Yet another walkability city rank - do you agree? - Page 5

LA21st · #81 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

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.

I don't know about that. It would be behind NYC, Chicago and maybe SF.

It would easily be above DC, which isn't that urban outside of its core.

iheartthed · #82 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

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.

Yeah, agreed here. DTLA is a good downtown and taken by itself could probably match DTSF in isolation. But I can't really think of any city sized area of LA that is convenient to exist in without a car.

Not much in LA really goes beyond Oakland-level urbanity and walkability, IMO. And Oakland by itself wouldn't be considered a spectacular urban experience.

eschaton · #83 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs

Define "walkability."

This is a complicated question.

Some people define walkability as meaning just "a place where people walk" but IMHO it needs to be defined in a better fashion than this. For example, the boardwalk on a beach may be constructed to be very pedestrian friendly, but aside from a small number of hotel rooms (and an even smaller number of homes) no one is actually within the critical 15-minute walkshed, which means the vast majority of people drive there, park, and then walk around.

Indeed, a lot of traditional downtown areas of smaller cities and towns have good form, but in practice don't have a high number of residents nearby. Like, West Hartford, CT has a cute downtown area with lots of activity, and a nice consistent street wall, if a bit low-slung (all 1-2 story buildings). But if you look at it from above, it's clear that giant surface parking lots are shielded from street view in the rear of the blocks, and that it's immediately abutted by low-density single-family housing (there's a small new urbanist cluster with some apartments, but it's a few hundred people tops).

In the end I think walkability comes down the question of whether a business district can survive predominantly on local foot traffic, whether it be from local residents, local employees, or local students. Obviously there will always be destination businesses, and because of inconvenience of most neighborhood-to-neighborhood mass transit, a lot of those folks will drive, but fundamentally an area can only be defined as a walkable neighborhood if most people utilize the amenities through walking.

homebucket · #84 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 5:10 PM**

Wikipedia:

Quote:

Walkability is a term for planning concepts best understood by the mixed-use of amenities in high-density neighborhoods where people can access said amenities by foot. It is based on the idea that urban spaces should be more than just transport corridors designed for maximum vehicle throughput. Instead, it should be relatively complete livable spaces that serve a variety of uses, users, and transportation modes and reduce the need for cars for travel.

The term 'walkability' was primarily invented in the 1960s due to Jane Jacobs' revolution in urban studies. In recent years, walkability has become popular because of its health, economic, and environmental benefits. It is an essential concept of sustainable urban design. Factors influencing walkability include the presence or absence and quality of footpaths, sidewalks or other pedestrian rights-of-way, traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, building accessibility, and safety, among others.

One proposed definition for walkability is: "The extent to which the built environment is friendly to the presence of people living, shopping, visiting, enjoying or spending time in an area". Walkability relies on the interdependencies between density, mix, and access in synergy. The urban DMA (Density, Mix, Access) is a set of synergies between the ways cities concentrate people and buildings, how they mix different people and activities, and the access networks used to navigate through them. These factors cannot be taken singularly. Rather than an ideal functional mix, there is a mix of mixes and interdependencies between formal, social, and functional mixes. Likewise, walk-able access cannot be reduced to any singular measure of connectivity, permeability, or catchment but is dependent on destinations and geared to metropolitan access through public transit nodes. While DMA is based on walkability measures, popular‘ walk score’ or ‘rate mystreet’ websites offer more metrics to connect urban morphology with better environmental and health outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkability

edale · #85 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs

Define "walkability."

You've posted this a few times in this thread. Why don't you define walkability?

edale · #86 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

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.

Totally agree. LA has pretty impressive pedestrian activity (in areas) largely despite its built environment.

This stretch of Vermont in Pico-Union/Koreatown is a good example of the above. I think most people would acknowledge this is a less than ideal urban condition for walking. There are a ton of strip malls with surface parking separating businesses from the sidewalk, wide streets, blank walls, minimal tree coverage...and it's frankly ugly. But you have sidewalk vendors and a crush of pedestrians nonetheless. You can find similar scenes across much of LA.

citywatch · #87 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Not much in LA really goes beyond Oakland-level urbanity and walkability, IMO. And Oakland by itself wouldn't be considered a spectacular urban experience.

You're correct, as the LA area is not very walkable. however, just as LA had one of the largest transit lines in the US, if not world...the red cars of the early 1900s...dtla around the same time had some of the busiest sidewalks, if not busiest, on the west coast. A sense of that is seen in this silent era movie....

• Video Link

a more recent movie...or cartoon...made light of LA's old transit lines.

• Video Link

From that to this, a large metro area of dozens of communities, where walkability doesn't connect most of them. This guy is originally from London, one of the most ped friendly cities in the world, but he seems to get that LA is its own animal. Not walkable in the traditional sense, but more complicated & interesting. There are cities throughout the US & world that are far more walkable than LA is, but their level of interesting & multifaceted isn't as high.

https://www.youtube.com/@TheBritishBlokeRealtor/videos

Nouvellecosse · #88 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

You've posted this a few times in this thread. Why don't you define walkability?

Oh I didn't notice they've been repeating it.

Often when people do this they're presenting an argument disguised as a question. The hidden argument is often something like, "The term in question isn't clear or specific enough to be useful and therefore should be abandoned." They repeat the question under the assumption that their argument is correct and that people will agree as soon as they think critically about the term. They assume people can't provide a coherent answer since none exists and therefore, presenting this type of veiled negative argument (which requires much less effort than making an explicit positive argument) is enough.

Of course, the argument is often incorrect (as in this case) and it's totally possible to provide a workable answer. In such cases, repeating the veiled argument just becomes tedious.

homebucket · #89 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

Totally agree. LA has pretty impressive pedestrian activity (in areas) largely despite its built environment.

This stretch of Vermont in Pico-Union/Koreatown is a good example of the above. I think most people would acknowledge this is a less than ideal urban condition for walking. There are a ton of strip malls with surface parking separating businesses from the sidewalk, wide streets, blank walls, minimal tree coverage...and it's frankly ugly. But you have sidewalk vendors and a crush of pedestrians nonetheless. You can find similar scenes across much of LA.

That is B- level urbanism at best. And then just up the street you've got this. Strip malls with surface parking lots on all four corners. You keep going up the street and it's more of the same. Wide streets, numerous curb cuts, no bike lane to speak of. It's just built differently whether LA forumers like to admit it or not.

It's just very different from something like this, this, or this.

Prahaboheme · #90 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st

I don't know about that. It would be behind NYC, Chicago and maybe SF.

It would easily be above DC, which isn't that urban outside of its core.

What do you mean by the "core" of DC?

Crawford · #91 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:17 PM**

LA is a bit different in that the denser areas tend to be poorer, so there's pedestrian activity in spite of the less-than-amazing streetscape. All things equal, poor(er) areas tend to have more pedestrians than rich(er), bc the poorer residents aren't choice walkers and the richer residents are.

You see this in Mexico City, where the rich areas with nice streetscape have far fewer pedestrians than the poor areas with crappy streetscape. Or if you cross from the suburbs into Detroit, you start seeing pedestrians, even though the streetscape is usually worse. Pedestrian counts aren't irrelevant, but they often have a weak relationship with pedestrian orientation.

iheartthed · #92 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA is a bit different in that the denser areas tend to be poorer, so there's pedestrian activity in spite of the less-than-amazing streetscape. All things equal, poor(er) areas tend to have more pedestrians than rich(er), bc the poorer residents aren't choice walkers and the richer residents are.

You see this in Mexico City, where the rich areas with nice streetscape have far fewer pedestrians than the poor areas with crappy streetscape. Or if you cross from the suburbs into Detroit, you start seeing pedestrians, even though the streetscape is usually worse. Pedestrian counts aren't irrelevant, but they often have a weak relationship with pedestrian orientation.

I don't think that's what's going on. The videos posted above were of downtown LA with amenities catering to the professional crowd. I also don't quite agree that the streetscapes are more conducive to pedestrians in the inner ring suburbs of Detroit.

West 7 Mile Road in Detroit: https://goo.gl/maps/qCwMa3HRtYqeSwtn7

Exactly 2 miles north on 9 Mile Road in Southfield: https://goo.gl/maps/i2Ep4o91dvai3Boj9

9 Mile Road in Oak Park: https://goo.gl/maps/gej66vjReBkZfpp1A

People are more likely to walk when there are places to walk to. Even in Oak Park, which didn't allow 9 Mile Road to be widened into a stroad, there are just fewer places to walk than there are on the Detroit side of the border.

Crawford · #93 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think that's what's going on. The videos posted above were of downtown LA with amenities catering to the professional crowd. I also don't quite agree that the streetscapes are more conducive to pedestrians in the inner ring suburbs of Detroit.

West 7 Mile Road in Detroit: https://goo.gl/maps/qCwMa3HRtYqeSwtn7

Exactly 2 miles north on 9 Mile Road in Southfield: https://goo.gl/maps/i2Ep4o91dvai3Boj9

9 Mile Road in Oak Park: https://goo.gl/maps/gej66vjReBkZfpp1A

People are more likely to walk when there are places to walk to. Even in Oak Park, which didn't allow 9 Mile Road to be widened into a stroad, there are just fewer places to walk than there are on the Detroit side of the border.

Eh, I think this is a bit of cherry-picking. Oak Park/Southfield are newer/postwar and adjacent areas of Detroit are older/prewar, so Detroit will naturally have more pedestrians.

I mean apples-apples. So crossing from Ferndale into Detroit, or Redford into Detroit, or Dearborn into Detroit or Eastpointe into Detroit (i.e. areas with similar built form, density and historical development). You immediately see pedestrians when crossing into Detroit, bc you have a lot of poor people w/o vehicles. Just take Grand River or Woodward or Gratiot from the burbs into Detroit.

Redford to Detroit is really dramatic. You cross the line, and the people magically appear. The bus stops and corner party stores are natural activity nodes. You see a lot of people who look like walking isn't a choice mode (elderly, handicapped, indigent). Compare around Rosedale Park with a few miles west.

summersm343 · #94 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:48 PM**

I think something that can be defined as walkable is a neighborhood or town with an intact and solid commercial core, with a nice street-wall, at least two blocks in length, surrounded by residential. A neighborhood or town where residents who live there can walk to things - amenities, retail, restaurants, banks, pharmacies, groceries, parks, etc.... and live a lot, most or all of their life without a car if they wanted to.

I think the definition of walkable is as something as simple as that.

summersm343 · #95 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:55 PM**

iheartthed · #96 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Eh, I think this is a bit of cherry-picking. Oak Park/Southfield are newer/postwar and adjacent areas of Detroit are older/prewar, so Detroit will naturally have more pedestrians.

I mean apples-apples. So crossing from Ferndale into Detroit, or Redford into Detroit, or Dearborn into Detroit or Eastpointe into Detroit (i.e. areas with similar built form, density and historical development). You immediately see pedestrians when crossing into Detroit, bc you have a lot of poor people w/o vehicles. Just take Grand River or Woodward or Gratiot from the burbs into Detroit.

Redford to Detroit is really dramatic. You cross the line, and the people magically appear. The bus stops and corner party stores are natural activity nodes. You see a lot of people who look like walking isn't a choice mode (elderly, handicapped, indigent). Compare around Rosedale Park with a few miles west.

Ferndale seems like it has more pedestrians than adjacent areas of Detroit, so I still don't really agree with that theory.

There will be more pedestrians here: https://goo.gl/maps/XWB32qBb2iKxXscE6

Than there will be here, roughly 2 miles away: https://goo.gl/maps/m4WxBsfEmP7PxY2L7

For obvious reasons.

sopas ej · #97 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA is a bit different in that the denser areas tend to be poorer, so there's pedestrian activity in spite of the less-than-amazing streetscape. All things equal, poor(er) areas tend to have more pedestrians than rich(er), bc the poorer residents aren't choice walkers and the richer residents are.

?

West Hollywood, though technically not part of the City of LA, is pretty dense, with 19,000/sqaure mile. You see people walking through there/around there all the time. And it's not exactly a poor area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

People are more likely to walk when there are places to walk to.

Yes, thank you. Now, the quality of that walk---how pleasant, how convenient, etc., is another matter.

As an aside, and anecdotally, I've known a few people who have never owned a car in LA. In the late 90s, I took an extension class at UCLA. My professor was an Irishman who at that point in time had been living in LA for about 10 years, and when he told the class "I've been living in LA for 10 years and I still don't drive" we were all surprised. As it turns out, though, he basically never left the Westside. He lived not far from campus, and he walked or took the bus everywhere... within the Westside. Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus is actually quite handy to take all over the Westside, and the fare is even cheaper than LA's Metro buses/trains.

If you live in Pasadena and don't really leave the Pasadena area, it's possible to get around without a car. In fact last year, I was without a car for a week while my car was in the body shop because I had a little accident with it (on the freeway, a car in the next lane hit a traffic cone and shoved it over to my lane and I couldn't avoid hitting it---I was so pissed off... but hey, thank goodness for comprehensive insurance coverage, I was only out 200 bucks for the deductible). I only live 8 miles from work, and it only takes me about 45-50 minutes to get to work by bus (I have to take 2 buses). Pasadena is not only served by LA County Metro but also Foothill Transit, LA's DASH buses even go into Pasadena, Montebello Transit goes right to the border of South Pasadena... Pasadena even has its own bus transit system. And, my TAP card is valid on many other bus transit systems in LA County.

Hmm, which makes me wanna ask an off-topic question. I heard that Chicago/Cook County only has 2 bus transit systems, one that serves the city proper and one that serves the suburbs. Is that true? LA County has a myriad of bus transit agencies, many cities have their own bus systems, all overlapping with one another's. I just assumed it was that way in other US metro areas.

Quixote · #98 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 7:08 PM**

LA's "walkable" in the sense that there are amenities within walking distance as well as amenities that can be accessed by bus. This is made possible by LA's endless grid and network of commercial arterials.

When people say that LA isn't "walkable," I gather they're saying that it's not pedestrian-friendly owing to the urban design (i.e. wide streets, narrow sidewalks, etc.) and lack of viable transit options (i.e. rail) over a wide expanse of geography.

Build rail where the people actually want to go and build mixed-use developments along these commercial corridors, and I think you have a different story.

Crawford · #99 Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

?

West Hollywood, though technically not part of the City of LA, is pretty dense, with 19,000/sqaure mile. You see people walking through there/around there all the time. And it's not exactly a poor area.

I don't believe West Hollywood has particularly high pedestrian counts. Definitely not higher than poorer areas to the east.

Places like Beverly Hills, Century City, Brentwood along Wilshire, those highrise condos east of Westwood Village, the area around Beverly Center, even the area around the Grove/Farmers Market, are pretty dense, and don't have much pedestrian activity. Then you go to East LA or South LA and see lots of pedestrians, even along really spotty corridors. Figueroa is nowhere near as urban or pedestrian friendly as Wilshire, but usually more pedestrians.

I think the main difference is choice pedestrians vs. non-choice pedestrians. It's the same reason more people are riding the buses in South LA than on the Westside. South LA isn't more transit-friendly, but it has more people who use transit.

JManc · #**100** Posted **Mar 1, 2023, 7:33 PM**

Ok speaking of LA and walking around, I want to fly down there for a few days and don't want to drive. Suggestions as to walkable areas to stay?