Ranking US/Canadian cities by pedestrian intensity.

[BevoLJ]

If y'all will forgive me a little Austin homerism, I feel I need to speak up in defense of some of the suggestions I have seen posted so far regarding Austin.

The suggestion that the only pedestrians in Austin are in the downtown/UT area is entirely not true. South and East Austin are extremely busy with large crowds of people walking all over the place at all hours of the day and night, and north of campus up to North Loop (53rd Street) also many pedestrians during the day (not so much at night). While the crowds aren't 6th Street/Bourbon Street type large they are still very large. The difference in South and East Austin vs the downtown that is so well known it that other than SoCo/Barton Springs and East 6th the rest of those large parts of the city are much more local pedestrian crowds walking than tourist and north of campus is even more focused on locals than South and East Austin and very rarely gets the attention of anyone outside of Austin except in movies and music video for which it seems to be a favorite for some reason. But there are still tons of pedestrians running around all over the place in those other areas of the city besides DT/UT. Your guess is as good as mine as to where the hell they are all always going, but they are out there walking around to somewhere or another. One look at the hipsters in E Austin and I'm not sure I want to know where they are going.

Austin doesn't become suburbia pedestrian hell until near Koening and even then there are large patches of many pedestrian areas until Research. North of Research and over to Ceder Park/Round Rock then it is pedestrian hell in the manner than many seem to be wanting to paint the entire city as. Which is just not true. West and SW Austin obviously can't be pedestrian friendly. Never will be. And will always be sparsely populated. San Antonio's water supply sits under Austin and the western half of the city has extremely strict cover regulation meaning you can only cover a small portion of your properties. So all the offices/homes will always sit on enormous sized properties to protect the springs and aquifers. Additionally with the hilly topography in which every quarter mile of road it seems you run into at least two 80 foot cliff faces, it just isn't an area that will ever be walkable in the least. Which in this case is a very good thing I think we can all agree on.

Point being that while I completely agree there are huge suburbs where no walks anywhere unless their dog needs to pee, there are other huge areas of Austin, entire zip codes, that because the crowds are locals rather than tourist/students seem to be getting overlooked. Sixth Street with its 100,000+ weeknights/250,000+ weekends is special I agree, but I think it is very unfair to measure the rest of the city by that one area. Especially since so many of those people on 6th aren't even locals.

[Centropolis]

I think that Austin doesn't need to defend any sort of urban-metric at all. I think that it does well enough in a not-so-definable social metric it's like the one city that gets a pass.

[Razor]

Great discussion!...I would personally rank Toronto little higher than Montreal and Philadelphia though (if there is such a thing as a 1B+).This is if we are talking about the core..Yonge at Dundas for example can be insane, and as much as I love Montreal and really liked Philly when I visited, they both didn't seem to have the same intensity of pedestrian traffic as Toronto..I would even put Montreal ahead of Philly, but in all fairness this was based on just my one and only visit to Philadelphia which seemed to have lots of breathing room at the time...Ste. Catherine in Montreal can be jammed, but not quite like Toronto's core.. Close to T.O though IMO..In Nyc I had to hug a fire hydrant in Times square just to catch a breather and not get bumped by people behind me!...You are right NYC is at whole level altogether!...I'll have Chicago and Boston before the year end hopefully.I imagine Chicago in particular has their version of a long pedestrian filled street similiar to Yonge in T.O..Michigan ave perhaps?

[atlantaguy]

^Great post, Razor.

I guess we can thank the flawed, misinformed & extremely biased ranking that Cirrus posted for sparking some very interesting conversations.

Thanks, Coastal elitist (a perfect moniker if there ever was one).

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

^Great post, Razor.

I guess we can thank the flawed, misinformed & extremely biased ranking that Cirrus posted for sparking some very interesting conversations.

Thanks, Coastal elitist (a perfect moniker if there ever was one).

Hey Chip, how's Shoulder doing? A little tight these days?

I guess you're a "coastal elitist" if you don't have a Sesame Street, everyone-is-special-in-their-own-way view on what qualifies as good urbanity, or in this case pedestrian friendliness and intensity. You can quibble with a "hopeless" label if you want, but that type of qualification is necessarily perspective-based. I've spent the last decade in Tokyo, and you know what? From my perspective, which necessarily has been hugely informed by my being a daily Tokyo pedestrian, every one of the "hopeless" cities in Cirrus' post is in fact hopeless. How could I see it as anything else? Is that a flawed, biased and elitist point of view? Is a Yankees fan an elitist for believing Pittsburgh's (the team, not the city) situation is hopeless? Or is he just acknowledging the massive, real, tangible imbalance between the two franchises' economic realities?

Cirrus visits tons of cities, and he evaluates them from an urban enthusiast's and I believe professional planner's perspective. His goddamn honeymoon was essentially a tour of the Pacific Northwest's urban character, complete with detailed writeup and photo posts on this very forum. His is one of the last opinions on this site that I would label "flawed, misinformed and extremely biased." Can a Denver native even be a "coastal elitist"?

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hey Chip, how's Shoulder doing? A little tight these days?

I guess you're a "coastal elitist" if you don't have a Sesame Street, everyone-is-special-in-their-own-way view on what qualifies as good urbanity, or in this case pedestrian friendliness and intensity. You can quibble with a "hopeless" label if you want, but that type of qualification is necessarily perspective-based. I've spent the last decade in Tokyo, and you know what? From my perspective, which necessarily has been hugely informed by my being a daily Tokyo pedestrian, every one of the "hopeless" cities in Cirrus' post is in fact hopeless. How could I see it as anything else? Is that a flawed, biased and elitist point of view? Is a Yankees fan an elitist for believing Pittsburgh's (the team, not the city) situation is hopeless? Or is he just acknowledging the massive, real, tangible imbalance between the two franchises' economic realities?

Cirrus visits tons of cities, and he evaluates them from an urban enthusiast's and I believe professional planner's perspective. His goddamn honeymoon was essentially a tour of the Pacific Northwest's urban character, complete with detailed writeup and photo posts on this very forum. His is one of the last opinions on this site that I would label "flawed, misinformed and extremely biased." Can a Denver native even be a "coastal elitist"?

Hey, Shawn! My shoulder is doing just fine, thank you. Our humidity here isn't nearly as high as Tokyo's this time of year.

If you honestly believe what you say, I ASSume after living a decade in Tokyo your hometown of Boston probably seems pretty "hopeless" in your new worldview of things? Perhaps on the level of Tampa or Orlando? Or maybe Fresno? I mean, Tokyo IS supposed to be pretty dang big, ain't it?

Look, I can certainly understand you defending a fellow mod and possibly a personal friend, but I stand by my statement. This thread was about pedestrian activity - NOT urban infrastructure, urbanity, transit coverage, age of a place or perceived "density." It was about pedestrian activity, PERIOD. There is a very, very entrenched and sickening bias on this site against certain places that needs to be challenged, and it has been in place for many years. I have absolutely NO intention of backing off my opinion.

I don't give a good Goddamn where anyone takes their honeymoon, or what they photograph. We are ALL geeks about this sort of thing, or this website simply wouldn't exist. The list Cirrus posted is very flawed, not factual and totally biased - and there is nothing you or anyone else can say to change my OPINION. I seriously doubt he has even been to half of the cities he mis-ranked (but I HAVE been), and I would guess the same of you.

As far as it not being possible for someone from Denver to not be a "Coastal elitist" goes, give me a damn break. That's his fucking sig on his tagline, and D.C. is FULL of people from the hinterlands that assume this exact attitude after they arrive - even moreso than NYC. They are never wrong, EVER. If you have the audacity to even dare question them, you are portrayed as some ignorant fool without an opinion worthy of even being acknowledged.

It would seem the same traits may happen between New England and Japan.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

D.C. is FULL of people from the hinterlands that assume this exact attitude after they arrive - even moreso than NYC.

I can confirm this. The amount of people from bumblefuck places in the Midwest/South/NYC-NJ-Philly suburbs is through the roof, and their condescending, wannabe Sex in The City attitudes, considering where they come from, are equally pathetic and laughable. People from Tennesee and Pennsylvania tryna' front and act cool

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

If you honestly believe what you say, I ASSume after living a decade in Tokyo your hometown of Boston probably seems pretty "hopeless" in your new worldview of things? Perhaps on the level of Tampa or Orlando? Or maybe Fresno? I mean, Tokyo IS supposed to be pretty dang big, ain't it?

Why would that necessarily be true? Boston certainly has magnitudes less pedestrian intensity than Tokyo. But that doesn't drop Boston to Fresno levels.

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

Look, I can certainly understand you defending a fellow mod and possibly a personal friend, but I stand by my statement. This thread was about pedestrian activity - NOT urban infrastructure, urbanity, transit coverage, age of a place or perceived "density." It was about pedestrian activity, PERIOD. There is a very, very entrenched and sickening bias on this site against certain places that needs to be challenged, and it has been in place for many years. I have absolutely NO intention of backing off my opinion.

Yes, we're talking about pedestrian activity. Do you really feel that pedestrian activity is entirely independent of built environment? Large stretches of streets in dense urban fabric lined with sidewalks and inviting street walls don't correlate with pedestrian activity?

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

I don't give a good Goddamn where anyone takes their honeymoon, or what they photograph. We are ALL geeks about this sort of thing, or this website simply wouldn't exist. The list Cirrus posted is very flawed, not factual and totally biased - and there is nothing you or anyone else can say to change my OPINION. I seriously doubt he has even been to half of the cities he mis-ranked (but I HAVE been), and I would guess the same of you.

I cannot speak for Cirrus, but you've guessed wrong about me. Should I make a snarky ASSumptions comment here too? Beyond that, the OP asked for subjective rankings. Subjective. Good luck demonstrating that a subjective ranking is very flawed, not factual and totally biased. This goes back to my last post about how the definition of high levels of "pedestrian intensity" will necessarily vary from person to person. You have an opinion that all those mis-ranked cities Cirrus apparently has never been to actually do have areas with stronger pedestrian activity than Cirrus has opined. But I guess your opinion has more value than his, because.... he's a coastal elitist?

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

As far as it not being possible for someone from Denver to not be a "Coastal elitist" goes, give me a damn break. That's his fucking sig on his tagline

Got me there.

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

They are never wrong, EVER. If you have the audacity to even dare question them, you are portrayed as some ignorant fool without an opinion worthy of even being acknowledged.

Did Cirrus call you a fool with a worthless opinion or imply so in this thread? Or did you just infer this?

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

It would seem the same traits may happen between New England and Japan.

It may. But I see no evidence of such an attitude among Japanese or New Englanders in this thread. What I do see is someone unfairly projecting. I see someone explicitly calling another forumer's subjective (re: no right or wrong answer) list "very flawed, not factual and totally biased" and "misinformed." Never mind that Cirrus qualified his list by saying "If we're talking walkability as opposed to transit, I think the mid-sized 19th century cities need to be higher than people are giving them credit for."

Care to post your list? One that is totally factual, flawless and immaculately informed?

[novawolverine]

Cirrus is from the D.C. area, btw. He's from Gaithersburg, MD.

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

I can confirm this. The amount of people from bumblefuck places in the Midwest/South/NYC-NJ-Philly suburbs is through the roof, and their condescending, wannabe Sex in The City attitudes, considering where they come from, are equally pathetic and laughable. People from Tennesee and Pennsylvania tryna' front and act cool

I completely agree.

[tdawg]

re: Boston, yesterday I walked from the Common 1.8 miles to the MFA, and back. It was a not too pleasant overcast and slightly chilly day for July. The sidewalks my entire route were pretty busy, moreso obviously in the tourist-heavy Common and Newbury St. areas. I was surprised by the amount of people on the streets around Northeastern University given that it's the dead of summer.

[Chef]

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.

Granted there are a lot of parking lots and fortress style disasters around the Metrodome but downtown east isn't the part of downtown people use. The western half of downtown and the Warehouse District are vibrant and not like that at all.

Walkability isn't just about downtown, it is also about the connection of residential neighborhoods to secondary commercial nodes. Obviously density plays a big role in this because it allows a neighborhood to have a large number of ameneties in a smaller area. People on this forum forget that Minneapolis is nearly as dense as Seattle and is the second densest city in the Midwest. It doesn't have rowhouses though and I think people hold that against it. The inner neighborhoods have the largest swath of urbanity above 10,000 ppsqm in the Midwest outside of Chicago.

/homer

[mhays]

Not to knock my beloved Seattle, but we're not very dense. Heading that way and doing ok in some core districts but a long way to go.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by mhays

Not to knock my beloved Seattle, but we're not very dense.

Compared to New York, London, Paris and Tokyo no. Compared to "Columbus, Richmond, Louisville, Indianapolis, Hartford, Providence, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Kansas City" it is.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hey Chip, how's Shoulder doing? A little tight these days?

I guess you're a "coastal elitist" if you don't have a Sesame Street, everyone-is-special-in-their-own-way view on what qualifies as good urbanity, or in this case pedestrian friendliness and intensity. You can quibble with a "hopeless" label if you want, but that type of qualification is necessarily perspective-based.

First time I read it quickly. Thought you were saying, "I guess you're a 'coastal elitist' if you believe your streets must look like Sesame Street to qualify as good urbanity.

[Dralcoffin]

Originally Posted by Chef

The inner neighborhoods have the largest swath of urbanity above 10,000 ppsqm in the Midwest outside of Chicago.

Not true. Milwaukee has a larger population above 10,000 ppsm then the Twin Cities combined (253,000 versus 183,000). I was musing about that very point one day in Midwest Chat.

Top metros in Midwest by dense population:
Chicago
Milwaukee - 252,711
Minneapolis-St. Paul - 183,441
Cleveland - 98,080
Detroit - 70,371

While both Minneapolis and St. Paul have large areas (especially in St. Paul) around 8,000 to 9,000 ppsm, Milwaukee has a surprisingly large area at 11,000 to 14,000 ppsm: the whole northern lakefront, large swaths of the northwest side, and a dense pocket in the southwest.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Chef

Granted there are a lot of parking lots and fortress style disasters around the Metrodome but downtown east isn't the part of downtown people use. The western half of downtown and the Warehouse District are vibrant and not like that at all.

Even if you set the "East/West divide" at 5th Ave. S., there is still a TONNE of parking lots and parking garages in "downtown West". Up near the river, ENORMOUS parking garages near Target Center/Target Field, other various parking lots in the Warehouse District. Even between Loring Park and Convention Center, there are numerous parking lots. They tend to be small individually, but they add up. Even in the vicinity of 3rd Ave. and 10th Street, there are parking lots AND parking garages that take up near entire city blocks.

From what I understand, the city built those massive above-grade parking garages so developers wouldn't have to incur the cost of underground garages beneath their buildings. Of course, that was a huge mistake, as acres upon acres of land in downtown Minneapolis are now covered in streetlife-killing parking garages. And yes, this INCLUDES the western half of downtown (the downtown core, the warehouse district, etc.). To suggest that a huge percentage of the western half of downtown is not covered in parking lots and above-ground garages is not being honest.

The downtown area is also completely severed from the rest of the city by freeways and the river.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Care to post your list? One that is totally factual, flawless and immaculately informed?

Hell, NO! The last time I challenged the prevailing attitude here with facts, figures and links that proved my point, the thread was locked ASAP. Again, I suspect the mere fact that someone had the BALLS to defend Atlanta provoked too much outrage amongst certain mods (not calling out Cirrus here on this one, I suspect Brandon 716 had more to do with it - a known hater).

I reserve my right to call out garbage when I see it, but I'm not willing to contribute to the pretty much continual trashing of my adopted region/city by the powers that be - however tempting it may be.

I've learned over the years that it is a no-win situation around here when it comes to anything related to Atlanta - so thanks, but no thanks.

I will say this however - and this is totally directed at Cirrus. This is NOT a 20th Century city.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by J. Will

Even if you set the "East/West divide" at 5th Ave. S., there is still a TONNE of parking lots and parking garages in "downtown West". Up near the river, ENORMOUS parking garages near Target Center/Target Field, other various parking lots in the Warehouse District. Even between Loring Park and Convention Center, there are numerous parking lots. They tend to be small individually, but they add up. Even in the vicinity of 3rd Ave. and 10th Street, there are parking lots AND parking garages that take up near entire city blocks.

From what I understand, the city built those massive above-grade parking garages so developers wouldn't have to incur the cost of underground garages beneath their buildings. Of course, that was a huge mistake, as acres upon acres of land in downtown Minneapolis are now covered in streetlife-killing parking garages. And yes, this INCLUDES the western half of downtown (the downtown core, the warehouse district, etc.). To suggest that a huge percentage of the western half of downtown is not covered in parking lots and above-ground garages is not being honest.

The downtown area is also completely severed from the rest of the city by freeways and the river.

Are you basing this on an 11 year old Google Earth photo like the last time you were ranting about parking lots in downtown Minneapolis? Have you spent enough time in Minneapolis to know how people use it in real life and to know how the downtown and inner neighborhoods interact?

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Chef

Are you basing this on an 11 year old Google Earth photo like the last time you were ranting about parking lots in downtown Minneapolis? Have you spent enough time in Minneapolis to know how people use it in real life and to know how the downtown and inner neighborhoods interact in real life?

LOL. How many of the massive, full block/near full block parking garages have been torn down since Google took those aerials? I'd bet nearly none. Or maybe none. Yes, a small fraction of the parking lots since Google Streetview took pictures has been developed up near the river. Probably none of the massive parking garages though have been redeveloped since then. And if they have, please tell us which ones.

A HUGE percentage of downtown Minneapolis, even west of 5th Ave. S. is covered in parking lots and above-ground garages. Yes, even in 2012. You know this to be true if you live there. To deny it is dishonest. And yes, I have spent some time there. And a very close friend of mine lived between the Convention Center and Loring Park for some time, and I've often spoke with him about the city. The only street consistently even close to crowded during the day is Nicollet, and during the night is 1st Avenue.


If those aerials are so out-of-date as to be nearly useless, tell me if the following is still parking:

-a huge garage covering the block bound by 2nd and 3rd Avenues, and 10th and 11th Streets

-another above ground garage covering most of the block bound by 11th and 12th, 2nd and Marquette

-surface parking covering nearly the entire block bound by 2nd and 3rd Avenues, 9th and 10 Streets

-the entire block bound by 4th and 5th Avenue, and 5th and 6th Streets

-the entire block bound by 3rd Street and Washington Avenue, 4th and 5th Avenues

-the north side of S. 2nd Street from 5th to 3rd Avenue

-the block bound by Nicollet Mall, 3rd Street, Hennepin Avenue, and Washington Avenue.

-the enormous garage and surface parking bound by 10th, 9th, and 7th Streets.

-the entire block bound by Hennepin and Hawthorne Avenues, 10th and 11th Streets

-the block bound by Marquette, Nicollet, 3rd and 4th Streets

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that no more than one of these blocks (if that) has seen its parking replaced with buildings. I don't know how you can see that a large percentage of downtown Minneapolis even west of 5th Avenue S. is not covered in above ground parking (lots and garages). It is.

[Chef]

I don't want to get into one of the silly pissing matches that some posters here specialize in but to suggest that the pedestrian experience in MSP is less than in Columbus, Richmond, Louisville, Indianapolis, Hartford, Providence, Cincinnati, or Kansas City is absurdly misinformed. That is pretty much all I have to say on the subject.