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'm going to take your word for it that Rosemount is walkable.
Don't take her word for it, Rosemount is just as car-dependant as any other outer suburb in the metro area. If you need to get an idea of what I'm talking about, try taking random addresses in Rosemount and getting their walkscore.
Don't take her word for it, Rosemount is just as car-dependant as any other outer suburb in the metro area. If you need to get an idea of what I'm talking about, try taking random addresses in Rosemount and getting their walkscore.
I would guess that Rosemount would be fairly car dependent, but I meant to convey that I haven't been to the city and so I cannot be a judge of golfgal's neighborhood (perhaps she lives very near all the businesses?), nor what she considers walkable.
That said, if I had a grasp of all of the suburbs in the metro and was helping a friend find a place it's unlikely I'd say, "Oh, Northfield is really walkable, you should look there." Sure, there are places you can walk in Northfield (and for the metro area, I think in general they do a good job for the walkability, though I see it more because of the small-town feel). I would be suggesting either walkable developments or areas in the 'burbs (with the warning that obviously a car is likely necessary to leave such places) or very specific neighborhoods in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Walkable perhaps needs to be defined. A place like Walkscore is a good starting point. Can you walk to do basic errands in the middle of the winter and face little inconvenience (short enough distances, shoveled sidewalks, cleared intersections, etc.)? Does the area promote forms of transportation other than the car (do you need to cross an enormous parking lot just to get inside the location you're headed)?
Don't take her word for it, Rosemount is just as car-dependant as any other outer suburb in the metro area. If you need to get an idea of what I'm talking about, try taking random addresses in Rosemount and getting their walkscore.
Every single one of the addresses you picked is below the average walkscore for Rosemount (which walkscore claims is 41 or 37 dependiing on where you look). All of those addresses are also missing the nearest park, most the several nearest.
Every single one of the addresses you picked is below the average walkscore for Rosemount (which walkscore claims is 41 or 37 dependiing on where you look). All of those addresses are also missing the nearest park, most the several nearest.
True. But the best-case walkscore average for Rosemount is 41 -- pretty low. That said, I'm sure many areas of Rosemount ARE walkable, and residents can walk to many things; my earlier point was that locations such as that simply don't offer as MUCH stuff as do more bustling, compact neighborhoods in higher density areas. And I think Slig's point was that Rosemount is probably not generally considered to be a local walkable utopia. It's probably far better than some local areas, far worse than others.
True. But the best-case walkscore average for Rosemount is 41 -- pretty low. That said, I'm sure many areas of Rosemount ARE walkable, and residents can walk to many things; my earlier point was that locations such as that simply don't offer as MUCH stuff as do more bustling, compact neighborhoods in higher density areas. And I think Slig's point was that Rosemount is probably not generally considered to be a local walkable utopia. It's probably far better than some local areas, far worse than others.
And those of us that live here will have to disagree....
And those of us that live here will have to disagree....
Yeah, but wasn't it you who just the other day on another thread said you only had two or three sit-down places in town? Or maybe it was two-to-three sit down pizza options in town? Either way, that's not as much as what you'll find in some of the city's busier neighborhoods. Granted, both those areas with a LOT of options and those with fewer can still be fully walkable (I think Linden Hills is walkable, even if it doesn't have anywhere near as many options as Uptown), but don't you see the difference? That's not to say that one option is "better" than another -- people just appreciate both for different reasons. Because you're not seriously suggesting that Rosemount has the same choices and sheer variety of stuff as, say, Uptown, are you? That seems to be what you're arguing, but that simply makes no sense. It's simply quantifiably not true. It's not a matter of opinion -- it comes down to quantifiable facts.
On the other hand, maybe you're arguing that there's no difference in a walkable neighborhood between one that has five restaurants versus one that has 50 or 100? I can see that point; as long as you have SOME options, and can walk to all of the basics of life, you don't necessarily need three Thai places and three sushi places. One of each will do fine. But that wasn't my point; my point was that there are different types of "walkable," and we seem to be working with different definitions here. That's why I try to understand what it is that the OP wants when they throw it out there as a neighborhood suggestion. In my current neighborhood I can also walk to a lot of things within a mile radius (including all the basics of life, plus a bunch of shops and restaurants), and it's perfectly "walkable," (and many people say they love the neighborhood for that reason) but I wouldn't (and didn't) recommend it to the OP because I don't see it as walkable in the sense that they were initially describing. It's not a dense, compact, city walkable. It's really not a good fit for me (we're here temporarily -- long story), as I prefer a more "urban" neighborhood. That said, I can understand the attraction of this area, and think it is a good fit for many others. But if I, a new poster, described an urban neighborhood as did the poster here, and got the recommendation for here, or for nearly any other Minneapolis neighborhood, I'd be disappointed. I have a feeling the same thing goes for those goes for Rosemount.
ETA: truly, a dumb thing to be arguing about, but I am trying to understand where the disconnect is coming from. I can only assume it is a result of different definitions of walkability and a different interpretation of amount of amenities (i.e. not looking at overall numbers or range of subtypes of businesses, but rather whether or not a given type of business -- restaurant, pharmacy, grocery store, etc. -- exists within city limits, or within a mile radius, or whatever). Or maybe the disagreement was just whether an average walkscore in the low 40s suggests a highly walkable community or not? I don't think most people would think a walkscore of 41 was good, but obviously that's purely subjective.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 06-16-2011 at 09:25 AM..
Yeah, but wasn't it you who just the other day on another thread said you only had two or three sit-down places in town? Or maybe it was two-to-three sit down pizza options in town? Either way, that's not as much as what you'll find in some of the city's busier neighborhoods. Granted, both those areas with a LOT of options and those with fewer can still be fully walkable (I think Linden Hills is walkable, even if it doesn't have anywhere near as many options as Uptown), but don't you see the difference? That's not to say that one option is "better" than another -- people just appreciate both for different reasons. Because you're not seriously suggesting that Rosemount has the same choices and sheer variety of stuff as, say, Uptown, are you? That seems to be what you're arguing, but that simply makes no sense. It's simply quantifiably not true. It's not a matter of opinion -- it comes down to quantifiable facts.
On the other hand, maybe you're arguing that there's no difference in a walkable neighborhood between one that has five restaurants versus one that has 50 or 100? I can see that point; as long as you have SOME options, and can walk to all of the basics of life, you don't necessarily need three Thai places and three sushi places. One of each will do fine. But that wasn't my point; my point was that there are different types of "walkable," and we seem to be working with different definitions here. That's why I try to understand what it is that the OP wants when they throw it out there as a neighborhood suggestion. In my current neighborhood I can also walk to a lot of things within a mile radius (including all the basics of life, plus a bunch of shops and restaurants), and it's perfectly "walkable," (and many people say they love the neighborhood for that reason) but I wouldn't (and didn't) recommend it to the OP because I don't see it as walkable in the sense that they were initially describing. It's not a dense, compact, city walkable. It's really not a good fit for me (we're here temporarily -- long story), as I prefer a more "urban" neighborhood. That said, I can understand the attraction of this area, and think it is a good fit for many others. But if I, a new poster, described an urban neighborhood as did the poster here, and got the recommendation for here, or for nearly any other Minneapolis neighborhood, I'd be disappointed. I have a feeling the same thing goes for those goes for Rosemount.
ETA: truly, a dumb thing to be arguing about, but I am trying to understand where the disconnect is coming from. I can only assume it is a result of different definitions of walkability and a different interpretation of amount of amenities (i.e. not looking at overall numbers or range of subtypes of businesses, but rather whether or not a given type of business -- restaurant, pharmacy, grocery store, etc. -- exists within city limits, or within a mile radius, or whatever). Or maybe the disagreement was just whether an average walkscore in the low 40s suggests a highly walkable community or not? I don't think most people would think a walkscore of 41 was good, but obviously that's purely subjective.
You have 100 restaurants within 6 blocks of your house . Right?
We have 3 sit down Pizza places, there are about 15 sit down places to eat within about 3 blocks of the core shopping area and another 10 or so within 6 or so blocks of those. There are about 100 business or so in that 3 block area ranging from grocery stores to dr's offices, to cell phone companies, restaurants (Russian, Chinese, Mexican, American, chain, locally owned.....). There is a garden center, indoor hockey rink, Sears, several coffee shops--all connected by the non-existent sidewalks in the suburbs. ...plus the bonus of having Target and every major shopping chain a quick mile to 3 up the road .
Your problem is that you just don't get out enough and explore areas. Sure, there are places in the suburbs that aren't close to shopping, but there are plenty of places in Minneapolis and St. Paul that are equally as far away OR have such heavy traffic that it makes walking difficult (Cedar-Riverside area, for example, unless you only eat Pizza and drink coffee). There are a lot of neighborhoods in Highland Park that are farther away from any shopping/coffee shops/grocery stores then you will find in many of the smaller suburbs.
I did have 100 restaurants within six blocks of my house at a former address (and nearly that at at least one other address). It was wonderful. We ate very well! Not in Minneapolis, but there were easily 50 restaurants within six blocks of my former Uptown address (which was quite a ways from the commercial core). And I'm sure people living in other parts of Uptown can get up pretty close to the 100 restaurant mark. What makes that surprising?
Golfgal, you don't know me. You make assumptions. You still haven't listed ANY locations in Minneapolis that are as far away from commercial activity as the most isolated parts of the suburbs. That's because they DON'T EXIST. And if you're contrasting Rosemount, specifically, I WASN'T comparing Rosemount to the quieter areas of Minneapolis. I think your'e the primary person here trying to make this into some sort of city/suburb shouting match, and that's a pretty pointless endeavor. (and have you BEEN to Cedar-Riverside lately? I'm guessing not, if you think their dining options are limited to pizza, of all things...). I was specifically referencing UPTOWN, which DOES have far more commercial activity in a small area than does Rosemount. Well more than 100 businesses, that's for sure. (and referencing a THREE mile drive as "easy" and seemingly suggesting that it's practically in the neighborhood also suggests a different frame of reference) End of story. I never said anything about sidewalks or any of the rest of it. You're projecting things onto me. And what in the world makes you constantly think that I live in a bubble? Point is, while Rosemount and others like it could be perfectly walkable, they are not as amenities-filled as a high density neighborhood like Uptown. Period. Never said anything about any of the rest of it, and I wasn't talking about my current Minneapolis neighborhood (which is probably more similar to Rosemount in terms of stuff and walkscore). There is a difference between neighborhoods, and unless you've actually spent time in some of these neighborhoods (which I have, but given your comments it sounds like you haven't, at least not in recent years) it's tough to really explain how yes, t here is a difference between an urban neighborhood like Uptown and the stretch of commerce out there in Rosemount by the Sears that you're describing. They are simply entirely different types of neighborhoods, with very little in common. I'm not suggesting in any way that Rosemount isn't "walkable" (although admittedly it is not the kind of walkable that I like, and I would be disappointed to move across the country just to live in the land of low-slung big box stores and strip malls, with only a handful of local options for relief), but it is by ANY standards a very different type of neighborhood than Uptown, which is the neighborhood I was comparing it to. It's also a very different place than Cedar-Riverside, for that matter.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 06-18-2011 at 05:24 PM..
Your problem is that you just don't get out enough and explore areas. Sure, there are places in the suburbs that aren't close to shopping, but there are plenty of places in Minneapolis and St. Paul that are equally as far away OR have such heavy traffic that it makes walking difficult (Cedar-Riverside area, for example, unless you only eat Pizza and drink coffee).
Is this some kind of joke? Cedar-Riverside is 10 times more walkable than anywhere in Rosemount. At any spot in that neighborhood you're within a couple blocks of The U of M's West Bank, Augsburg College, bus lines, the light rail and tons of restaurants, bars, theaters, hotels, convenience stores, coffee shops, etc. etc. Alot of people live in that neighborhood without a car and they get around just fine. There is traffic there but you won't find a street without sidewalks on both sides, stop lights, cross-walks, etc. Plus you're right in the city so drivers will be looking for pedestrians. If you go there during the day you'll probably see tons of people walking around...that's a good indication that the area is walkable.
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.
. 
