HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2020, 4:48 AM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 11,025
Many developing cities that aspire to be developed are surprisingly autocentric. Thinking about drinks in central Cape Town (ostensibly VERY walkable) where I was driven a few blocks, and driven back by a probably too intoxicated friend. There are other factors than proximity to retail.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2020, 7:02 AM
SpawnOfVulcan's Avatar
SpawnOfVulcan SpawnOfVulcan is offline
Cat Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: America's Magic City
Posts: 3,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Belcher View Post
Why is weather never taken into account when discussing walkability? Surely San Francisco is more walkable than New York in summer and winter.
It's certainly a matter of perspective. To me, NYC is tremendously more walkable because of its climate compared what we have in Alabama in the summer. In the end, I don't think it's really possible to normalize for climate when a New Yorker would walk more in San Francisco's weather and an Alabamian would walk more in New York's climate.
__________________
SSP Alabama Metros: Birmingham (City Compilation) - Huntsville - Mobile - Montgomery - Tuscaloosa - Daphne-Fairhope - Decatur

SSP Alabama Universities: Alabama - UAB - Alabama State
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 2:15 AM
Rico Rommheim's Avatar
Rico Rommheim Rico Rommheim is offline
Look at me!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: City of Bagels
Posts: 13,576
bogota?? LOL.

I've been to Bogota. After I got my passport and iphone taken from me at machete point on my second day I had to walk around the city to find a police station that wouldn't extort me further, so I suppose you COULD walk around a lot, but believe me, you don't want to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:22 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Wait what? Very little beats red brick. A neighbourhood instantly gets extra points if it has red brick buildings in it.
Brick buildings are a no no in earthquake prone cities like SF and LA. I like brick buildings, but I don't like bricks hitting my noggin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 1:06 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah View Post
Lima, Peru is very walkable after you take a 40 minute taxi ride (not just a random taxi, but a pre-approved known safe taxi cab company) through sketch ball walkable areas from the airport to miraflores. then it's somewhat safe to walk around in the bubble with a lot of heavily armed police.
yes, I can attest to this.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:12 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Bogota? I found it to be extremely autocentric. Maybe it eas the areas I was in?
I've never been there, but I believe it's propaganda. They don't even have a subway, just a new BRT system they've keep talking about endless.

It's a bit like Curitiba in the 1990's that started to sell itself worldwide as the "perfect city", due its BRT novelty. They still don't have subway (and most likely never will), their BRT is not efficient and amongst the big metro areas, it's the highest car ownership in the country.

I guess Medellín, and more recently Bogotá, are now the popular developing world "perfect city".

---------------------------------------

In Americas, I believe no city can match São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro at walkability. They have dense, compact areas and rather comprehensive transit systems. Bogotá, Lima or other Brazilian state capitals don't come even close.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:35 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I've never been there, but I believe it's propaganda. They don't even have a subway, just a new BRT system they've keep talking about endless.

It's a bit like Curitiba in the 1990's that started to sell itself worldwide as the "perfect city", due its BRT novelty. They still don't have subway (and most likely never will), their BRT is not efficient and amongst the big metro areas, it's the highest car ownership in the country.

I guess Medellín, and more recently Bogotá, are now the popular developing world "perfect city".
I remember when Metro Detroit was using Curitiba as an example to sell the public on BRT instead of investing in rail, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
In Americas, I believe no city can match São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro at walkability. They have dense, compact areas and rather comprehensive transit systems. Bogotá, Lima or other Brazilian state capitals don't come even close.
Do you mean in Latin America?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:38 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Yeah, Mexico City isn't very walkable. Huge, traffic-choked pseudo-freeways everywhere. They "upgraded" many surface streets in the 1970's and 80's to become limited access thruways, and many are horrible from the pedestrian perspective.

There are many wonderful neighborhood streets, of course, and the historic core is quite walkable, and wealthy areas like Polanco and Roma/Condesa are pleasant, but Mexico City overall is more like a poorer, denser version of a U.S. Sunbelt city. It has very high transit ridership, but choice riders (non-poor) rarely take transit, and the social stigma is not unlike much of the U.S.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:52 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
If you lived there they'd get easy, not old. Pedestrians in hilly cities tend to get at least marginally fit.
this is true. even my two year old has defined calves

hong kong is an interesting choice; in some ways, an amazing place to walk. so dense, so vibrant, such an incredible jumble of uses. but the modern traffic engineering there is horrifying and totally anti-pedestrian, with the usual over-reliance on barriers, elevated crossings, and so on. the newer large-scale developments are a nightmare to walk to and from, having mostly been designed for arrival by MTR or automobile.

plus, the weather. be ready to sweat. a lot.

mind you, i love hong kong. one of my favorite places on earth. but in manhattan if i wasn't in a rush i would easily decide to walk 3 miles from downtown to midtown for a meeting or appointment, but i would rarely do the same in hong kong except for the pure pleasure of wandering around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 4:00 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
If you lived there they'd get easy, not old. Pedestrians in hilly cities tend to get at least marginally fit.
For sure. I see old grandmas and grandpas carrying bags of groceries all the time in Chinatown. The streets are steeper than they look in photos.

https://goo.gl/maps/zX6d26ovWgTkSZDt9

https://goo.gl/maps/eHx4Yav6YbBnCGM77
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 4:23 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Or tree cover, scenery, landscaping, colorful and diverse architecture. All of these make walking a lot more pleasant.

I am told that places like South Philly are a walker's paradise but the visual monotony kills it for me. Is there a more depressing visual combo than red brick and gray skies? People here like to count curb cuts and measure setbacks to determine walkability, like any of that means anything to the average person.
Agree with the importance of weather and aesthetics, disagree that the average person doesn't care about setbacks and curb cuts. They may not consciously know they care, but it is innately more comfortable and enjoyable to walk down a street designed for pedestrians and not cars.

I think most people would rather walk down a street in London on a chilly, cloudy day in early November than on a four lane highway past strip malls in Houston on a pleasant day in April, all else being equal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 4:37 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I remember when Metro Detroit was using Curitiba as an example to sell the public on BRT instead of investing in rail, lol.
Thank God is in the past now. I hate boosterism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Do you mean in Latin America?
I meant Americas but I forgot New York.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yeah, Mexico City isn't very walkable. Huge, traffic-choked pseudo-freeways everywhere. They "upgraded" many surface streets in the 1970's and 80's to become limited access thruways, and many are horrible from the pedestrian perspective.

There are many wonderful neighborhood streets, of course, and the historic core is quite walkable, and wealthy areas like Polanco and Roma/Condesa are pleasant, but Mexico City overall is more like a poorer, denser version of a U.S. Sunbelt city. It has very high transit ridership, but choice riders (non-poor) rarely take transit, and the social stigma is not unlike much of the U.S.
I might be wrong about Mexico City. Aside pics and Google Earth I don't now much about their structure at street level. I assume, however, people there can rely more on walking and transit than say Bogotá or Lima.

In Brazil, São Paulo transit system carries as much 3x more people than Rio, and Rio dwarfs the 3rd place. There are vast regions in those two cities where people can live without a car, but São Paulo has a much more autocentric mentality than Rio.

Never been in Buenos Aires, but assume the entire Federal District with its 3 million population is completely walkable.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 5:05 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I meant Americas but I forgot New York.
Mexico City is the only one of those cities I haven't visited before. The others I've been to multiple times. Nothing in the Americas matches New York in terms of density and rail connectivity. In terms of built environment, I think coastal neighborhoods in Rio push that city into second best. Buenos Aires is in third.

São Paulo is densely populated but I think it's less walkable than cities like Philadelphia, Boston, SF, or Chicago. The descriptions I've heard of Mexico City actually remind me of São Paulo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 5:45 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
The descriptions I've heard of Mexico City actually remind me of São Paulo.
I was only in SP once, and a short visit, but I found the cities very similar.

Mexico City has a better historic core and better transit network, but SP has more highrises (and more wealthy living in highrises) and somewhat higher density. I suspect the upper classes in SP avoid transit, as in Mexico City.

Both seem totally walkable, but not really walker friendly. The major arterials are too auto-oriented and loud/congested/unpleasant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 5:57 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Mexico City is the only one of those cities I haven't visited before. The others I've been to multiple times. Nothing in the Americas matches New York in terms of density and rail connectivity. In terms of built environment, I think coastal neighborhoods in Rio push that city into second best. Buenos Aires is in third.
Those neighbourhoods in Rio are perfect examples: pleasant streets, high densities, lots of restaurants, bars, shops and now they even got the subway connecting them to Downtown.

Rio is a miss opportunity. Plagued by political incompetence, crime and decay. It would be a perfect city otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
São Paulo is densely populated but I think it's less walkable than cities like Philadelphia, Boston, SF, or Chicago. The descriptions I've heard of Mexico City actually remind me of São Paulo.
The thing about São Paulo is not the city, but several pockets scattered over its neighbourhoods where you can live easily without a car. And as the city is big, we're talking about millions of people.

And even though the city has a somewhat autocentric mentality, its subways+trains carry 8 million people daily and buses carry an extra 8 million. There's nothing anywhere close in Latin America. It could be better, but it keeps the city moving.

Last week was my 8th anniversary in the city, and I never bothered to buy a car. There is no downside for me. Everything worth is close by walking, bus or subway. And more important, waiting times are measure in seconds on rush hour.

That's why I'd argue, if we consider the whole urban/metro area, São Paulo is far ahead those US cities where outside their central cores, living without a car is challenging.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:11 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I was only in SP once, and a short visit, but I found the cities very similar.

Mexico City has a better historic core and better transit network, but SP has more highrises (and more wealthy living in highrises) and somewhat higher density. I suspect the upper classes in SP avoid transit, as in Mexico City.

Both seem totally walkable, but not really walker friendly. The major arterials are too auto-oriented and loud/congested/unpleasant.
I would say São Paulo is the only city in Brazil where generally the middle-class don't mind to use transit (although prefer cars). As the system is comprehensive, subways are very well-kept, it makes very friendly to this public. The only problem is overcrowding, but that affects more the lower-middle class living in the outer districts, which are all very dense.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:12 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
Agree with the importance of weather and aesthetics, disagree that the average person doesn't care about setbacks and curb cuts. They may not consciously know they care, but it is innately more comfortable and enjoyable to walk down a street designed for pedestrians and not cars.

I think most people would rather walk down a street in London on a chilly, cloudy day in early November than on a four lane highway past strip malls in Houston on a pleasant day in April, all else being equal.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:18 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
That rowhouse neighborhood looks great. Modest but very nice.

And the lack of setbacks and curb cuts are major contributing factors, alongside the narrow street width and unbroken building line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:22 PM
Stay Stoked Brah Stay Stoked Brah is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
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.
in that Philadelphia street view image as a pedestrian you would have to walk in the street because the sidewalk is full of garbage cans, a contractor, a parked car and other obstacles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:28 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
That rowhouse neighborhood looks great. Modest but very nice.

And the lack of setbacks and curb cuts are major contributing factors, alongside the narrow street width and unbroken building line.
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. In commercial areas, sure, narrow setbacks make sense, but not in a neighborhood. And isn't it interesting that the more car oriented neighborhood has less visible cars?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:56 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.