Major cities with few walkable neighborhoods

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The built environment is not constructed with pedestrians in mind. It's built with cars in mind. The main commercial drags are all four-lane speedways. Sidewalks are relatively narrow with few street trees. Storefronts are generally placed pretty far back from the sidewalk with parking in front. Residential is rarely on the upper floors above commercial. It's a suburban building typology. Dense suburban, yes, but suburban nonetheless.

Most storefronts in Koreatown, (or most of older LA) face the street.
It's not Dallas or Atlanta.

[JManc]

I get the gist of the thread but a good walkable area...to me is where won't get hit by a bus or someone doing selfies in an SUV.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Most storefronts in Koreatown, (or most of older LA) face the street.
It's not Dallas or Atlanta.

I don't have an issue with saying the neighborhood is "walkable." But a walkscore of 94 implies one of the most walkable parts of the country. It implies it's only a tad less walkable than Williamsburg in Brooklyn (96). That is ridiculous. It's an artifact of Walkscore just tracking closeness to amenities and nothing else.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think Walkscore is a relatively poor measure of walkability, because they just measure how much stuff is within a given radius, rather than the quality of the walkable environment.

Kind of hard to create a universal measure for "quality" of the walking environment.

You very easily start running into things that would help or hurt locations arbitrarily like amount of shade, amount of retail with no parking, width and quality of sidewalks steepness of roads etc etc.

Its just very hard to come to a quantifiable measure.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by CIA

It was one of these cities I was referencing.

I live in the Phoenix area and I like a lot about the metro, but almost no neighborhoods in Phoenix are "walkable" in the sense that I associate with--to choose a place I've spent time in recently--a city like Chicago.

Downtown is increasing its collection of bars and restaurants, but it doesn't have a grocery store (although one is under construction). It has few genuine retail corridors, not enough shade trees, and is still pockmarked by many, many vacant lots. It has several full-block parking garages with no real pedestrian interaction and lots of poorly designed buildings from a pedestrian perspective. The Roosevelt area is getting better and is probably the closest to a walkable neighborhood, but I don't think it's at all comparable to how much I legitimately enjoyed walking all around Chicago from the Loop up to Edgewater.

Other than Downtown, it's very slim pickings--Camelback corridor is semi-pleasant for a few blocks along Camelback but that's a very auto-oriented street. Kierland in the far north is starting to get some pseudo-pedestrian orientation but I wouldn't call it a walkable neighborhood. Other than that, most of the city is single family homes with 4-6 lane arterials lined with strip malls and apartment complexes.

Other than downtown Phoenix, the closest things to walkable neighborhoods in the metro are the downtowns of the near suburbs--Scottsdale and Tempe. Tempe has a semi-walkable core, but there are very few residences in the core. I don't really think of it as a "neighborhood," but opinions could vary.

I stubbornly walk and bike almost everywhere because I like it. But there is basically nowhere in the whole metro, especially given the heat, that passes the "do people feel bad for you if you're walking" test.

[MonkeyRonin]

This depends on how abstract we want to get with the concept of walkability. Is it related only to built form & density, or do we factor in things like crime and climate as well? If that's the case, that would rule out a good chunk of otherwise walkable Latin American, African, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European cities. Or how about size? The larger the distances become, the more likely one is to need a car. Then there are places that are structurally walkable, with good access to destinations; but have inhospitable streetscapes or poor pedestrian infrastructure (a lot of cities in the developing world are like this, with dangerously car-choked streets and no crossings, but no shortage of stuff around).

At the very least, within North America I think we could pretty safely nominate Phoenix, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Vegas, and Detroit (I know that last one is going to get me in trouble) as being amongst the least walkable. Globally, any of the big Saudi or Emirati cities would also be up there for sure.

[C.]

I see a lot of google map links and discussions around primarily commercial districts. How about residential districts? A good walkable neighborhood will have a mix of uses, of course. But can a child walk to school? Do they walk to school? Do people regularly walk to rail transit or bus stop to get to work? That's a couple of the characteristics of being walkable.

I should have clarified that with this thread. Is there any way to measure the percentage of the population that lives in a walkable neighborhood.

I saw this article recently from Toronto recently. It's somewhat related: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...e-it-work.html

28 per cent of Toronto households don’t have a car — including many suburban homes. Here’s how they make it work

It presents the good, bad, and ugly but what strikes me as interesting is that it's possible to live car free in Toronto. There are several US cities where it would be impossible.

[C.]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Oklahoma City

I was SHOCKED with Oklahoma City recently. They have some very walkable districts. A light rail is even under construction and is opening soon.

[Crawford]

I think it's fair to include Detroit. It's a very difficult city for walkers.

The biggest concern is probably dogs. Feral packs of dogs and ornery, sometimes abused dogs on chains lunging out to the sidewalk. You cannot really walk the neighborhoods without getting surprised by a few aggressive dogs.

I stopped exploring Detroit by foot when a pit bull came within inches of chomping my midsection. Never was particularly worried about humans, and I can deal with poorly maintained sidewalks and garbage.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No, because the only reason cities in Europe or the east coast are as dense as they are is because they were developed before cars. And before you point to Asia, most of those cities were alos built before the car or the general citizens had no way to purchase cars en mass.

If anything you will likely see something more like a Phoenix, Dallas-fort worth or Sothern California layout.

Moderate density sprawl with interdependent "centers" that the residents work in or travel too for entertainment or high end services. All maintained by self driving fleets.

This isn't a qualitative assessment of what is best, or better, or preferable, just what I imagine happening through peoples free choices.

Then I foresee there would be no need for parking to be provided where land costs are high. The fleet would just pick up and drop off people as needed. When demand is low, the excess vehicles would return to a low-cost parking lot in the middle of nowhere.

There would be no need for parking garages downtown occupying prime real estate when the self-driving cars can just go to a warehouse in the suburbs.

[SunDevil]

Phoenix for sure, but that's because the now 4 million plus metro area was only 374,000 in 1950 when suburbs really took off.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by CIA

I was SHOCKED with Oklahoma City recently. They have some very walkable districts. A light rail is even under construction and is opening soon.

OKC is on the map. The city landing the Thunder and the Devon Tower was what had me first google the stats and take a look at the city.

And why not? The setting is similar to D-FW, but in Oklahoma. [Not trying to stir the pot between the two cities].

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

At the very least, within North America I think we could pretty safely nominate Phoenix, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Vegas, and Detroit (I know that last one is going to get me in trouble) as being amongst the least walkable. Globally, any of the big Saudi or Emirati cities would also be up there for sure.

Vegas and Phoenix are much more dense and growing urban environments compared to the other cities you mentioned and Detroit will begin to fill in.

The car is king though as it should be in the 21st century in the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind.

In the future, the car will still remain king because we keep growing and public transportation will still suck - except it will be automated car services, like that in the movie Minority Report.

The good thing is that as we automate, we will be able to free up lanes that are currently dedicated to parallel parked cars [clutter] and dedicate that added real estate in our most congested urban centers to more efficiency.

[llamaorama]

I feel like most American cities are on a smooth continuum of more or less walkable, and then a couple are extreme outliers. Namely Atlanta, Charlotte, and Nashville. They have almost no widespread grid neighborhoods and its almost intentionally designed to keep anyone from walking anywhere or being able to drive directly from point A to point B.

The aforementioned Oklahoma City is only sprawly for cultural reasons. If you really wanted to ride a bike there, you probably could. It's flat and a giant grid with lots of side streets and back ways to get places. Give it enough time and momentum and some neighborhoods could evolve to be more conventionally urban. The southern cities are physically limited because they lack street connectivity and would be impossible to retrofit.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The car is king though as it should be in the 21st century in the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind.

Except one has almost nothing to do with the other. We don't have crap transit because we're prosperous.

And the most prosperous parts of the country have the lowest auto orientation.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by CIA

I see a lot of google map links and discussions around primarily commercial districts. How about residential districts? A good walkable neighborhood will have a mix of uses, of course. But can a child walk to school? Do they walk to school? Do people regularly walk to rail transit or bus stop to get to work? That's a couple of the characteristics of being walkable.

I should have clarified that with this thread. Is there any way to measure the percentage of the population that lives in a walkable neighborhood.

I have heard people argue that the best way to define a walkable neighborhood is simply one in which people walk. It strikes me that - that being the case - we easily could come up with a more realistic sort of walkscore. After all, basically everyone from age 16 to 65 walks around with a little GPS device in their pocket at all times now. Create some program that can tell when people are on sidewalks or other pedestrian surfaces, and create heatmaps of pedestrian activity and wham, you have a more accurate walkscore.

Originally Posted by SunDevil

Phoenix for sure, but that's because the now 4 million plus metro area was only 374,000 in 1950 when suburbs really took off.

I'm guessing by 1950 even the majority of people in Phoenix outside of the poor parts of town had their own cars. If you turn the clock back to 1900 the city had only like 5,500 residents. Almost all of the "prewar" fabric is from the period between 1920 and 1949.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except one has almost nothing to do with the other. We don't have crap transit because we're prosperous.

And the most prosperous parts of the country have the lowest auto orientation.

We own cars because we should. We are the most prosperous nation in the history of mankind. Once we become less wealthy [a recession] what happens? Transit passenger numbers increase.

The most prosperous in our richest cities, don't own cars because they hire drivers to drive them in an SUV or limo.

Come on now.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

We own cars because we should. We are the most prosperous nation in the history of mankind. Once we become less wealthy [a recession] what happens? Transit passenger numbers increase.

The most prosperous in our richest cities, don't own cars because they hire drivers to drive them in an SUV or limo.

No, we're car-oriented because we subsidized sprawl and autotopia for 70 years.

Our most prosperous areas are the most transit-oriented. Has nothing to do with for-hire vehicles, which account for a tiny proportion of trips.

And recessions don't drive transit growth, at least not in recent times. Recessions mean fewer job and leisure trips.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, we're car-oriented because we subsidized sprawl and autotopia for 70 years.

Our most prosperous areas are the most transit-oriented. Has nothing to do with for-hire vehicles, which account for a tiny proportion of trips.

And recessions don't drive transit growth, at least not in recent times. Recessions mean fewer job and leisure trips.

No. Wrong. People with money have always had access to superior forms of transportation like a horse and carriage before cars. Nothing has changed except for the fact that the U.S. continued to become more and more prosperous and wealthy since those days.

The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind with a very large middle class and the middle class drives cars.

Our most prosperous areas are the most congested areas.

[mhays]

True, we subsidized sprawl in both direct and indirect ways. GI Bill, intentional disinvestment in central cities, freeways, and so on. We also require every development in most places to come with tons of parking.

Without all that we'd be more like Europe or at least Canada.