July 25, 200717 yr It's funny that almost everyone's parent's house scores terribly. not that its a competition, my parent's scored a 64 (damn you movie theater!)
July 25, 200717 yr 63 for my grandparent's old house in deer park the mariemont theatre, (I just needed an address) got an 80
July 25, 200717 yr Here are the walkability scores of the places I've lived or quasi-lived.... - Mercer County (parents) - 0 - Dayton (UD) - 82 - Cincinnati (Hartwell) - 43 - Cincinnati (O'Bryonville) - 65 - Indianapolis (Meridian-Kessler) - 72 - Dayton (Patterson Park) - 60 - Dayton (Linden Heights) - 45 It's funny that almost everyone's parent's house scores terribly. Yeah, my parent's house scored a 0, but then again, they do live on a farm. And even with (or probably because of) scoring a zero, I bet they make smarter decisions about maximizing the trips they do make than a lot of people do.
July 25, 200717 yr just out of curiosity, who doesn't make smart decisions about combining trips and maximizing trips?
July 25, 200717 yr ^Me...I don't make effective enough lists and have to run out for tonic water or cat litter or something, or I drive past a restaurant to come home then go back an hour later to get carry-out, or I could car-pool with my wife a lot more often than we do, but don't because it's easier not to...
July 25, 200717 yr I think everyone with a car is guilty of it to some degree. I used to take the long way home from work because I was sick of looking at the highway.
July 25, 200717 yr My current place (Asiatown, Cleveland) = 69 Parents' house (Brecksville) = 23 My last apartment in Fort Greene, Brooklyn = 94 Previous apartment in South Williamsburg, Brooklyn = 83 Next previous apartment on the Lower East Side of Manhattan = 100!!! My last apartment in tiny Grinnell, IA, where I got my undergrad = 94
July 25, 200717 yr It's funny that almost everyone's parent's house scores terribly. Check back in 15 years when they all unload their big empty nests and move into the newest urban condo tower.
July 25, 200717 yr It's funny that almost everyone's parent's house scores terribly. Check back in 15 years when they all unload their big empty nests and move into the newest urban condo tower. much to my chagrin, my parents wont leave their fortress :-(
July 25, 200717 yr It's funny that almost everyone's parent's house scores terribly. I checked my parents old house. It got a 51. I remember when they bought it, they talked a lot about walking distances to schools and the grocery and stuff because my mom did not drive and my parents just assumed that kids walk to school. One of my pet peeves is people moving out to suburbs and buying houses in a particular school district but assuming they will have bus service for the kids that they will magically never have o pay for.
July 25, 200717 yr quimbob, I can't imagine taking a bus to school. I had to walk, ride my bike/moped or take the train. Thats why those slobs in the burbs are so fat now! suburban parents take the twinkies out of your kids lunch and make your little bratz walk!
July 25, 200717 yr My current place (Asiatown, Cleveland) = 69 Parents' house (Brecksville) = 23 My last apartment in Fort Greene, Brooklyn = 94 Previous apartment in South Williamsburg, Brooklyn = 83 Next previous apartment on the Lower East Side of Manhattan = 100!!! My last apartment in tiny Grinnell, IA, where I got my undergrad = 94 Hey Blinky! Where have you been hiding? it appears asiatown in cleveland
July 25, 200717 yr It's funny that almost everyone's parent's house scores terribly. depending on the ages of everyone in this forum and the relative ages of their parents, the large swath of the people on this forum belong to the age group with no real connection to the cities. now there are generalizations but taking my family as a case study, my great grandparents lived in Over the rhine and avondale respectively, their children moved to deer park and sycamore township, (the portion that borders deer park). their children still had connections with the city, the grandparents lived in the city for a while, the aunts and uncles lived there much longer. by the time that the parents of our age cohort had children, most of the relatives that remained in the city were dead or distant, the grandparents retired to a condo on a golf course in mason or flordia or a nursing home/assisted living facility. if you are 18-30, depending on a variety of factors, you might be in the first truly suburban generation. 'downtown' was no longer the destination spot or it still was the destination spot for many things, but not the primate draw. malls had become very well established and sucked up greater and greater portions of commerical activity and retail sales. this generation grew up with suburban living as a normative way of life and without a memory of the great urban centers that previous generations had been exposed to, and yet this group, this age cohort seems to be the vangard of a new urban renisance. children that lived only suburban lives, having come of age recently or in the past few years seem to be moving into urban areas in large and increasing numbers. for example of my family in the area numbering around 40, I am the only who lives within city limits, but those cousins currently in college have expressed interest in moving into the city and would prefer that over the suburbs. but the cities themselves, albiet they are currently improving, shine much less brightly then they once did. so my question is this, why are a group of people who never knew cities as vibrant, growing places, rejecting the suburbs where they were raised, which are considered the growing (doubtfully vibrant) areas, and moving into the cities in larger numbers?
July 25, 200717 yr It's funny that almost everyone's parent's house scores terribly. depending on the ages of everyone in this forum and the relative ages of their parents, the large swath of the people on this forum belong to the age group with no real connection to the cities. now there are generalizations but taking my family as a case study, my great grandparents lived in Over the rhine and avondale respectively, their children moved to deer park and sycamore township, (the portion that borders deer park). their children still had connections with the city, the grandparents lived in the city for a while, the aunts and uncles lived there much longer. by the time that the parents of our age cohort had children, most of the relatives that remained in the city were dead or distant, the grandparents retired to a condo on a golf course in mason or flordia or a nursing home/assisted living facility. if you are 18-30, depending on a variety of factors, you might be in the first truly suburban generation. 'downtown' was no longer the destination spot or it still was the destination spot for many things, but not the primate draw. malls had become very well established and sucked up greater and greater portions of commerical activity and retail sales. this generation grew up with suburban living as a normative way of life and without a memory of the great urban centers that previous generations had been exposed to, and yet this group, this age cohort seems to be the vangard of a new urban renisance. children that lived only suburban lives, having come of age recently or in the past few years seem to be moving into urban areas in large and increasing numbers. for example of my family in the area numbering around 40, I am the only who lives within city limits, but those cousins currently in college have expressed interest in moving into the city and would prefer that over the suburbs. but the cities themselves, albiet they are currently improving, shine much less brightly then they once did. so my question is this, why are a group of people who never knew cities as vibrant, growing places, rejecting the suburbs where they were raised, which are considered the growing (doubtfully vibrant) areas, and moving into the cities in larger numbers? This type of stuff is really interesting to me. I grew up many places but I have never lived in the suburbs until staying with my mom this summer. Growing up in places like Franklinton and Price Hill, I was surrounded by uneducated people (not something I wanted to be around) and crime. I got into a lot of fights that I did not provoke, and was robbed several times. The experience there in general, sucked. I think that when you are used to living in bad parts of the city; the suburbs are extremely attractive because they're less "chaotic" and less dirty. You're not reminded of what you came from. They symbolize a fresh start. People also look at suburbs as progressive, and that's obviously what people in bad parts of the city want to be... We moved to Pleasant Ridge which was nicer but as a teenager it was kinda depressing because there weren't many other teenagers around (it's Cinci. public school district). In the city, it seems that people are mostly raising families in the worst and best parts (worst because they're...well, in poverty, and best because it's very safe, clean, and private school is affordable to them). I can't speak from personal experience but I think that there is a small backlash in the suburbs. The people that grew up there and felt like they were missing out on a lot; are wanting to live somewhere where they are exposed to a wider range of things. It seems like people are becoming more worldly, and wanting to experience diversity more. But I also think it depends on the type of person you are. There will always be people that prefer suburbs but I do think there is a large number of people that have grown up in the 'burbs and decided it's not for them. For those people, suburbs have gotten old fast. I think the problem with these people that know great urban centers exist is that once they run away from the suburbs, many times they're headed to places like NYC or Chicago. Places that still have the archetypal vibrant urban centers.
July 26, 200717 yr My father grew up on a farm in Norwalk, and my mom in a rural coal mining company town, so my folks had no city connections whatsoever - but I did pick up where you mention, Thomas, with exurban living, and the "city" just a distant occasional destination. And now I couldn't imagine life without a sidewalk...
August 2, 200717 yr how the hell ghetto brooklyn and pissant portland outscores my location i'll never know. yes there are some definate flaws with this thing. i demand a 100! *grumbles*
August 2, 200717 yr It considers distance along the earth's surface, so with Manhattan's high-rise buildings containing so many restaurants and shops, you should be able to score a ridiculous amount of walkable destinations, sometimes even stacked on top of each other. That really doesn't make sense.
August 2, 200717 yr I found a few wierd things. The house I was born in (St. Hyancinth's neighborhood) scored a 48. However, a lot of the icons that showed were on Kinsman and have not been directly accesible on foot since the suspension bridge was closed during the mid 1960s. For the hell of it, I plugged in the north end of Granger Road in Maple Heights. Sure enough, it got a 65 due to Mapletown and other stuff on Broadway. None of which can be easily walked to since the "old bridge" was torn down during the early 80s. Right now there's a large intermodal transfer station in the way, even if one wanted to go down to the tracks and back up, you can't. My parent's old place (later mine) in Maple shows a 35, my place in Bedford (less than a mile away) comes up an 18. I plugged in a downtown Bedford address that came up with a 75, and looks legit. It's a little more than a mile from my place. Conclusion: it's more where you are in a neighborhood than it is the neighborhood itself.
August 2, 200717 yr 75 for my hood (Tremont); 38 for my hometown (Salem, Ohio). clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
August 2, 200717 yr It'd be nice if everyone was moving to great urban areas, but that's not an accurate picture. Many college grads from this state are moving to even worse suburban hellholes than the crap they grew up in in Ohio. Very true.
August 2, 200717 yr It considers distance along the earth's surface, so with Manhattan's high-rise buildings containing so many restaurants and shops, you should be able to score a ridiculous amount of walkable destinations, sometimes even stacked on top of each other. That really doesn't make sense. Why doesn't that make sense? Isn't that the point of vertically oriented mixed use- make things more pedestrian accessible by stacking them on top of each other, and therefore closer together?
August 2, 200717 yr Either you misunderstood what I said, or I didn't explain myself well (which happens). MrNYC lives downtown (I think). Due to the high density, there are several "walkable" places stacked on top of each other, meaning there is an insane amount of places to go in walking distance, due to the density and what is available vertically, not just horizontally. That should make Manhattan blow other places out of the water.
August 2, 200717 yr I got a 100! :-D http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.shtml?street=1526+3rd+ave+Seattle%2C+WA+98101&go=Go Seattle's downtown is nice to live in, but there are no grocery stores for at least a couple miles. There is the famous Pike Place Market 2 blocks away, but it's a bit pricey. I don't have a car, and I do just fine, so I suppose it's accurate enough.
August 2, 200717 yr Haha.. My current location in east side suburb of Cleveland: 14/100 When I move to NYC in December: 100/100 Polar ends wouldn't you say?
August 3, 200717 yr Haha.. My current location in east side suburb of Cleveland: 14/100 When I move to NYC in December: 100/100 Polar ends wouldn't you say? Nick Cellini, Jr. what part of cleveland are you in?
August 3, 200717 yr Nick Cellini, Jr? Oh Lord, How old are you?? and why must you answer a question with a question? Nick was a famous sport reporter in Cleveland before going to CNN.
August 3, 200717 yr I only answer questions that are properly addressed to me. Ha. touche..... so where are you on the eastside?
August 10, 200717 yr 'Complete streets' program gives more room for pedestrians, cyclists By John Ritter, USA TODAY A growing number of states and local governments are rejecting a half-century of transportation practice and demanding that streets accommodate all types of travel, not just automobiles. The concept of "complete streets" — with bike lanes, sidewalks and room for mass transit — has attracted a diverse national alliance of supporters, including advocates for senior citizens and the disabled. Find this article at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-29-streetinside_N.htm
August 10, 200717 yr I didn't read the whole article (though I intend to in a bit) but I would support complete streets in high density corridors and high density residential areas, not so much in a suburban environment where the bike lanes wouldn't get much use and ultimately create greater congestion or cause people to change their route. I think I would move the white lines for the bike lane a little closer to the sidewalk to create more of a buffer between the biker and the automobile, as an accident is more likely to occur between a biker and automobile than a biker and pedestrian. I have little knowledge on transportation planning at this point, just some random thoughts coming out of my head. Overall I think its something we need a lot more of.
August 10, 200717 yr Actually, there are ways it can be adapted to a surbuban environment. The City of Dublin (Ohio) has actually done a fairly good job of incorporating multi-use trails and bike lanes into both the new developments and as they have redeveloped their original downtown.
August 10, 200717 yr There's always someone willing to spoil the party -- in this case, Rupert Murdoch's Times of London. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
August 10, 200717 yr Actually, there are ways it can be adapted to a surbuban environment. The City of Dublin (Ohio) has actually done a fairly good job of incorporating multi-use trails and bike lanes into both the new developments and as they have redeveloped their original downtown. I can definitely see why it would be well adapted in Dublin, there's a lot to bike to.
August 11, 200717 yr There's always someone willing to spoil the party -- in this case, Rupert Murdoch's Times of London. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece That's some of the most disingenuous tripe I've ever seen published- who the hell eats only beef for their entire caloric intake?
August 11, 200717 yr Well, the Brits DO have a problem allocating their calories, but not in the way the author predicts... From BBC Health: Obesity rate triples Obesity is becoming more and more common A fifth of the adult population is obese The number of people who are obese has tripled over the last 20 years, and is still rising say experts. Figures to be presented to Parliament in a National Audit Office (NAO) report on Thursday, show most adults in England are overweight, and one in five is obese. The report 'Tackling Obesity In England', showed obesity caused 30,000 premature deaths in 1998 alone. The NHS spends at least £500m a year on treating obesity, which could also be costing the economy over £2bn a year. If the rise continues, it could cost the economy £3.5bn a year by 2010. ... Lifestyle changes The combination of a less active lifestyle and changes to eating patterns are blamed by experts for the rise in obesity. The report says that part of the solution is to prevent people becoming obese in the first place. ... More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1170787.stm
August 11, 200717 yr There's always someone willing to spoil the party -- in this case, Rupert Murdoch's Times of London. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece doesn't the production of the car and transportation of the oil add a lot of CO2 as well and the paving the road and parking lot?
August 11, 200717 yr Sure. That and more. I just posted the Times of London piece to show the lengths some people will go to in order to make a case for preserving the status quo.
August 12, 200717 yr He's also assuming that humans efficiently consume only calories that they will be using. Which, as the article on obesity points out, is a rather poor assumption. It would be vastly more efficient to encourage non-motorized transportation because it uses the calories already being consumed by sedentiary individuals for energy for transportation.
Create an account or sign in to comment