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 subject of walkability is also intertwined with urbanity and historic neighborhoods--historic neighborhoods are generally more walkable by design (note: generally), which is part of what promotes the sort of urbanity we're talking about here.
Not all historic buildings are walkable--such as isolated estates, farmhouses, or industrial facilities. But historic neighborhoods, at least the ones up through the mid-20th century, tend to be walkable ones, or have the infrastructure for walkability even when integrated with new mixed-use construction. There are also historic districts of auto-centric midcentury suburban single-family homes, so no, it's not a universal rule.
Last edited by nei; 09-30-2014 at 02:04 PM..
Reason: fixed — use the report post button next time
Why was my post moved? I specifically mentioned historic buildings visible in the photo being discussed and others nearby, and explained that viewers don't need to know a building is historic to enjoy it, and the value of their presence within the context of a neighborhood containing both new and old buildings. The post is also kind of hard to understand in a different thread than the one with the picture I'm discussing. The subject of walkability is also intertwined with urbanity and historic neighborhoods--historic neighborhoods are generally more walkable by design (note: generally), which is part of what promotes the sort of urbanity we're talking about here.
Not all historic buildings are walkable--such as isolated estates, farmhouses, or industrial facilities. But historic neighborhoods, at least the ones up through the mid-20th century, tend to be walkable ones, or have the infrastructure for walkability even when integrated with new mixed-use construction. There are also historic districts of auto-centric midcentury suburban single-family homes, so no, it's not a universal rule.
yes nailed it
can anyone name full neighborhood developed during this time (not since leveled) that does not fit
here is the largest collection of colonial housing in the country, very walkable
Yonge Street in North York Centre compares pretty well with just about any of the pre-WWII neighbourhoods of Toronto outside downtown for pedestrian counts.
Most of North York Centre's built environment is TOD redevelopment though the "bones" are from late interurban era exurban development/early auto era suburban development. I'd say it is quite walkable, although it is pretty "hypertrophic city" with Yonge St being quite wide with a lot of traffic, and then wide sidewalks and tall buildings.
Plus neighbourhoods in cities like Seoul and Tokyo, and Shenzhen's urban villages, which mostly have new buildings but in a walkable urban format (parts of Seoul are tower-in-the-park but not all). You also have certain neighbourhoods of Montreal, like Francois-Perrault, which I would say are not historic but still walkable (mostly built in 40s/50s).
And Yellowknife (founded in the late 30s) is not too bad for walkability as I mentioned earlier. While the buildings and wide roads are not very attractive aesthetically, it does have a good sized downtown for a town of 20,000 and with buildings that come up to the sidewalk. Walkscore for the downtown area seems to be around 90.
And Yellowknife (founded in the late 30s) is not too bad for walkability as I mentioned earlier. While the buildings and wide roads are not very attractive aesthetically, it does have a good sized downtown for a town of 20,000 and with buildings that come up to the sidewalk. Walkscore for the downtown area seems to be around 90.
I don't think Society Hill is the best example of a walkable area in Philadelphia, especially at night. There's little commercial activity and it's not exactly vibrant. The historic buildings are interesting, but you don't see too many people walking around.
I think maybe some of the late interurban suburbs could be considered not walkable. Some of these interurbans were often intended to serve rural areas and towns/suburbs. It seems like there were some rural-suburb hybrids that sprung up along the lines, probably with large yards for growing vegetables, fruits, maybe chickens and such, and I guess the residents did a lot of their shopping in the city or in more urban communities along the interurban line. I guess you could argue it's not a full neighbourhood though.
Anyways, while there are communities that had most residents commuting by car before WWII (ex Kingsway or Leaside in Toronto), most of them still had a commercial area within walking distance like the streetcar suburbs. I guess the men commuted by car but their wives still shopped on foot?
Although with Moore Park/North Rosedale in Toronto, I would say they're rather on the far side (some homes 25min walk or more) from any retail, despite having been built up about 100 years ago (or more?).
I'm leaning towards agreeing but Whitehorse is older. Although it officially incorporated after Yellowknife, this is a description of Whitehorse in 1900.
Quote:
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]By the spring of 1900 there were wholesale houses and retail mercantile esatblishments, a hardware store, six large hotels, two drug stores, a brick yard, 2000 feet of warehouses on the waterfront, three churches, an athletic club and an electric light plant. Tents, log houses or clapboard buildings were found on practically every lot.
This house is old, but the ad barely emphasizes it as historic. Should it count? A house that old in Oregon would probably be worthy of a museum. Built in 1850.
True enough, there is very little on the West Coast older than that aside from a few adobes and early pioneer buildings, and you didn't find adobes in Oregon (they tend to melt in the rain.) It's definitely a West Coast thing--an article I read this summer about development in Los Angeles mentioned the Hustler Store on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood as an "old landmark"--it was built in 1998!
Conceivably, you could have a non-historic neighborhood with historic buildings.
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.
