Quote:
Originally Posted by edale
You've posted this a few times in this thread. Why don't you define walkability?
|
First of all, I posted that in response to forumers who declared a place wasn't "walkable," but who failed to explain what they meant. Second, and in that same vein, don't play it like I'm the only one questioning how others define walkability. This whole thread started with a list of cities ranked by their "walkability," which the usual suspects rejected out of hand. Most didn't bother to look into the criteria the study authors used to arrive at their conclusions, and not one of them stated which metric they would change in order to achieve the rankings that they
feel are more accurate. Third, several forumers subsequent to my question have posted thoughtful definitions of walkability that, agree or not, are at least out there for people to consider in a way that we cannot do when people are merely basing their conclusions on feelings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
I don't believe West Hollywood has particularly high pedestrian counts. . . .
|
You should reconsider your beliefs in light of the facts. For context, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation counted an average of over
1,500 pedestrians per hour on Figueroa between 7th and 8th (downtown) during the weekday. Meanwhile, the intersection of Santa Monica Blvd. and North Robertson in West Hollywood sees
2,000 pedestrians per hour in the evenings. There are dozens of blocks of restaurants, bars, gyms, shops, etc. on Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, as it encompasses one of the busiest and biggest gayborhoods in the world.