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.
Caladium's and BBD's debate about parking lots does raise a relevant point, I think: The small restaurants a few streets away from us (on Wilson Blvd.) would be an easy walk, but the fact that they have very small parking lots out front with pavement that is flush with the (very narrow) sidewalk means that drivers, when backing up, have no choice but to back up right onto the sidewalk. Which makes walking on those sidewalks quite dangerous. So we drive there, even though we could walk in five minutes.
It's kind of a quandary; we don't go to restaurants where we can't park. But in this case, the configuration of the parking means we can't safely walk there. I guess I'm still glad there's parking, because if they got rid of the parking and made the sidewalks wider, the restaurants would probably not get enough foot traffic to survive, and so we'd have nothing at all there.
Caladium's and BBD's debate about parking lots does raise a relevant point, I think: The small restaurants a few streets away from us (on Wilson Blvd.) would be an easy walk, but the fact that they have very small parking lots out front with pavement that is flush with the (very narrow) sidewalk means that drivers, when backing up, have no choice but to back up right onto the sidewalk. Which makes walking on those sidewalks quite dangerous. So we drive there, even though we could walk in five minutes.
Funny, all throughout the discussion i was thinking of Ray's Hellburger which is exactly what you've just described. That's an area that's "cool" but not as "walkable" as others.
not to belabor this, but that is yet one more reason we like walking where there are lots of others walking. When my wife and I walk in places where no one else is walking, we do wonder why, (its not like no one lives there) and its disspiriting. When we walk in a bustling place, with lots of people walking, biking, etc, its a mood enhancer (beyond the exercise endorphins) - going to places like DC and Arlington and seeing young people (I refuse to dismiss them as "hipsters") embracing healthier ways of living gives me hope.
I'm sometimes amazed when I'm in incredibly beautiful places around here and don't see another soul. Like yesterday afternoon when i was cycling along East Boulevard next to GW Parkway or often when paddling my canoe in Little Hunting Creek. However, I can then just go a few miles up the road into Old Town and get my human immersion fix.
All good--and another example of why it's important to give a little detail about what you mean. That way everyone understands what you're saying.
ps. Just a quibble, but since we are talking about the use of words, the word "youngsters" is not interchangeable for the word "hipsters." Not all young people are hipsters, not all hipsters are young people.
I dont know what the word hipster means - I take it at some point it was connected with the arts, and with people with a developed sense of irony. Mostly I see it used as to mean young people who the speaker resents for being too affuent, too educated, too smart, too idealistic, and/or too liberal.
I mean I don't think in the narrow sense we have any hipster areas in NoVa, and barely any in DC. Petworth, and maybe some areas near H Street NE - but even those areas have a bunch of educated 20 somethings who aren't particularly into irony, AFAICT.
However, it's more fun and satisfying to debate these things with the posters you're familiar with. Like the difference between discussing national politics with your friends at a bar rather than with a crowd of thousands in a big stadium. I'm not as crazy about the general forums where five seconds after you post to it, the thread has already moved down to page 2.
urban planning is unfortunately filled with cranks on both sides (as well as a few well informed and serious voices) Within 20 seconds of posting about 90% of discussions will shift to a discussion of the older suburbs of Denver. Since we are discussing how to respond to posters asking questions about NoVa, and in the context of whats available in NoVa and adjacent areas, I think the discussion belongs here.
The discussion of the authority of dictionaries belongs more properly to the writing forum, however.
I'm sometimes amazed when I'm in incredibly beautiful places around here and don't see another soul. Like yesterday afternoon when i was cycling along East Boulevard next to GW Parkway or often when paddling my canoe in Little Hunting Creek. However, I can then just go a few miles up the road into Old Town and get my human immersion fix.
everything is relative. The other day I walked around National Gateway and the new buildings east of Pentagon City, and there are some pedestrians, and a bunch of cyclists. It was more than I usually see in most of Fairfax, but paled in comparison to Capital Hill.
For the most part, this thread makes distinctions between less-walkable and more-walkable areas, with "walkable" being given more meaning than just the ability to get from point A to point B on foot - with the exception of some who feel a label of "un-walkable" is being assigned to some communities.
This makes me wonder - has anyone lived in a place that truly was un-walkable? First definition - cannot leave your home and get anywhere else on foot without significant obstacle or hazard. Alternate definition - cannot get from your house to anywhere else on foot other than nature, within reasonable distance (an hour's walk?).
Excepting places like the latter (perhaps farm land, cabin in the woods, etc), I can't think of residential places that are non-remote, non-isolated that would merit being called un-walkable, but that could be due to my lack of experience. So has anyone lived in such a place? If so, describe it. I ask because I agree with the extra meanings that are attached to today's use of "walkability" and do not agree with a strict interpretation of the word to mean "able to go for a walk" and nothing more.
For the most part, this thread makes distinctions between less-walkable and more-walkable areas, with "walkable" being given more meaning than just the ability to get from point A to point B on foot - with the exception of some who feel a label of "un-walkable" is being assigned to some communities.
This makes me wonder - has anyone lived in a place that truly was un-walkable? First definition - cannot leave your home and get anywhere else on foot without significant obstacle or hazard. Alternate definition - cannot get from your house to anywhere else on foot other than nature, within reasonable distance (an hour's walk?).
Excepting places like the latter (perhaps farm land, cabin in the woods, etc), I can't think of residential places that are non-remote, non-isolated that would merit being called un-walkable, but that could be due to my lack of experience. So has anyone lived in such a place? If so, describe it. I ask because I agree with the extra meanings that are attached to today's use of "walkability" and do not agree with a strict interpretation of the word to mean "able to go for a walk" and nothing more.
There are definitely lots of areas (not all rural) where walkng anyplace beyond your house or apartment complex requires walking on a road with no sidewalks, and the speed/traffic volume of said road introduces a safety issue not found in say the back streets of Mclean or Lake Barcroft. That might still be "walkable" by the dictionary definition, but ia set of criteria that did not include aesthetics could easily be constructed that made it "unwalkable".
There are lot of variations on the above - places where there is a sidewalk, but the sidewalk condition is a real danger, or where there is a gap where one must walk in a service road, a parking lot, or on the street, or where the sidewalk is crossed by many frequently used driveways.
The dictionary definition is pretty clearly not useable. I think the real issue is the inclusion or not of non-safety criteria (and of some criteria that indirectly relate to safety, but that tend to favor the same kinds of areas that are favored by many who focus on the aesthetic aspects).
LOL sounds like something I once read in Orwell's "1984." I guess I take a more traditional point of view. I prefer to use the meanings that are assigned to words by a dictionary. To each his own.
When I was writing that, I actually was wondering if you'd throw Humpty Dumpty from Through the Looking Glass back at me. Fact is, however, that words can change meaning, either subtly or significantly. Dictionaries try to keep up with people, they aren't rule books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caladium
By the way, other words that I find destructive are unteachable, unemployable, unlivable, undateable. I certainly hope these words do not become the "cool" new words to use, just like I hope "unwalkable" goes out of service unless you're genuinely talking about a place where it is not easy to walk.
I think it's been said a few times that the term and concept of walkability is used on a sliding scale, not a walkable-unwalkable dichotomy.
But yes, assigning labels of "less walkable" to places that are felt to be such, by people who use today's understanding of the term, may be destructive in terms of future desirability of such places. Just as cities saw population losses when city life was viewed negatively, exurbs and traditional car-culture suburbs may decline as more people desire something more in line with what you are deriding as a "hip" trend. That's a big "may" though, IMO. I think a lot of people still have certain living space requirements (in their minds/preferences) that mean subdivisions will continue to be a choice for many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caladium
I've said many times that the reason we bought our house was it was a walkable distance to my job. It's not a walk through a hip neighborhood, but it's an easy walk, which is why I can do it daily (even though hipsters would likely deem my neighborhood unwalkable. Shows what they know.) By the way, I said stores are within 1 miles, not a single strip mall 5 miles away.
But why do you continue to bring up your community as the defense against labeling some places in NOVA as scoring low on walkability? It's as if you're taking this whole discussion as a slight against your particular community. NOVA by and large scores low on walkability, using what you consider the improper definition of the term but what many people are using to factor into making major decisions. You're happy where you live. Great! It apparently isn't exactly what some other people who bring up walkability as a factor are looking for, however. It may work fine for some, may be enough, but I think (and could be wrong) that most people asking about walkability these days have something else in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caladium
Nothing wrong with wanting to move into neighborhoods with a unique character. So.... why not call them that? Call them hip, trendy, charming, loaded with independet businesses, distinctive, bohemian. Those are all great words. I just feel there's no need to infer that neighborhoods that aren't trendy are also not walkable, as if the two concepts are interchangeable.
Brooklynborndad used language I agree with - conducive to walking. To me, this means not only can you get from point A to point B on foot, but you might linger somewhere, chat with people, stop in a place you weren't intending to, sit on a bench, spend some time around. It's not strictly utilitarian. Does it encourage you to go out on foot, even if you're not thinking in terms of health benefits?
It doesn't have to be a "hip" place, either. If people are looking for a "hip" place, or a quaint place, or a "Main Street USA" place, I think they'll ask for that rather than ask merely if it's walkable. We see that on this forum often when young adults are moving here and want to be around a social scene and not somewhere where they have to drive to anything fun. They don't ask "is it walkable" they ask "does place X have anything to do, how's the social scene, are there people my age or is it all families and kids?" etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caladium
You may not think so but in my opinion that's what happens. When you tell people their neighborhood is not walkable, they start feeling they can't walk there. Labels can be very destructive.
This seems to be your overriding concern in this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caladium
See, this is one of those things people say that just leave me baffled. Who cares how many cars there are in a parking lot? Why? What difference does it make to some one walking by how many cars are in a lot. Seriously, think about this for a moment. Is it really better to walk by 5 cars parked on the street than 5 cars in a lot? Or does it really affect your ability to walk on a sidewalk if there are 5 cars in a lot or 20 cars in a lot? If car to human ratio matter, does that mean a parking lot becomes somehow easier to walk by if there are only a few cars in it?
Large parking lots between walkway and store front are an obstacle to the walker. You must negotiate a way through them instead of just walking to the store. They are not on the scale of the walker, they are a convenience to the driver. They create visual and psychological distance. You are not among other walkers as you wend your way through the cars to get to the building - people take their individually-mapped routes and people don't "own" the space they are walking through - cars do. Cars parked on the curbside do not create this barrier.
Last edited by robbobobbo; 04-16-2012 at 08:25 AM..
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.
I guess I take a more traditional point of view. I prefer to use the meanings that are assigned to words by a dictionary. To each his own. 
Fact is, however, that words can change meaning, either subtly or significantly. Dictionaries try to keep up with people, they aren't rule books.
