often designed for cars, not pedestrians. I'd argue that much of that distinguishes how pleasant a walk is or isn't but that pleasantness isn't a requirement for walkability. Except of course when you have large roads with limited crossings. We have those even on some parts of roads in central LA (for example https://maps.app.goo.gl/ooUagiJchcc4JTPAA?g_st=ic) and definitely more of them as you go out.
I may have miscommunicated--I wasn't trying to reference the distance between major commercial streets as being splotchy but rather how densely built up it is as well as how long the distances are between crossings along those main streets. I think there's a fairly objective look that can be taken at those crossings in terms of average crossing time because the two way traffic and level of how busy they are and how quickly vehicles are going makes constant jaywalking pretty uncommon which means pushing people towards using the crosswalks which can be placed annoyingly far apart or not very pleasant to use if they are the kind without a stop sign or street lights. I do feel like LA's gradually been both upgrading and adding crossings, but it can still be well over a quarter mile between crossings at times which can suck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
One thing I should point out about New York's avenues, which are the wide streets: They have short blocks, which probably compensates for their width. The east-west cross streets, save for the crosstown thoroughfares (Houston, 14th, 34th, 42d, 57th, 110th, 125th) are narrow.
Probably the long blocks more than the wide streets — though it does seem to me that a typical LA thoroughfare is a little wider than a Manhattan avenue, and a typical Long Beach thoroughfare actually a tad narrower — make much of LA's urban districts less walkable than they should be.
All of the streets in Center City Philadelphia are narrow save four: Broad Street, Market Street, JFK Boulevard and the Ben Franklin Parkway.
Right, the large avenues in New York often aren't just extremely dense (whether job dense, retail dense, and/or population dense), but are also quite "porous" in having many crossings and are generally one-way streets. Some of them also have these funny pedestrian bump-outs that the more impatient hover around with some built a bit less rickety than others. Having this permeability is nice, because it really makes the effective access time on a commercial street much shorter if you have something on the other side and therefore more is within any set walking distance. This is something that LA can and will improve upon I think, though unfortunately it may be something that's ordinances slowly written in the blood of mangled pedestrians at crossings.
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.
