What makes a place or space walkable? (characteristics, Arizona, California)
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 don't remember just which report you're talking about. The link I posted about walkablility in Phoenix did note that despite everything the urban planners tell us is necessary for walkablility in the low income neighborhoods, e.g. parks, grid system, etc, people there had high rates of obesity. It would seem to me that's an indictment of "Urban Planning 101" principals. Surprise, there's more to it than that!
Actually, the link I posted said there were parks and I believe shopping in these urban 'hoods. The study was done in Phoenix; not as much decay there as in the rust belt.
They probably used a fairly low threshold for walkability/urbanity.
The most walkable part of Phoenix according to WalkScore is Downtown Phoenix. It has been labeled a food desert by the US Dept of Agriculture. Phoenix urbanites hunger for downtown grocery
The pre-WWII neighbourhoods surrounding Downtown Phoenix (in which I'm including the areas near the LRT south of I-10) are riddled with vacant lots and the "Central City" section of Phoenix which WalkScore defines as Downtown and adjacent neighbourhoods on a street grid has a Walkscore of 60 which is less than Etobicoke (62) and Scarborough (63), the most suburban parts of Toronto and areas mostly built after WWII around the automobile (especially Scarborough). The rest of Phoenix looks like it was mostly built around the automobile and from Walkscore, doesn't seem to be much more walkable than the suburbs.
Phoenix? Seriously? I'm not arguing against the overall conclusion, but calling Phoenix walkable is a stretch, it's too spread out for walking to practical, just about everyone drives. Not saying many of those rust belt cities are any better except for maybe a couple of neighborhoods. The article created a firestorm because it's a terrible city choice if you're looking at walkability.
Phoenix? Seriously? I'm not arguing against the overall conclusion, but calling Phoenix walkable is a stretch, it's too spread out for walking to practical, just about everyone drives. Not saying many of those rust belt cities are any better except for maybe a couple of neighborhoods.
I won't look to Phoenix for being a model for walkable cities.
This thread isn't about your mom, it is about making a place more walkable. For most people, walking is a good thing, there are some that can't walk but probably would if they could because it is a healthy activity.
No, it's not. It's about what makes a place more walkable. Not the same thing.
Phoenix? Seriously? I'm not arguing against the overall conclusion, but calling Phoenix walkable is a stretch, it's too spread out for walking to practical, just about everyone drives. Not saying many of those rust belt cities are any better except for maybe a couple of neighborhoods. The article created a firestorm because it's a terrible city choice if you're looking at walkability.
This is exactly how the conversation went the last time, which is why I didn't want to revisit it. Deja-vu all over again as Yogi Berra said.
However, since several people, including you our fearless leader do seem to want to discuss this, if you'd read the abstract the authors compared one area of Phoenix to another. Now, I daresay you haven't exactly done a block by block assessment of Phoenix. You don't know what walkable areas there are in that city. And the result surprised them. Having all these things that "Urban Planning 101" as one poster likes to call them, didn't lower the obestiy rate there. It's what people on this thread have implied, too. Maybe they should take a look at that study.
Now, I daresay you haven't exactly done a block by block assessment of Phoenix. You don't know what walkable areas there are in that city. And the result surprised them. Having all these things that "Urban Planning 101" as one poster likes to call them, didn't lower the obestiy rate there. It's what people on this thread have implied, too. Maybe they should take a look at that study.
No, I don't, though I have looked through it on streetview. None of it looked that walkable if it all. Nor were there many pedestrians. It didn't seem like a good choice of place to expect walkability to make any difference. I don't think it has "all of those things" or much of any.
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.
