5 ms·

“Walkable” has never meant “has sidewalks.” It means the neighborhood’s denizens can reasonably walk to meet their day-to-day necessities. It has always meant t

“Walkable” has never meant “has sidewalks.” It means the neighborhood’s denizens can reasonably walk to meet their day-to-day necessities. It has always meant that.

KirillPanov 6y ago
> “Walkable” has never meant “has sidewalks.” Nonsense. Interstate Highway 90 is quite unwalkable due to its lack of sidewalks.
- detaro 6y ago
  And if it had sidewalks it still wouldn't mean "[that] the neighborhood’s denizens can reasonably walk to meet their day-to-day necessities". (And in reverse, an interstate without sidewalks can be part of a walkable neighborhood if other infrastructure compensates for it)
  - KirillPanov 6y ago
    > ... still wouldn't be a walkable neighborhood You clearly have not seen some of the highway interchanges in Olympia, WA. They aren't just neighborhoods, they're whole towns. Of tents. Walkable, but surely not safe. ;)
pjc50 6y ago
This seems like a bizarre argument, surely it's an "and". Sidewalks are a necessary but not sufficient condition for walkability.
- mauvehaus 6y ago
  They really aren't. Sufficiently slow traffic (or none at all) will render streets walkable. Prioritizing pedestrian use over vehicle use is what creates walkability. In the US you tend to find this in places that were built before cars but with sufficiently high property values that rearranging the buildings to widen the streets doesn't make sense. See parts of Boston for example. The places that are both old and wealthy tend to have streets that are pretty much local access only through size alone.
- amake 6y ago
  Residential neighborhoods in the Tokyo metro area are generally walkable but have very few sidewalks.
- graeme 6y ago
  In a dense enough place with narrow streets you can just walk on the road. A lot of old towns are like this. In montreal there is an extensive system of back lanes, and I did a lot of my walking there, no sidewalks. The lanes were shared by cars but they were slow and infrequent.

“Walkable” has never meant “has sidewalks.” It means the neighborhood’s denizens can reasonably walk to meet their day-to-day necessities. It has always meant that.

KirillPanov 6y ago

> “Walkable” has never meant “has sidewalks.” Nonsense. Interstate Highway 90 is quite unwalkable due to its lack of sidewalks.

detaro 6y ago
And if it had sidewalks it still wouldn't mean "[that] the neighborhood’s denizens can reasonably walk to meet their day-to-day necessities". (And in reverse, an interstate without sidewalks can be part of a walkable neighborhood if other infrastructure compensates for it)
- KirillPanov 6y ago
  > ... still wouldn't be a walkable neighborhood You clearly have not seen some of the highway interchanges in Olympia, WA. They aren't just neighborhoods, they're whole towns. Of tents. Walkable, but surely not safe. ;)

pjc50 6y ago

This seems like a bizarre argument, surely it's an "and". Sidewalks are a necessary but not sufficient condition for walkability.

mauvehaus 6y ago
They really aren't. Sufficiently slow traffic (or none at all) will render streets walkable. Prioritizing pedestrian use over vehicle use is what creates walkability. In the US you tend to find this in places that were built before cars but with sufficiently high property values that rearranging the buildings to widen the streets doesn't make sense. See parts of Boston for example. The places that are both old and wealthy tend to have streets that are pretty much local access only through size alone.
amake 6y ago
Residential neighborhoods in the Tokyo metro area are generally walkable but have very few sidewalks.
graeme 6y ago
In a dense enough place with narrow streets you can just walk on the road. A lot of old towns are like this. In montreal there is an extensive system of back lanes, and I did a lot of my walking there, no sidewalks. The lanes were shared by cars but they were slow and infrequent.