HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 7:40 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
What?! Hahahaha. I'm just getting to this thread now.

This list a heap load of garbage and just proves you can twist "metrics" to really suit whatever narrative you want. There's no reality in this world where people would consider Pittsburgh, Seattle and Portland to be more walkable cities or metropolitan areas than Philadelphia.

I would say pound for pound, Philadelphia would probably rank 3rd behind NYC and Chicago IF the city was more gentrified, redeveloped and cleaned up. Taking into account that while Philadelphia has a TON of walkable areas in the city, there are still plenty of neighborhoods that need cleaned up. Even in the suburbs, there are a ton of walkable areas, but some areas need further redevelopment like Camden, Chester and Norristown.

With that said, a more realistic ranking, taking into account every area someone would consider walkable (a central commercial core or main street with shops, restaurants, cafes, bars, groceries, amenities, etc.) would probably look something like this:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Los Angeles (on sheer size alone)
4. Boston
5. San Francisco
6. Washington DC
7. Philadelphia
8. Miami

...the rest. It's pretty hard after there. While I want to say Seattle, the sheer size of the Metropolitan Areas of Atlanta, Houston and Dallas alone are easily enough to put them up there pretty highly. They're going to have walkable neighborhoods and towns by default.

Still, the rankings by this Smart Growth America study is pretty much garbage.

Respectfully, no way is LA the third most walkable place in the US.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 8:06 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
LA has a gigantic geography of sorta walkable semi-urbanism, but yeah, seems weird to weight everything beyond unwalkable as the same.

As with density, it makes more sense to weight walkability, or Venice, Italy is as walkable as Costa Mesa, CA, on the basis that both are theoretically walkable, which makes little sense.

If you really want to be ultra-pedantic, almost everywhere is walkable, as it generally isn't illegal to walk along sidewalk-free roads, excepting freeways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 8:06 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Respectfully, no way is LA the third most walkable place in the US.
Agreed. There are neighborhoods and pockets here and there that are very walkable but they are chopped up by sprawl and nowhere near as cohesive as some of those other cities. I can walk from one end of SF to the other. Can't do that easily in LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 8:30 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave8721 View Post
Top 10 for urban social equity:
This is a great new nonsense term.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 8:32 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Respectfully, no way is LA the third most walkable place in the US.
If you're talking about number of walkable neighborhoods and towns... then yes, I probably is actually. LA is probably number 3.

If you're talking about cohesive walkability? Unbroken, interconnected walkability? Then no, it's not... but those are two completely different things in my opinion.

If you're talking about unbroken, interconnected walkability, then the rankings would probably be:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. San Francisco
5. Boston
6. Washington DC
7. Los Angeles
8. Seattle
9. Miami

From there, it gets murkier...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 10:15 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Agreed. There are neighborhoods and pockets here and there that are very walkable but they are chopped up by sprawl and nowhere near as cohesive as some of those other cities. I can walk from one end of SF to the other. Can't do that easily in LA.
Okay, but here you are using "walkability" to mean "not too far to walk from end to end." In this sense, yes--we can "easily" walk across San Francisco because it is so geographically small, while Los Angeles' extensive geography is indeed "too far to walk."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 10:27 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
There is no San Francisco sized area in LA that has a similar level of walkability to SF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 10:29 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
If you're talking about number of walkable neighborhoods and towns... then yes, I probably is actually. LA is probably number 3.

If you're talking about cohesive walkability? Unbroken, interconnected walkability? Then no, it's not... but those are two completely different things in my opinion.

If you're talking about unbroken, interconnected walkability, then the rankings would probably be:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. San Francisco
5. Boston
6. Washington DC
7. Los Angeles
8. Seattle
9. Miami

From there, it gets murkier...
I think you could cut the list of after number 6. Is Miami considerably more walkable than, say, Portland or New Orleans? I wouldn't say so. You have the big urban 6, and then everything else. LA is a grey area as it has lots of walkable areas that are disconnected from each other, and lots of people do walk despite built conditions that make walking somewhat unpleasant.

I'm also surprised people claiming Pittsburgh as being some super walkable place. Not my experience with that city. The topography alone there makes walking a challenge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 10:34 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
There is no San Francisco sized area in LA that has a similar level of walkability to SF.
Agreed. LA was purposefully designed to not be like SF and NE Corridor cities. Those cities are designed with a pedestrian orientation with minimal (if any) setback requirements, while LA is built out in a quasi-suburban, car-centric style throughout the city. You can still walk from place to place, but it doesn't have the pedestrian orientation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 10:44 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
There is no San Francisco sized area in LA that has a similar level of walkability to SF.
Define "walkability."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 10:52 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
There is no San Francisco sized area in LA that has a similar level of walkability to SF.
I'm sure if you moved the map of San Francisco over certain areas of LA, you could probably find something. SF is tiny.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 11:13 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Define "walkability."
I think that's the crux of it. There have been a couple different definitions used so far with some people implying that walkability is mostly just the physical ability to walk while others suggesting that it's an inviting/safe/appealing area to walk.

My view is that we need to consider why and when people walk if we want to answer what is walkable. On its face, walking is purely a form of transportation, but in reality, many people walk in whole or in part for other reason. There's a common phrase, "going for a walk" which implies someone walking for the sake of it such as to get exercise, reduce stress, sight see, or just for basic pleasure. So walking can be done for reasons other than transportation. But it stands to reason that if people get other benefits from walking, they may at times want to combine those things with transportation. In other words, choosing to use it as transportation because it also yields other benefits. It's been a long time since most people in the global north had to walking as transportation. There's almost always an alternative whether it be transit, cars, bikes or other. So the most walkable places are the best at competing with the alternatives when it comes to transportation. Whatever the alternatives may be in a particular setting.

So if a walkable area is one that people find walking appealing for all the various reasons people tend to walk, then using a utilitarian concept of walkability such as distance between destinations would be incomplete. It would be like saying there's no such thing as an unwatchable TV show as long as the show contains video and audio that people can physically look at regardless of how good or bad it is. If so, a show with nothing but dogs crapping on the side of the road would be just as watchable as an impeccably written TV series. But most people would say that the former is unwatchable because it not only doesn't attract you to watch it, but in fact repels you. Just like walking in certain pedestrian-hostile environments (dense tho they may be).

But I do agree with Doady in that density is probably the single biggest factor. I just assign greater importance to some of the other factors than he seems to.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 11:35 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Okay, but here you are using "walkability" to mean "not too far to walk from end to end." In this sense, yes--we can "easily" walk across San Francisco because it is so geographically small, while Los Angeles' extensive geography is indeed "too far to walk."
LA is like a very dense Houston but still very much car centric and the built environment is based around that. When I visit LA, a car is an absolute must whereas when I go into SF, I park and leave it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 11:50 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Define "walkability."
LA isn't some walkable urban paradise where everyone is walking, biking and taking transit to work. But what you do see in LA in abundance are actual large crowds of people walking around and enjoying themselves in vibrant street scenes. It's not contiguous or peak urbanity, but there is just a massive amount of it. It's funny because this kind of thing is really noticeable by its absence when I visit other cities that are deemed more "walkable" than LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2023, 3:03 AM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
I'm sure if you moved the map of San Francisco over certain areas of LA, you could probably find something. SF is tiny.
SF for over 100 yrs has had its own good qualities, including the one of walkability. At a 180 degree glance, it's easy on the eyes of the tourist, resident, visitor. Which makes it ideal for a hop & a skip vacation, staycation, at least in the past. As with other urban areas in the US right now, SF is also going through a rough patch. But through the yrs the city's looks & walkability haven't necessarily been balanced by the complexity of its various nooks & crannies. Or the things that make any city interesting. SF has its cultural scene, tourist spots, points of interest. But I recall a person from the east coast over 20 yrs ago describing SF as a 'two day city'.

In turn, I recall reading a person...I think he was an executive from the midwest or east...mention that LA was less similar to major urban areas in that while its core wasn't strong (his comment was also made over 15 to 20 yrs ago too, when LA's urban hoods showed the after effects of yrs of burbanization), there are more points of interest beyond that center.

When I browse through vids like these, I realize that the LA area, not a typical walkable urban scene, is its own animal. Or in Latin: Sui generis.

https://www.youtube.com/@JSOCAL1/videos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2023, 4:03 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
LA isn't some walkable urban paradise where everyone is walking, biking and taking transit to work. But what you do see in LA in abundance are actual large crowds of people walking around and enjoying themselves in vibrant street scenes. It's not contiguous or peak urbanity, but there is just a massive amount of it. It's funny because this kind of thing is really noticeable by its absence when I visit other cities that are deemed more "walkable" than LA.
This.
If you just go to Venice (4 walkable areas) -Santa Monica (4 areas) -Swatelle/UCLA-Beverly Hills (3 areas) alone you're gonna see alot of pedestrians. I bet Santa Monica/Venice on their own have way more pedestrians than many big city downtowns on the weekend.

I'd think only NYC has more of these places. I believe the Actionkid youtube channel guy said the same thing. He's a New yorker who vacationed in la and walked everywhere.

Last edited by LA21st; Mar 1, 2023 at 4:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2023, 5:08 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 5,935
Take my view with a grain or two of salt because I haven’t been to LA in 10 years. But my feeling is that LA has a comparatively high amount of walkers despite its physical build. This is what happens after a city hits a certain size threshold; due to so many people living in the area, even small percentages make for big volumes.

Look at all the SE Asian mega cities. Not a single one is walkable in the way we’re defining it here. The pedestrian experience in Bangkok and KL and even SG are all pretty poor. But those streets are packed with pedestrians at or above NYC volumes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2023, 5:20 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,992
La's pedestrian has definitely gone up the past 10 years.
All the new mixed use /housing in urban areas has a noticeable affect throughout the metro area.

By the time the Olympics arrive, it will be more so.
Even places like Sunset and Western, which is a strip mall hell, could be a vibrant, walkable place in 4 years. It's exciting to see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2023, 7:59 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
There is no San Francisco sized area in LA that has a similar level of walkability to SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
LA is like a very dense Houston but still very much car centric and the built environment is based around that. When I visit LA, a car is an absolute must whereas when I go into SF, I park and leave it.
This has been my experience as well. First, the walkable neighborhoods are too far apart so a car is a must. In SF the walkable neighborhoods flow seamlessly into one another, obviating the need for a car.

And second and probably more important, the neighborhoods are not really on the same level in terms of peak urbanity. I can’t think of any LA equivalent Tenderloin, Chinatown, North Beach, Hayes Valley, Mission District, Haight-Ashbury, Alamo Square, Inner Richmond, Inner Sunset, etc where you have densely populated neighborhoods situated on top of and around busy and vibrant commercial corridors. Ktown probably comes the closest in terms of density and vibrancy but the built form is noticeably more auto centric. Then you have places like Sawtelle and Venice but they are far less densely populated and autocentric to a degree as well (at least Sawtelle).

Even if you cherry picked and cut the most urban LA neighborhoods and pasted them all around the periphery of downtown LA to form something contiguous the size of SF, I still don’t think it would create an area close to approaching the walkability of any of the top 6 cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2023, 8:40 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
This has been my experience as well. First, the walkable neighborhoods are too far apart so a car is a must. In SF the walkable neighborhoods flow seamlessly into one another, obviating the need for a car.

And second and probably more important, the neighborhoods are not really on the same level in terms of peak urbanity. I can’t think of any LA equivalent Tenderloin, Chinatown, North Beach, Hayes Valley, Mission District, Haight-Ashbury, Alamo Square, Inner Richmond, Inner Sunset, etc where you have densely populated neighborhoods situated on top of and around busy and vibrant commercial corridors. Ktown probably comes the closest in terms of density and vibrancy but the built form is noticeably more auto centric. Then you have places like Sawtelle and Venice but they are far less densely populated and autocentric to a degree as well (at least Sawtelle).

Even if you cherry picked and cut the most urban LA neighborhoods and pasted them all around the periphery of downtown LA to form something contiguous the size of SF, I still don’t think it would create an area close to approaching the walkability of any of the top 6 cities.
Define "walkability."
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 1:49 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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