Originally Posted by alex1
I don't know. Philly is pretty great but walkability can be hit and miss. More narrow streets are really nice but they don't automatically equate to increased walkability. For example, I don't feel that Center City is necessarily more walkable than most parts of San Fran, Chicago, Boston or NYC. They all seem to work well IMO.
It does have the potential, though.
Well the point is that the walkable region extends far
past the bounds of Center City. East Passyunk, for example, doesn't even start
until a good mile south of the border of Center City proper; Fishtown's southwesternmost point is still a good mile northeast of Vine. And so on.
Center City is something of an average Northeastern downtown, in some respects. Philadelphia's advantage is that its core walkable area just keeps going on...and on...and on...in many places straight through the disinvested areas and out into the suburbs. Philadelphia's core walkable area extends a good ten miles
or so in well-nigh every direction.
And on top of that, its inner suburban areas, especially in Delaware County and the Near Northeast, are as dense as many cities' core urban areas--Seattle's, for example. Philadelphia's core urban area is primarily 19th century rowhomes on small streets, creating a region at one highly dense and highly homey. (See the rowhome thread). I would argue this is Philadelphia's crucial advantage on the walkability and bikability front.