Quote:
Originally Posted by relnahe
I don't really find DC and Chicago to be really walkable. They're both great cities but too many huge blocks with too many wide streets. Boston has the human scaled streets like Philly but it has almost an anti-grid type set-up.
|
Re: Walkability.
That first study showing Philly being beat by many unwalkable cities was conducted by Smart Growth America, which is a really respectable organization that does good work. The problem is not in the study, but how the media has been reporting it. They looked at metro areas, not central cities, and defined walkability by the number of walkable towns in the metropolitan area. That is an entirely different question from "which city is more walkable?"
Instead they are looking at which city has the most walkable suburbs. In that regard, I think Philly suffers. Many of the suburbs are not pedestrian friendly. Bucks and Chester Counties are largely sprawling (I know there are a few walkable boroughs). Montgomery County has some nice walkable towns, but also KOP, Horsham, Blue Bell, etc. Even the walkable towns in the area have few destinations to actually walk to. Folks along the Main Line have been fighting walkability for years (see resistance to Villanova's plans for Route 30, resistance to Dranoff development in Ardmore, and resistance to making the area around Wynnewood Station more walkable). Jersey is a mess. There is a pervasive attitude among suburbanites here that they don't want their neck of the woods to become "urbanized."