Study Reveals World’s Most Walkable Cities

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oh come on. You can't pick two extreme examples like Houston and London and try to pass it off as an "all else being equal" comparison. And I was talking about residential areas in any case.

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

I have a strong preference for one over the other and it has nothing to do with setbacks or curb cuts.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. One of those neighborhoods is clearly built for people to live without cars. The other neighborhood is clearly built to be auto centric.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm not sure what you're getting at. One of those neighborhoods is clearly built for people to live without cars. The other neighborhood is clearly built to be auto centric.

In practice they are both auto centric.

But the one that is built from the ground up to be auto centric is the one that is a walk in the park...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I think the narrow setbacks create a more oppressive walking environment and take away from the concept of a public street as a public realm. I really don't want to be walking inches away from someone's dining room window. There should be a buffer.

Really? That sounds anti-urban and pedestrian hostile. Urban areas are interesting because you have all these competing uses in close juxtaposition.

Originally Posted by badrunner

And isn't it interesting that the more car oriented neighborhood has less visible cars?

I don't know what this means. The more car-oriented neighborhood have giant garages and driveways, so much that it doesn't look like houses with garages, it looks like garages with houses. The urban example doesn't really have any auto orientation.

[edale]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oh come on. You can't pick two extreme examples like Houston and London and try to pass it off as an "all else being equal" comparison. And I was talking about residential areas in any case.

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

I have a strong preference for one over the other and it has nothing to do with setbacks or curb cuts.

How is this any less of an "extreme example"? The suburban subdivision and urban Philadelphia couldn't be more dissimilar. The pedestrian experience is totally different- if people are walking in that Aurora example, it's for leisure or exercise. In the Philadelphia example, people walk as a form of transportation.

Curb cuts and setbacks might not matter when you're walking through a suburban subdivision, but they definitely matter to urban pedestrians.

To use two LA examples, it's much, much nicer to walk along this stretch of Melrose, than this stretch of Vermont. Why? Because one has a consistent streetwall and zero curb cuts. You don't have to worry about crossing driveways or cars turning in ahead of you. There's no wasted dead space between the building and the sidewalk. In areas like the Vermont example, the pedestrian is an afterthought.

Melrose:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0836...7i16384!8i8192

Vermont:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0711...7i16384!8i8192

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Really? That sounds anti-urban and pedestrian hostile. Urban areas are interesting because you have all these competing uses in close juxtaposition.

In that Aurora neighborhood, you have people walking their dogs, kids riding their bikes and playing in the street, neighbors saying hello to each other on their evening walks. Some of these activities aren't even possible in that rowhouse neighborhood. What competing uses are you referring to?

[Handro]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oh come on. You can't pick two extreme examples like Houston and London and try to pass it off as an "all else being equal" comparison. And I was talking about residential areas in any case.

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

I have a strong preference for one over the other and it has nothing to do with setbacks or curb cuts.

Where exactly would you be walking in that suburban neighborhood? To your neighbors house to carpool to a mall?

The entire concept of "walkability" in the context to which this forum is dedicated assumes there are places to which one can walk, i.e. a person leaves their home and walks to work, school, the grocery store, etc. Choosing a subdivision in the suburban hinterlands devoid of any human activity completely misses the point and changes the conversation to "a quiet place to take a walk." If you want to go that route, I can beat your "walkable" subdivision: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7777...7i13312!8i6656

Supreme walkability!

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by edale

How is this any less of an "extreme example"? The suburban subdivision and urban Philadelphia couldn't be more dissimilar.

Yes, that was the whole point. Comparing the walkability of two completely different residential typologies.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by badrunner

In that Aurora neighborhood, you have people walking their dogs, kids riding their bikes and playing in the street, neighbors saying hello to each other on their evening walks. Some of these activities aren't even possible in that rowhouse neighborhood. What competing uses are you referring to?

from that aurora street you could walk if you wanted to, to run all your errands

shopping at southlands
https://goo.gl/maps/viCAAXbAoNpBbYD47

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Handro

Where exactly would you be walking in that suburban neighborhood? To your neighbors house to carpool to a mall?

You're focusing too much on that specific example and not the housing typology itself. There are plenty of SFHs within walking distance to major commercial arteries all over the country. And it's not like there's a ton of places to walk to in South Philly either. It's mostly residential.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

for residential side streets, i prefer a creamy middle for walking:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9596...8i8192!5m1!1e2

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

And it's not like there's a ton of places to walk to in South Philly either. It's mostly residential.

In South Philly, obviously the residents are walking to stores, restaurants, transit, parks, schools, etc. Urban living.

In typical American sprawl, residents essentially never walk except for recreation (walking dogs, exercise). Autocentric living.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

those south Philadelphia residents are probably walking to the subway to do most of their shopping outside of a run to a corner market or convenience store, atm type business. broad street isn't a walker's paradise, it's wide, busy and the shops are spread out.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In South Philly, obviously the residents are walking to stores, restaurants, transit, parks, schools, etc. Urban living.

In typical American sprawl, residents essentially never walk except for recreation (walking dogs, exercise). Autocentric living.

There are plenty of SFHs in the city within walking distance to all of those things . It's a comparison of housing typologies, not those specific neighborhoods.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

for residential side streets, i prefer a creamy middle for walking:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9596...8i8192!5m1!1e2

That works for me too. Similar density to rowhouses without the oppressive claustrophobic feel.

In any case, people vote with their feet and their wallets, and my stated strong preference for a certain housing type is shared by a majority of people. Like I said, the average person doesn't care about things like curb cuts and setbacks (and this is a good time to remind everyone that this forum isn't really representative of the population at large).

[Handro]

Originally Posted by badrunner

You're focusing too much on that specific example and not the housing typology itself. There are plenty of SFHs within walking distance to major commercial arteries all over the country. And it's not like there's a ton of places to walk to in South Philly either. It's mostly residential.

You're focusing specifically on the housing typology and not the generally agreed upon definition of walkability, so I fail to see what argument you're trying to make beyond "this is a nice quiet place to take a walk"--in which case any park or forest preserve would beat an exurban subdivision, hands down.

If you actually want to focus on walkability, here is the not-exactly-scientific-but-helpful-for-understanding walk score for the two addresses you provided:

Exurban subdivision: Overall score, 38. https://www.walkscore.com/score/2470...urora-co-80016

Innercity neighborhood: Overall score, 93. https://www.walkscore.com/score/1901...lphia-pa-19145

A simpler way to look at it--if someone didn't own a car, which place would be more pleasant to live? Personally, as I stated in the original post, if I had a walking-centric life I'd much rather live in London in November than Houston in April, despite the difference in weather. I would not want to be walking down a sunny, warm four lane highway past massive parking lots and car dealerships when I could be walking down a cozy, dense, convenient road even if it was cold and cloudy. And I think most people agree, which is why the vast majority of Americans drive everywhere and don't take the bus.

[homebucket]

Interesting. It would take 11 min for that Philly house to walk to the nearest retail plaza, which is about 2200 ft away as the crow flies.

https://goo.gl/maps/X6ViwWsiUbxEyM8z9

But 30 minutes for the Aurora example. Which is 4200 ft away as the crow flies.

https://goo.gl/maps/iuWnH4UYPLQRWNcn7

So to walk double the distance in Aurora, it takes three times the amount of time vs in Philly.

Also, along the way in Philly you get to pass several nice markets and grocery stores:
https://goo.gl/maps/8VE9rH8vadhYyfYK9

Vs in Aurora you see this:
https://goo.gl/maps/rk4qNobMWohUaC2g8

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Interesting. It would take 11 min for that Philly house to walk to the nearest retail plaza, which is about 2200 ft away as the crow flies.

https://goo.gl/maps/X6ViwWsiUbxEyM8z9

But 30 minutes for the Aurora example. Which is 4200 ft away as the crow flies.

https://goo.gl/maps/iuWnH4UYPLQRWNcn7

So to walk double the distance in Aurora, it takes three times the amount of time vs in Philly.

Also, along the way in Philly you get to pass several nice markets and grocery stores:
https://goo.gl/maps/8VE9rH8vadhYyfYK9

Vs in Aurora you see this:
https://goo.gl/maps/rk4qNobMWohUaC2g8

Ross dress for less strip mall in south Philadelphia isn't exactly like southlands in aurora.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Handro

You're focusing specifically on the housing typology and not the generally agreed upon definition of walkability, so I fail to see what argument you're trying to make beyond "this is a nice quiet place to take a walk"--in which case any park or forest preserve would beat an exurban subdivision, hands down.

If you actually want to focus on walkability, here is the not-exactly-scientific-but-helpful-for-understanding walk score for the two addresses you provided:

Exurban subdivision: Overall score, 38. https://www.walkscore.com/score/2470...urora-co-80016

Innercity neighborhood: Overall score, 93. https://www.walkscore.com/score/1901...lphia-pa-19145

You realize that there are SFH neighborhoods with 90+ walkscores? Walkscore has nothing to do with housing typology.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Interesting. It would take 11 min for that Philly house to walk to the nearest retail plaza, which is about 2200 ft away as the crow flies.

https://goo.gl/maps/X6ViwWsiUbxEyM8z9

What's the point of living in an "urban" environment when the nearest shopping is a ginormous big box strip mall with massive surface parking lots? That somehow looks much less urban than the suburban Aurora shopping center...

[Handro]

Originally Posted by badrunner

You realize that there are SFH neighborhoods with 90+ walkscores? Walkscore has nothing to do with housing typology.

Of course! I live in one. Which is why it's weird you'd post a an address that is clearly totally unwalkable vs. one that clearly is.

If you're so put off by my hyperbolic example of London vs. Houston, here's a more apples-to-apples one:

This is North Center, a mostly residential neighborhood in Chicago replete with SFH homes. Despite the fact that it is a residential neighborhood heavy in SFH, notice the wide parkways separating the street from the sidewalk, the lack of driveways or garages breaking up the pedestrian experience, and the ample vegetation and tree cover: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9596...7i16384!8i8192

Here is a comparable neighborhood in Los Angeles--residential, upper-middle class, within a couple of blocks from a dense commercial district--but clearly built with a focus on ease of car ownership: https://www.google.com/maps/place/45...4d-118.4429382

I know which street I'd rather take a walk down, despite the better weather in Southern California.