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.
Very little is walkable by those standards, including most parts of most large cities. The ideal of a walkable neighborhood is better exemplified by a early 20th century small town than a modern city. Which is probably why when someone tries to build one today, they end up with a shopping mall with apartments.
You have to define "large" cities to make that argument complete. Some very large cities are very low density, so by definition less is going to be within any given radius.
Then there's the problem of using modern cities, which have been built around the needs of the car--wide streets, plentiful parking at home, work, and everywhere in between. I'm saying that, yes, of course, a place built around the car is going to have less within any given radius. So, most "modern" cities aren't really a useful measuring stick.
You have to define "large" cities to make that argument complete. Some very large cities are very low density, so by definition less is going to be within any given radius.
Philadelphia would be a good example. Even within the confines of Center City.
You have to define "large" cities to make that argument complete. Some very large cities are very low density, so by definition less is going to be within any given radius.
Then there's the problem of using modern cities, which have been built around the needs of the car--wide streets, plentiful parking at home, work, and everywhere in between. I'm saying that, yes, of course, a place built around the car is going to have less within any given radius. So, most "modern" cities aren't really a useful measuring stick.
Sounds like another unring the bell post.
Density is defined around transportation. Old NYC before the subway, the LES had a population density of 400,000 PSQM. Today the same LES, which wasn't built for cars considering it's largely unchanged, has a density of roughly a quarter of that. The difference is that most people actually like your so-called problem. In order to make LES habitable for people who had a choice because transportation was suddenly cheap and readily available, the interiors of those tenements had to be gutted. As a result, with almost no change to the build environment, transportation, which was more rail than the car, ended up lowering the density of the LES by 75%.
So while it's true that some people at least say they'd want to live in the tenements of the 1880s, when actually given a choice not to that number becomes so small it's no longer even measurable. The other 99% prefer to live in the problem cities.
Even in Manhattan, the only way you're going to "unring" the bell and "solve the problem" of most people not being able to walk to their work (which is the definition of walkable being used for this discussion) is to live in some alternative universe where anything beyond a horse and buggy was never invented and thus people have no choice but to live in a "walkable" fashion. Even Manhattan isn't walkable since most people don't go to work by walking since it's not practical. Eg, for most people, Manhattan is not walkable per the definitions used in this discussion. Of course, then it's still not walkable because people only walk because "they have to." So I guess walkable communities never even existed, unless we're seriously considering crawling as a legitimate alternative, or maybe running.
Density is defined around transportation. Old NYC before the subway, the LES had a population density of 400,000 PSQM. Today the same LES, which wasn't built for cars considering it's largely unchanged, has a density of roughly a quarter of that. The difference is that most people actually like your so-called problem. In order to make LES habitable for people who had a choice because transportation was suddenly cheap and readily available, the interiors of those tenements had to be gutted. As a result, with almost no change to the build environment, transportation, which was more rail than the car, ended up lowering the density of the LES by 75%.
So while it's true that some people at least say they'd want to live in the tenements of the 1880s, when actually given a choice not to that number becomes so small it's no longer even measurable. The other 99% prefer to live in the problem cities.
Even in Manhattan, the only way you're going to "unring" the bell and "solve the problem" of most people not being able to walk to their work (which is the definition of walkable being used for this discussion) is to live in some alternative universe where anything beyond a horse and buggy was never invented and thus people have no choice but to live in a "walkable" fashion. Even Manhattan isn't walkable since most people don't go to work by walking since it's not practical. Eg, for most people, Manhattan is not walkable per the definitions used in this discussion. Of course, then it's still not walkable because people only walk because "they have to." So I guess walkable communities never even existed, unless we're seriously considering crawling as a legitimate alternative, or maybe running.
That is an interesting rant, LES doesn't have the same population as it once did because people aren't living 20 people in a dark tenement apartment. Now it is full of people who pay out the nose for their apartments, thus decreasing the occupancy.
Also a good majority of people in New York do a combination of walking and subway commuting because it is easy to hop on and off. In Manhattan, if you are commuting east and west, you are commuting by foot or cab.
That is an interesting rant, LES doesn't have the same population as it once did because people aren't living 20 people in a dark tenement apartment. Now it is full of people who pay out the nose for their apartments, thus decreasing the occupancy.
Also a good majority of people in New York do a combination of walking and subway commuting because it is easy to hop on and off. In Manhattan, if you are commuting east and west, you are commuting by foot or cab.
Or bus.
But white people don't ride those, so I assume you're white. They do exist though.
But white people don't ride east-west buses in NYC.
Not from what I've seen. White people do ride east-west buses, at least in Manhattan. Manhattan buses are generally whiter than the subway, it's rather noticeable.
That is a stupid strawman statement.. yes, white people ride the bus too in NYC.
Except when going east-west since they either walk or take a cab.
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.
