Yet another walkability city rank - do you agree?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I've stayed in/near West Hollywood and it seems like a very auto-oriented community, and the Sunset Strip is definitely an auto-oriented corridor, with the driver-oriented billboards, drive-in everything, etc.

Sunset isn't what it used to be. It's a lot more corporate and elitist now. A lot of the businesses have been shuttered in favor of office and residential. They even demolished the historic House of Blues on Sunset to put up a generic residential tower. But it's still a thriving commercial strip with legendary performance venues, with live music and crowds spilling out onto the street every weekend. Maybe not a big deal anymore by LA standards, but it would be almost anywhere else, which was my point, auto-orientated or not.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Sounds like the issue with Miami. Take Brickell. One of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the US outside of NYC. But with street infrastructure built for a low density suburb. Hence South Florida always leading the US in pedestrian fatalities.

Keep in mind, these are ~100k per square mile census blocks. Some of the densest in the US.


You wanted to get to the metrorail station across the street? We have a long stretch of road with no lights or anything to stop cars, construction (which is constant) blocking a sidewalk forcing people on to the street, and away from where the actual cross walk is...etc. Yet there are still pedestrians (waiting to sprint across the street):
(look 360): https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7653...7i16384!8i8192


Even the more commercial streets like Miami Ave: random curb cuts with cars exiting garages, random foliage cutting off half the side walk which is narrow to begin with, sidewalk cafe's choking off the other half the side walk, oh and lets throw in a random BK drive thru exit directly onto the street:
(360) https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7659...7i16384!8i8192

Brickell is one of the strangest neighborhoods I've ever seen. By all rights it should be a thriving urban center, and it has a lot of foot traffic to make it happen, but it's dominated by those blank walls (and that one lonely strip mall with the Burger King). And the funny thing about it is that those parking podiums have busy shopping centers inside. It just totally turns its back to the street. That's one reason I prefer smaller, finer-grained, more human scale urbanism over giant condo towers.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Brickell is one of the strangest neighborhoods I've ever seen. By all rights it should be a thriving urban center, and it has a lot of foot traffic to make it happen, but it's dominated by those blank walls (and that one lonely strip mall with the Burger King). And the funny thing about it is that those parking podiums have busy shopping centers inside. It just totally turns its back to the street. That's one reason I prefer smaller, finer-grained, more human scale urbanism over giant condo towers.

It reminds me of Streetervile in Chicago. Tons of 40-60 story buildings but boring as hell to walk around. And I lived there. And you'd expected to see alot more pedestrians with all those towers.

Navy pier tourists probably generate half the pedestrian counts east of Michigan.

But at least you can walk to Michigan Ave/river north unlike Brickell.

[badrunner]

Miami actually has some nice vibrant walkable areas. Great beaches and lots of busy touristy places. But not to the extent that LA has. There are some similarities to LA but no vast expanse of semi-walkable urban fabric or historic prewar urban core, and there's almost nothing once you go inland. Still I think it gets underrated on this forum while some sleepy older cities get overrated.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Miami actually has some nice vibrant walkable areas. Great beaches and lots of busy touristy places. But not to the extent that LA has. There are some similarities to LA but no vast expanse of semi-walkable urban fabric or historic prewar urban core, and there's almost nothing once you go inland. Still I think it gets underrated on this forum while some sleepy older cities get overrated.

I've been to Miami and didn't find it particularly worse or better than LA in terms of walkability. A decent amount of busy, vibrant walkable areas (not as much as LA in terms of number of areas) but overall you kinda have to drive to these places, and then get out and walk around.

[craigs]

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.

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.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by craigs

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.

I was talking about South LA, not downtown. Downtown isn't poor, has good form, and you'd expect foot traffic. South LA has foot traffic in spite of limitations, probably due to greater poverty, informal commerce and non-choice transit riders. Figueroa is a semi-industrial, spotty corridor yet still has pedestrians.

And I still don't understand what nightlife has to do with the discussion. Nightlife is an amenity, not necessarily a pedestrian inducer. Someone taking Uber to some bar isn't necessarily contributing to pedestrian counts. I also don't understand what the gay share has to do with anything, as if sex orientation negatively correlates with driving, biking or Uber.

Maybe SM Boulevard has decent foot traffic, but Sunset, which was the focus of the discussion, and the iconic WeHo corridor, doesn't, and is definitely built around cars. SM Boulevard seems very wide and auto-oriented too, however. Granted, that doesn't necessarily preclude pedestrian traffic, and amenity filled areas will have some foot traffic. The link doesn't really appear to be particularly definitive, as it's referring to a pilot project, where an intersection is temporarily blockaded, and they're referring to peak counts, not average counts.

[ChiSoxRox]

Being in Boston, I can see why this city is at or near the top in these rankings. Boston has a pretty entrancing combination of human scale, density, and intact urban fabric. By human scale, I mean the small block size and how the city's age means the design was originally for a city on foot, and that has propagated. Meanwhile, you don't have nearly as intense a renewal cycle as NYC, meaning neighborhoods like the North End and Back Bay have survived virtually untouched from the foot and horse days.

I'm specifically in Allston, where the vast student population helps enforce this walking culture, due to the low car ownership rates and the T giving a one seat ride to BU, BC, and downtown. I've made the walk from Allston to downtown multiple times, and it's almost 5 miles of pedestrian bustle and thriving shop corridors.

Boston was built on foot, hasn't been either reworked for the car or blasted by suburbanization, and it shows.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I was talking about South LA, not downtown. Downtown isn't poor, has good form, and you'd expect foot traffic. South LA has foot traffic in spite of limitations, probably due to greater poverty, informal commerce and non-choice transit riders. Figueroa is a semi-industrial, spotty corridor yet still has pedestrians.

There are some very friendly and helpful pedestrians down there on Fig in South LA .

But I don't think anyone was holding up South LA, or East LA or Westlake as examples of LA's walkability. Throngs of tourists aren't coming here to walk those parts of town. They're going to Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Hollywood. There have also been examples of non-touristy areas that see plenty of foot traffic (Melrose, Fairfax, Montana) from local residents who are able to enjoy bustling city life without ever getting in a car.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And I still don't understand what nightlife has to do with the discussion. Nightlife is an amenity, not necessarily a pedestrian inducer. Someone taking Uber to some bar isn't necessarily contributing to pedestrian counts. I also don't understand what the gay share has to do with anything, as if sex orientation negatively correlates with driving, biking or Uber.

I wouldn't be surprised if that correlation existed. I mean it seems obvious that that community tends to cluster in more urban locales that tend to be more progressive and accepting. I would bet gays have a higher walkshare, bikeshare and transit share % than Americans as a whole.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by badrunner

There are some very friendly and helpful pedestrians down there

I wouldn't be surprised if that correlation existed. I mean it seems obvious that that community tends to cluster in more urban locales that tend to be more progressive and accepting. I would bet gays have a higher walkshare, bikeshare and transit share % than Americans as a whole.

It's true for car-centric cities that have gay enclaves, for instance Wilton Manors (Fort Lauderdale, FL) or West Hollywood (Los Angeles, CA).

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And I still don't understand what nightlife has to do with the discussion.

You stated that you didn't "believe" West Hollywood had high pedestrian counts, and in response I provided a link showing that it often does, along Santa Monica Boulevard, where many people head after work and on weekends.

Nightlife is an amenity, not necessarily a pedestrian inducer. Someone taking Uber to some bar isn't necessarily contributing to pedestrian counts. I also don't understand what the gay share has to do with anything, as if sex orientation negatively correlates with driving, biking or Uber.

Let me try and clear up your confusion--I was adding an explanation for the high pedestrian count in West Hollywood that I linked to above. Santa Monica Blvd.'s many blocks of shops, gyms, restaurants, bars, and clubs--many of which are oriented toward Southern California's LGBT+ community--drive the surge in pedestrian activity there after work hours and on weekends. West Hollywood also has plenty of dense residential areas adjacent to, and within an easy walk of, Santa Monica Blvd.

The link doesn't really appear to be particularly definitive, as it's referring to a pilot project, where an intersection is temporarily blockaded, and they're referring to peak counts, not average counts.

The link is definitive in that it provides a pedestrian count for Santa Monica Blvd. at North Robertson, which belies your previously-stated disbelief that West Hollywood has any high pedestrian count. It does.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

It's definitely an improvement but it's still not what I would consider to be ideal urban redevelopment. It's a mixed use development on with residential on top of a Target which is great in theory. But execution appears to be poor, as you've got a massive block long podium with what appears to be only one small side entrance which is not even on Vermont. Like, why not put two large, welcoming entrances on both corners of Vermont and fill in the voids with more street level retail. Instead, it's just a podium screen and some windows to look inside Target. It's probably because they expect most people to enter the Target via the parking garage. And it's still very autocentric with parking for 565 vehicles to 228 units. That's a pretty excessive parking ratio of 2.5:1, even when factoring some of the parking is likely set aside for Target customers.

At least they placed the parking entrance/exit on 11th and not Vermont, to minimize curb cuts on the main corridor.

I think LA can and should do better. It's not just about urbanizing faster, but also urbanizing better.

[IMG]h[/IMG]

Considering that is a heavily car oriented area, I don't think this is bad at all. You have to start with projects like this and allow less auto centric projects to piggy back over time.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by JManc

Considering that is a heavily car oriented area, I don't think this is bad at all. You have to start with projects like this and allow less auto centric projects to piggy back over time.

Also, the more car centric a city already is, the harder it is to make any mid to high density zoning changes without confronting political suicide or NIMBY uproar or lengthy studies, etc . As much as we may want it to happen, you can’t just build anything on any given property if it’s not zoned for it.

[Quixote]

In 2027, this will be reality:

Pershing Square (heart of DTLA) to:

Wilshire/Fairfax (heart of Miracle Mile): 16 minutes
Wilshire/Rodeo (heart of Beverly Hills): 21 minutes
Heart of Century City: 23 minutes
Heart of Westwood: 25 minutes

Wilshire/Western to:

Wilshire/Rodeo: 12 minutes
Century City: 14 minutes
Westwood: 16 minutes

...

For comparison:

Heart of Brooklyn's urban core (Atlantic Avenue / Barclays Center) to heart of Midtown Manhattan (Rockefeller Center): 21 minutes

Downtown Berkeley / Cal Campus to heart of SF (Montgomery Street): 24 minutes