3 ms·
Yeah certainly agree with you with regards to age of city + car dynamic. I live in north seattle now and most neighborhoods around here don't have sidewalks - g
by dieselgate 4y ago
Yeah certainly agree with you with regards to age of city + car dynamic. I live in north seattle now and most neighborhoods around here don't have sidewalks - got hit by a car while biking last year (could happen anywhere) and am not savvy with the idea of biking for transit in my area either.
That's kind of the reasoning for why I mentioned "it could make sense on paper" - some neighborhoods in the cities of topic are quite walkable, close to public transit and local infrastructure, but many aren't. In the scope of seattle neighborhoods like Ballard and West Seattle are pretty "walkable" locally but not really globally.
In comparison SF is probably more "walkable" because there are at least sidewalks throughout.
Guess the original point is I wonder how walkability scores are calculated and what criteria are considered - presumably for a city as a whole it's an aggregate of the scores of the constituent neighborhoods (how ratings can "make sense on paper" but differ between residents throughout)
In regards to the article mentioned about SF being a good biking city - I laughed because in my extensive experience the best biking in the area is heading north across the gg bridge and in to marin and beyond. But that's beyond the scope of any "city" centric rankings
- vineyardmike 4y agoAh fair. I lived in Belltown and never needed a car - walking throughout BT, SLU capHill, etc got me everything I needed. Im no biker since I’m too nervous about getting hit. I don’t understand how people get on the road next to cars. With hills like SF no way would I do that either. I can just imagine myself hurtling down the hill into oncoming traffic. I don’t quite understand the rankings either, but I can say from loved experience that I can walk everywhere I needed, so far. Of course every neighborhood is a bit different, too.