4 ms·

There are whole networks of pedestrian paths connecting buildings. You can walk from A to B just fine without having to step outside and leave the air condition

There are whole networks of pedestrian paths connecting buildings. You can walk from A to B just fine without having to step outside and leave the air conditioned zone. The outside temperature in Las Vegas in the summer isn't very suitable for pedestrian use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas#Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas#Climate

refurb 4y ago
Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at the comments. The Strip is way more pedestrian friendly than most cities it's size.
- lucideer 4y ago
  I'm European so I must admit my experience of US cities is relatively limited. I know in general US cities have a terrible reputation for pedestrian-centric planning but even by US standards I found the Strip bad. The Strip is even bad by Vegas standards: not only is Fremont entirely pedestrianised, Downtown in general is very walkable: pavement width matches foot traffic, amenities are close together, & traffic moves much more slowly than on the Strip / crossing-timing is relatively frequent. For comparison, I've only really visited SoCal extensively (SD is super walkable, SF is as long as you're fit/not disabled, LA is worst than downtown LV but still nowhere near as bad as the Strip imo). East US I've seen Philly & Chicago which were both even better than CA.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    Fremont is 4 blocks, the Strip is the better part of 4 miles. Fremont has no meaningful cross traffic beyond those going there, the Strip is crossed by 3 major streets that most certainly carry cross traffic. (There's also one more that is bridged/tunneled so you do not interact with the Strip--that one would be unaffected.) And if you take out the Strip the properties on the west side are going to scream because it's now hard for customers to reach them.
    - lucideer 4y ago
      I don't see your point. You seem to be making excuses for the Strip being the way it is (i.e. "it's bad for these reasons") whereas the gp was arguing it's not that bad actually. I never said there weren't reasons behind it, just that it is very bad. > if you take out the Strip the properties on the west side are going to scream because it's now hard for customers to reach them. I mean if you blindly remove something from any badly designed system without replacing it or providing some alternative then yes, it'll probably get worse. That seems uncontroversial.
saagarjha 4y ago
Most hotels are not connected to each other. A handful are, but if you want to walk across the strip it’s actually quite hard. I visit Vegas yearly in the summer and this fact makes me somewhat upset :)

refurb 4y ago

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at the comments. The Strip is way more pedestrian friendly than most cities it's size.

lucideer 4y ago
I'm European so I must admit my experience of US cities is relatively limited. I know in general US cities have a terrible reputation for pedestrian-centric planning but even by US standards I found the Strip bad. The Strip is even bad by Vegas standards: not only is Fremont entirely pedestrianised, Downtown in general is very walkable: pavement width matches foot traffic, amenities are close together, & traffic moves much more slowly than on the Strip / crossing-timing is relatively frequent. For comparison, I've only really visited SoCal extensively (SD is super walkable, SF is as long as you're fit/not disabled, LA is worst than downtown LV but still nowhere near as bad as the Strip imo). East US I've seen Philly & Chicago which were both even better than CA.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  Fremont is 4 blocks, the Strip is the better part of 4 miles. Fremont has no meaningful cross traffic beyond those going there, the Strip is crossed by 3 major streets that most certainly carry cross traffic. (There's also one more that is bridged/tunneled so you do not interact with the Strip--that one would be unaffected.) And if you take out the Strip the properties on the west side are going to scream because it's now hard for customers to reach them.
  - lucideer 4y ago
    I don't see your point. You seem to be making excuses for the Strip being the way it is (i.e. "it's bad for these reasons") whereas the gp was arguing it's not that bad actually. I never said there weren't reasons behind it, just that it is very bad. > if you take out the Strip the properties on the west side are going to scream because it's now hard for customers to reach them. I mean if you blindly remove something from any badly designed system without replacing it or providing some alternative then yes, it'll probably get worse. That seems uncontroversial.

saagarjha 4y ago

Most hotels are not connected to each other. A handful are, but if you want to walk across the strip it’s actually quite hard. I visit Vegas yearly in the summer and this fact makes me somewhat upset :)