Ranking US/Canadian cities by pedestrian intensity.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

The Twin Cities needs to be upshifted or whatever. Looked at like a single unit. Huge area of walkable grid between Minneapolis and St. Paul. It should, in my opinion, at least be at the top of the mass in the middle, if not in 2B.

WAY too many parking lots and parking garages (fortress-style with little or no ground-floor retail) in the TC's commercial areas for it to move up.

[ColDayMan]

I wouldn't exactly put Baltimore in a tier above Cincinnati or St. Louis in terms of pedestrian intensity. I can see a case for Pittsburgh (though I'd still put it in the Cincy/Balti/St Louis tier overall) with Carson on the Southside, Forbes in Oakland, etc, but certainly nothing in Baltimore, including the Inner Harbor area or Fells Point, is going to be a significant difference versus some of those "tier below" cities. Also, Cincinnati certainly equals the pedestrian zones/walkable areas of "pedestrian intensity" in Baltimore overall, perhaps surpassing it on an overall city-wide scale. I'm sure a case for St. Louis as well.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by J. Will

WAY too many parking lots and parking garages (fortress-style with little or no ground-floor retail) in the TC's commercial areas for it to move up.

True, just was thinking it should rank higher having two CBDs connected by a walkable street grid with lots of neighborhood scale commercial districts, etc. Maybe not at the bottom of tier 2, but certainly higher than Austin when looking at it in total.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

I wouldn't exactly put Baltimore in a tier above Cincinnati or St. Louis in terms of pedestrian intensity. I can see a case for Pittsburgh (though I'd still put it in the Cincy/Balti/St Louis tier overall) with Carson on the Southside, Forbes in Oakland, etc, but certainly nothing in Baltimore, including the Inner Harbor area or Fells Point, is going to be a significant difference versus some of those "tier below" cities. Also, Cincinnati certainly equals the pedestrian zones/walkable areas of "pedestrian intensity" in Baltimore overall, perhaps surpassing it on an overall city-wide scale. I'm sure a case for St. Louis as well.

I dropped Cincinnati and Saint Louis because my impression is that they lost more of their historic walkability than Baltimore did. Baltimore doesn't have anything as bad as THIS.

But I have not been to either as an adult, so my impression may be incomplete.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

True, just was thinking it should rank higher having two CBDs connected by a walkable street grid with lots of neighborhood scale commercial districts, etc. Maybe not at the bottom of tier 2, but certainly higher than Austin when looking at it in total.

More likely Austin is too high, then.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I dropped Cincinnati and Saint Louis because my impression is that they lost more of their historic walkability than Baltimore did. Baltimore doesn't have anything as bad as THIS.

But I have not been to either as an adult, so my impression may be incomplete.

An important thing to consider when considering St. Louis is that it lost it's inner CBD adjacent districts, whereas Baltimore has retained far more of that more seamless urbanity between downtown and the rest of the city. At one time they were pretty comparable, St. Louis had many more square miles of rowhouse districts than today and kept up with Baltimores rows with 1910s-20s apartment districts and 2 and 4-flats in the other further out areas. However, there still are areas with good spikes of pedestrians.

[Segun]

St.Louis and Cincinnati moved up a few notches just in the last 5 or 6 years. As I said before, cities with more intact, historical, dense neighborhoods have an advantage. They can draw crowds back with ease over their more modern counterparts. Washington Ave in STL and Over-The-Rhine in Cincinnati are almost unrecognizable from what they were in 2004.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I dropped Cincinnati and Saint Louis because my impression is that they lost more of their historic walkability than Baltimore did. Baltimore doesn't have anything as bad as THIS.

But I have not been to either as an adult, so my impression may be incomplete.

Cincinnati doesn't have areas like that either nor does it have areas like Sandtown/Westside in Baltimore in wide-scale urban renewal. Sure, Queensgate (that aerial I always post of 1930's Cincinnati) was wiped out and turned into a light-industial zone but Baltimore has comparable areas of light-industrial zones as well. Cincinnati is generally seemless in "walkable, intact urbanity" from mid-Covington through Northside, Cincinnati (though I personally wouldn't recommend to do it for topographical reasons). That's really all I'm saying.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by someone123

Surely you must agree that even within San Francisco itself there is a big difference between the level of pedestrian traffic along the busiest streets of downtown San Francisco and some of other streets like Valencia. You would probably also agree that sidewalks along Valencia are not normally "obscenely crowded", as the first post mentions for supposed "tier 1" cities. That's what I was thinking of for "busy". Somebody else mentioned Shibuya.

I already stipulated SF sidewalks vary in pedestrian intensity--can you think of any city where that is not true? I do consider Valencia busy when the bars and restaurants are open, but I also know it doesn't average 9,300 pedestrians per hour like Market Street downtown. I'm puzzled why you'd mention this kind of city-wide variation at all, since it is obviously true for every city on Earth--and there's no reason to think Segun was unaware of this truth when compiling his list, nor the rest of us oblivious when reading it.

You define "busy" as "obscenely crowded" and mention Shibuya, and by that definition San Francisco certainly doesn't have 40 square miles of Shibuya-level pedestrian intensity. Neither does Tokyo, for that matter, let alone any of the cities listed in this thread. I think it's absurd to define an entire concept only by its most extreme margin, but you're entitled to use terms in your own special way if you like. The rest of us use the term "busy" to mean something far less extreme.

San Francisco is a nice, walkable city but it does not have 40 square miles of streets teeming with pedestrians

Neither, you must agree, do any of the other cities in San Francisco's tier.

and actually much of the city is fairly low density housing in the scheme of things.

You are defining "density" in as extreme and personal a fashion as you did "busy." Density varies across this city just as it does across every other city--but even the sprawling Sunset District averages 14,934 people per square mile. Are we supposed to consider that a low density? Absurd. Regardless of the spin you put on commonly-used terms, San Francisco remains the most densely populated city in its tier, with the pedestrian activity to match.

[memememe76]

I guess I never really noticed that big a difference amongst Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. But I haven't been to Montreal or Toronto *that* often to say anything definitively. Maybe one reason for the differentiation is that while Montreal and Toronto's main universities are located in their downtowns, Vancouver's main universities are located on the outskirts?

I do think Vancouver is significantly more intense than Seattle. One example: even when nothing is happening over at Rogers Arena and BC Place, there is still a noticeable pedestrian presence. That is not the case when the Mariners and the Seahawks are playing. It's a ghosttown.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by memememe76

I guess I never really noticed that big a difference amongst Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. But I haven't been to Montreal or Toronto *that* often to say anything definitively. Maybe one reason for the differentiation is that while Montreal and Toronto's main universities are located in their downtowns, Vancouver's main universities are located on the outskirts?

I do think Vancouver is significantly more intense than Seattle. One example: even when nothing is happening over at Rogers Arena and BC Place, there is still a noticeable pedestrian presence. That is not the case when the Mariners and the Seahawks are playing. It's a ghosttown.

Even when the Mariners are playing it's a ghost town.

[mhays]

The Mariners average 22,946. That's poor but not that poor.

Yes the Vancouver stadium/arena area is busier. It has a good bridge walking commute crowd plus the highrise districts start next door. Seattle's stadiums are on the line between the farther fringes of Downtown and an industrial/seaport/rail yard area.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by mhays

The Mariners average 22,946. That's poor but not that poor.

Yes the Vancouver stadium/arena area is busier. It has a good bridge walking commute crowd plus the highrise districts start next door. Seattle's stadiums are on the line between the farther fringes of Downtown and an industrial/seaport/rail yard area.

They just need some more mixed use and residential development (and some gentrification) around the two stadiums and that area would definitely have some potential.

[mhays]

That's coming.

The north (only) parking lot, about 10 acres originally, is losing 4 or 5 acres on the north side for 700 housing units, offices, and a hotel. The housing podium and 10-story first residential tower are under construction, the 25-story second residential tower on the same podium is supposedly starting in the next month or two, and a third 20-story residential tower comes later. The other block is projected to start next summer with the podium and hotel, and the office portion later. Other smaller projects are coming. The parking lot, which in its defense will be 5% of the size of a suburban stadium's parking, is prized by the stadium and will unfortunately stay.

More importantly, the whole south end of Downtown has been rezoned recently to encourage housing and with taller heights. The Highway 99 corridor is being rebuilt entirely, including the south entry to the new tunnel through Downtown. It will remain a disjointed area due to the main West Coast rail line (which enters a tunnel through Downtown proper), the seaport, the stadiums, I-5 ramps, I-5 itself, and steep hillsides to the east. Plus shelters have an outsized effect due to the 10% worst or whatever. But the area has been gradually knitted somewhat together. Transit has improved and will keep doing so. The slow but significant increase in market rate uses is having an effect.

[Derek]

Oh wow, nice!




As for the remaining lot, tailgaters gotta tailgate right?

[mhays]

Football probably, and commercial stuff. But I went to the Mariners-Yankees yesterday, a day game. After the game, the lot was full of cars and nobody was there. It was all office workers from that morning. They also use it to store seating sections, and for boat shows and so on, augmenting the exhibition hall.

[LtBk]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I dropped Cincinnati and Saint Louis because my impression is that they lost more of their historic walkability than Baltimore did. Baltimore doesn't have anything as bad as THIS.

But I have not been to either as an adult, so my impression may be incomplete.

He is right about Baltimore when it comes to pedestrian activity. I live nearby, and the pedestrian activity is limited to few gentrified neighborhoods that surround downtown including the Inner Harbor.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by mhays

The Mariners average 22,946. That's poor but not that poor.

It's 5th from the bottom...it's a good-sized crowd but in comparison to the rest of MLB it's nearly as poor as you can get.

[mhays]

Ever MLB team has decent attendance these days, with the floor around 20,000.

The Mariners used to average 9,000. Griffey helped turn that around.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fflint

I'm puzzled why you'd mention this kind of city-wide variation at all, since it is obviously true for every city on Earth--and there's no reason to think Segun was unaware of this truth when compiling his list, nor the rest of us oblivious when reading it.

This type of combativeness makes the forum a lot less fun.

You are taking what I said out of context. Originally for example I gave a definition for what I would consider "busy" for the purpose of discussion -- it's still there in the original post for you to see if you like. We're not really having a conversation about the thread topic. You're just freaking out because of a perceived slight toward your city. It's really silly. I think San Francisco's great.