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.
The definition is wholly arbitrary and the subject of personal preferences - a subjective opinion of the observer. Each decides whether a place is "walkable" or not. Very, very few would be situated such that their daily needs could be attended to if they lived in an area they deemed "walkable". The term is not part of the daily vocabulary of the rest of the world.
That is incorrect and based on your definition, I can only assume you have only been in car dependent neighborhoods and haven't actually experienced a walkable neighborhood.
That is incorrect and based on your definition, I can only assume you have only been in car dependent neighborhoods and haven't actually experienced a walkable neighborhood.
You can assume whatever you want but you haven't exactly provided any empirical evidence to counter. You in particular seem to have a conniption fit over parking lots and whiffy preferences for "urban fabric". If anything you are the epitome of the urbanist described. Go catch a ride on your expensive public transit in your apparently not-so-walkable environment.
]Depends on who you bank with[/b], we have three accounts, two are at credit unions and one is at a chance bank so there is always a bank near us. Plus our primary credit union is a common one in town so it isn't hard to be near one. We are lucky enough to have two of our three banks in our neighborhood making it very easy for me to bike to the bank, run some errands, grab a cup of coffee, and pick up a few things we might need for dinner at the grocery store.
Though we go to the grocery store each week, sometimes I get a great idea for dinner and need to pick up some key things.
Again, it is not impossible to have a neighborhood that is walkable thag has all these things, and just because a neighborhood is walkable doesn't mean you can't drive to everything. If someone feels the need to drive three block down, park, then drive two blocks to the next thing, park, and then drive 5 blocks home, and park. I have no issue with that. What I do have an issue with are neighborhoods that are car dependent, where it is near impossible to do all those things without the use of a car. I am confused why anyone would have an issue with what I am saying a neighborhood should be like.
Wburg's post said nothing about banning parking, and in many cities businesses are required to have parking whether the businesses wish to or not. One pharmacy near me doesn't have parking, it's in a town center district and easy to walk to and combine with other trips. It's the one I normally go to, and it's the most convenient one, especially before I had a car.
Denver is much less dense than some older cities, say Boston. Many, perhaps even most pharmacies in Boston do not have parking.
Nor did I accuse him of wanting to ban parking. Here's what he said, in part: "Making places somewhat of a PITA to park doesn't mean you can't drive there"
I will point out he lives in Sacramento, which is probably less dense (or no moreso) than Denver.
Nor did I accuse him of wanting to ban parking. Here's what he said, in part: "Making places somewhat of a PITA to park doesn't mean you can't drive there"
ok, then I don't see how the banning parking comment followed
Quote:
I will point out he lives in Sacramento, which is probably less dense (or no moreso) than Denver.
I know but he lives in one of the most densest parts of the city (in or near downtown). Though I'm unfamiliar with either city.
The definition is wholly arbitrary and the subject of personal preferences - a subjective opinion of the observer. Each decides whether a place is "walkable" or not. Very, very few would be situated such that their daily needs could be attended to if they lived in an area they deemed "walkable". The term is not part of the daily vocabulary of the rest of the world.
You can assume whatever you want but you haven't exactly provided any empirical evidence to counter. You in particular seem to have a conniption fit over parking lots and whiffy preferences for "urban fabric". If anything you are the epitome of the urbanist described. Go catch a ride on your expensive public transit in your apparently not-so-walkable environment.
What? My bike pays for itself every time I use it, so not sure why you would think it was "expensive public transit." Also, why do you have such a negative view towards a neighborhood that provides options so that people don't have to use cars if they don't want to?
It sounds like you have a strong hatred towards anything that you might deem "urban" for no reason at all. I don't really need to counter anything you have said seeing it is inaccurate to begin with.
Maybe it's because you are so militant about how things "should" be.
Militant?? Last time I checked, providing "options" isn't something that one would call "militant." To me, a militant point of view would be neighborhoods need to be car dependent ONLY.
Care to tell me what is wrong with a walkable community? You can still drive in a walkable community, so it fulfills the needs you have in a car dependent community.
ok, then I don't see how the banning parking comment followed
I know but he lives in one of the most densest parts of the city (in or near downtown). Though I'm unfamiliar with either city.
I. did. not. use. the word. "ban". Please check my previous posts.
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.