# America's Unwalkable Neighborhoods



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Study: 'Unwalkable' neighborhoods challenge the exercise-minded *
7 September 2007

ATLANTA (AP) - Nearly one in four people in the Atlanta area are exercise enthusiasts stuck in neighborhoods without sidewalks or other walking amenities, according to a study that illustrates a problem for many Americans. 

Researchers said the findings point to the need for more exercise-friendly places to live. 

"The bottom line is the built environment really does matter to health," said Lawrence Frank, a University of British Columbia researcher who led the study. 

Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods have sidewalks leading to nearby shops, restaurants or other destinations. They are built in a way that makes it easier to walk and get to buses and trains. Many are older neighborhoods, located in more urban areas. 

Frank is among a group of scientists who have shown that people who live in walkable neighborhoods tend to weigh less than people who live in more isolated and car-dependent areas. 

"He's the first one to make a connection between land use and obesity," said Christopher Leinberger, director of the University of Michigan's real estate program. 

Frank's current study examined whether a community's walkability affected obesity rates. The research showed that exercisers had a similarly low obesity rate whether they lived in walkable neighborhoods or not. It was 12 percent for those in walkable areas versus 15 percent in non-walkable neighborhoods, a difference that was not statistically significant. 

Among those who prefer to drive, however, about 21.5 percent were obese, and it also didn't matter whether they lived in walkable or non-walkable neighborhoods. 

The distances driven were also noted. Exercisers in walkable neighborhoods drove 26 miles a day, while those in non-walkable neighborhoods drove about 37 miles. 

Among non-exercisers, those in walkable neighborhoods drove 26 miles, and compared to 43 miles in areas that were mostly car-friendly. 

"Walking and driving really change a lot in different neighborhood types, regardless of people's preferences," Frank said. 

The study is based on detailed surveys done in the 13-county Atlanta region in 2001-02. The results, which are being published this fall in a peer-reviewed journal, Social Science & Medicine, are based on responses from 1,432 people. Twenty-three percent of them were exercisers living in places more conducive to driving than walking. 

The researchers also noted that sometimes people don't end up living where they want. Some move to less pedestrian-friendly areas because of concerns about crime or schools, Frank said. 

Leinberger notes that some people can't afford housing in walkable neighborhoods, where homes can cost up to three times as much as similar housing in non-walkable areas. 

David Goldberg, a 44-year-old Decatur, Ga., resident who participated in the survey, has lived in both environments. Goldberg said he was randomly selected for the study, but he also works for Smart Growth America, a nonprofit coalition that combats urban sprawl. 

In the 1990s, when he was a newspaper reporter, he and his wife bought a house in Henry County, a far-flung Atlanta suburb. It was an affordable, pretty area that was a good base for work trips to southern Georgia. But there were no sidewalks in the subdivision, and the only real walking destination was a convenience store across an increasingly busy highway. The family had to drive everywhere and he put on 15 pounds, he said. 

By the time of the survey, he and his family had moved to Decatur, an older suburb closer to Atlanta. They settled in a walkable area near a pleasantly busy town center. 

"The elementary school, high school and middle school are all walkable from our house. My 18-year-old son still doesn't have a driver's license because he just hasn't needed it," said Goldberg.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Really? NO sidewalks? Any photos?


----------



## sprtsluvr8 (Aug 5, 2006)

Is this information supposed to be shocking? A study with data from 6 years ago seems a little outdated to me...and the flipside of their findings is that 77% live in places more conducive to walking than driving.


----------



## bariQ (Oct 28, 2006)

i thought this was about gangs. :lol:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Considering the big box stores that dominate the suburban landscape, would people be willing to walk along the sidewalks, then cross a huge parking lot, just to get groceries or a bite?

That's why suburbs are so devoid of pedestrians, even though sidewalks are available.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

bariQ said:


> i thought this was about gangs. :lol:


Me too


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

gladisimo said:


> Really? NO sidewalks? Any photos?


This is not uncommon in many suburban communities, exclusively tied to auto-use. There just is no need for a sidewalk when the <sarcasm>car can get you anywhere.</sarcasm>


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

northsider1983 said:


> This is not uncommon in many suburban communities, exclusively tied to auto-use. There just is no need for a sidewalk when the <sarcasm>car can get you anywhere.</sarcasm>


People honked at me in Miami because I had parked at a free parking lot a little out of the center and ( as I normally would everywhere else ) desided to walk to the center ( along a sidewalk free road ) :lol:


----------



## Drunkill (Jul 31, 2004)

bariQ said:


> i thought this was about gangs. :lol:


Me too heh.

No footpaths? Seems very odd, surely you could walk on the side of the road along the side of the parked cars.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Mr_Denmark said:


> People honked at me in Miami because I had parked at a free parking lot a little out of the center and ( as I normally would everywhere else ) desided to walk to the center ( along a sidewalk free road ) :lol:


:lol: They aren't used to that!


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

In most of these suburbs without sidewalks (usually ones built in the 50's-70's, I might add), walking on the street is what people usually do.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

^^ I personally would hate that.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Not putting sidewalks is always a mistake. 

Yes, you can still walk on the side, but then you'll be on the sidelines right near cars or you will be tresspassing through people's yards. Having no sidewalks shows the inaccurate assumption that everyone has a car.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

It would be ridiclous when people walk maybe a few blocks to visit a neighbor. I think there's no need to have a car for that option. It might be a tight squeeze when 2 cars squeeze by each other when someone is walking on the road. Doesn't sound too safe.


----------



## EricIsHim (Jun 16, 2003)

sequoias said:


> It would be ridiclous when people walk maybe a few blocks to visit a neighbor. I think there's no need to have a car for that option. It might be a tight squeeze when 2 cars squeeze by each other when someone is walking on the road. Doesn't sound too safe.


Diving next street over to visit a neighbour is ridiclous, but it's very common in many American's towns. 

If it's a road in a neighbourhood, narrow is the way to go. As you said, it is to create that sense of "squeezing" when two cars pass-by each other in order to reduce vehicle travel speed in general and provide a safer walking environment. If it's a wide open highway-width road, the result is high speed travelling for everyone in a quite neighbourhood.


----------



## Gaeus (Mar 21, 2007)

What can I say? Americans live by the highway and will always depend on the highway. That's the reason why suburb was made on 1950s and 1960s. To make people take advantage of the huge space of land and the interstate highway. Even with 302 million in population, this country still has a huge space to fill in.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Lots of those sidewalkless streets are normally quiet suburban streets. Even in most suburban streets I've been on or grew up on (they all had sidewalks), you rarely have two cars passing at any point. They're usually very quiet streets with maybe 75 houses on them. That's not a lot of potential for "traffic" at any given time. My street growing up had maybe 200 houses on it, but it was never "busy". We'd still just play in the street and move when cars came. 

What annoys me are the busy streets and highways where the main traffic flow is diverted to. It's hard to walk along a highway without a footpath. Those main streets are definitely not made for ped traffic. I think this is what makes it hard to walk in the burbs. You can walk on the 80% of the streets that are quiet and residential, but those blocks are always separated by the main streets that slice through the neighborhoods.

How many areas have no footpaths on the residential streets anyway? I don't think I've ever seen one in any burbs I've been in. They're somewhat rare I believe. Unless they're grouped in a certain area of the country.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Chicagoago said:


> How many areas have no footpaths on the residential streets anyway? I don't think I've ever seen one in any burbs I've been in. They're somewhat rare I believe. Unless they're grouped in a certain area of the country.


There's handfuls here and there. The major streets and absolute nightmare of crossing them as a pedestrian is scary and depressing in the suburbs. Usually there is no walk-signal, and no sidewalk on major arterials. I can think of Rt 83 and North Ave, where I grew up as a terrible intersection to cross:









Compare this to North Ave and Western Ave in an urban setting (both still major arterials)


----------



## Occit (Jul 24, 2005)

*Now I could understand why so much people is fat in the US, they can't walk!!! *hno:


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Occit said:


> *Now I could understand why so much people is fat in the US, they can't walk!!! *hno:


Not only that...the drive thru...hno:


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

Unionstation13 said:


> I work in an office yes, but I'm not payed a fortune.
> Alot of people who live in the central city(who I know) dont have great jobs, but actually make more money living in the central city(you save a shitload on gas and other things).
> I very much care about pollution, as it will destroy us all if we dont stop it.


Air pollution will not destroy us. Ever hear of the digusting state of the skies and water in our cities a hundered years ago? Things change and I am not going to lose sleep over it.


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

Unionstation13 said:


> I'd rather have Kerry as president.
> Atleast he can properly pronounce words, and yes, I did vote for kerry!
> Neither are amazing, but Kerry had a much better stradegy for the US(regardless of stupid rumors.)


Speaking is one aspect of a leader. 

Kerry had no stategy for Iraq. None. The Democrats in 04' gave us a terrible lineup for candidates, just awful. At least there are some decent candidates for the Democratic Party next year. Hilary, Obama, and Edwards > Kerry, Dean, Al Sharpton lol: )

And if you want to discuss politics, this is not the forum. Give me a PM. I dont want to get in trouble.


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

arbeiter said:


> Aren't you special?
> 
> Every thread I've seen you on, you are a majorly annoying troll... you exist on here just to fan flames. I mean your name is johnny drama after all.


give me examples of me being a troll? How is saying I prefer to drive over walk make me a troll? I never said you people were morons for walking. And have you ever seen a troll that drives? No, most trolls walk to get under the bridges they live in.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

Wow... I'm sure glad I don't live in this so-called America place, it sounds terrible... Oh wait, I *DO* live in America... Its not that bad!!!


I agree that neighborhoods without sidewalks are terrible. But the good news is that there are plenty of nice places to live in America that are perfectly walkable.


----------



## darjeeling123 (Dec 26, 2004)

In large parts of America, people drive to walk. They get in a car, and drive to a place that's pleasant for walking. Like a park, shopping mall, town or city shopping street, etc.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

people will walk if they are in walking friendly area....

Tens of thousands of suburbanites come downtown by rail and then walk quite a bit to work, because its very easy and convenient.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Johnny Drama said:


> whatever that is supposed to mean. Was that some cheap attempt to sound like an African American?


I suggest you become careful at how you go about demonstrating your hapless stupidity......'try reading and forget the thinking, *eh?*'

Why, don't you like African Americans? I'm warning you, dawg......nobody need go there with me.......

"Sit, JD! Fart, JD!"

J'en ai mar de ton chie........(ep?)


----------



## arbeiter (Nov 10, 2004)

J'en ai marre


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

trainrover said:


> I suggest you become careful at how you go about demonstrating your hapless stupidity......'try reading and forget the thinking, *eh?*'
> 
> Why, don't you like African Americans? I'm warning you, dawg......nobody need go there with me.......
> 
> ...


What was so stupid about what I said? I dont like African Americans? No, its not that. Its just that I live in an area with alot of them and recognize some fool on the internet trying to act like one.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Johnny Drama, you need to learn to multiple quote inside *ONE* post. You had 5 posts in a row all within a few minutes of each other. I assume because you don't know how the quote tags work.


----------



## indistad (Apr 21, 2004)

Johnny Drama, you sound soo dumb. You make Americans sounds dumber than they are..

European walk everywhere because they are provided the infrastructure to walk. They can buy cars, not everyone outside the US are poor third-worlders...

And Bush is a global laughing stock.. sorry you didn't know that...


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

indistad said:


> Johnny Drama, you sound soo dumb. You make Americans sounds dumber than they are..
> 
> European walk everywhere because they are provided the infrastructure to walk. They can buy cars, not everyone outside the US are poor third-worlders...
> 
> And Bush is a global laughing stock.. sorry you didn't know that...


I sound _soo_ dumb? At least I know how to spell one of the simple words. 

Did I say everyone outside the U.S. is third world? No, I didnt. Go ahead and quote me if you can. So move along. Many Europeans cannot afford to live an American car/sprawl oriented lifestyle. Its as simple as that. Why dont you do yourself a favor and actually read up on this on the internet? People all over Europe are having troubles affording a home as is. 

And what does Bush have to do with anything? Whats amusing is that if he is a laughing stock, what does it make you? Who followed Bush into Iraq and did not oppose him on anything?


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

northsider1983 said:


> Johnny Drama, you need to learn to multiple quote inside *ONE* post. You had 5 posts in a row all within a few minutes of each other. I assume because you don't know how the quote tags work.


I know how they work. Thanks for the tip, ace.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Johnny Drama said:


> I know how they work. Thanks for the tip, ace.


"Ace", yea ok...

no wonder you have almost 800 posts in 3 months...because you post many times in a row when you only need ONE post. Another tip for you:


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

northsider1983 said:


> "Ace", yea ok...
> 
> no wonder you have almost 800 posts in 3 months...because you post many times in a row when you only need ONE post. Another tip for you:


kid, relax. Its a Saturday. Go outside and enjoy the beautiful weather we are having.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Johnny Drama said:


> kid, relax. Its a Saturday. Go outside and enjoy the beautiful weather we are having.


Yea, please don't call me "kid", "ace", or any other retarded words of affection. I have a username, please refer to it.

I just think it's annoying as all freaking hell when I see post after post after post of the same user (YOU), minutes after each other, just because they don't know how to quote or edit posts...possibly to beef up post count? I don't know, but it's really annoying and pointless.


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

northsider1983 said:


> Yea, please don't call me "kid", "ace", or any other retarded words of affection. I have a username, please refer to it.
> 
> I just think it's annoying as all freaking hell when I see post after post after post of the same user (YOU), minutes after each other, just because they don't know how to quote or edit posts...possibly to beef up post count? I don't know, but it's really annoying and pointless.


You made your point. Now, "northsider", begone with you. Get out of the basement and enjoy one of the last days of summer. This thread was hijacked enough with these miserable fools on my back, I dont need you throwing these "rules are rules" b.s. my way. :cheers:


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Johnny Drama said:


> You made your point. Now, "northsider", begone with you. Get out of the basement and enjoy one of the last days of summer. This thread was hijacked enough with these miserable fools on my back, *I dont need you throwing these "rules are rules" b.s. my way.* :cheers:


I said nothing about rules. I just said you don't know how to edit your posts and put multiple quotes within your posts to make it look neater and flow better. 



Johnny Drama said:


> Get out of the basement and enjoy one of the last days of summer.


I'll "get out of the basement" when I am good and ready, I don't need a second mother telling me when I need my fresh air.



Johnny Drama said:


> You made your point.


Now let's see if you actually put my point into practice and stop posting 5 times in a row.


----------



## shurik (Sep 9, 2005)

Johnny Drama said:


> ding ding. I live in Milwaukee and my ass wouldnt be caught dead walking in winter for long periods unless I was downtown on some heated skywalk. Yes, we know they walk in Moscow. I bet they would drive around too if it wasnt so expensive to live there.


Actually, its pleasant to walk in Moscow, in the city full of other people walking, nightlife and excitement. And subway there is beautiful.
I ve been to Milwaukee, u are right, no need to walk there, its declining and depressing, better drive through fast and go to Chicago.


----------



## Johnny Drama (Jul 24, 2007)

shurik said:


> Actually, its pleasant to walk in Moscow, in the city full of other people walking, nightlife and excitement. And subway there is beautiful.
> I ve been to Milwaukee, u are right, no need to walk there, its declining and depressing, better drive through fast and go to Chicago.


If you like walking in that kind of cold, then whatever. I imagine nobody finds walking in Moscow pleasant when its many degrees below freezing. 

Why is Milwaukee depressing and declining? Apparently you have not been here because the city is very walkable.


----------



## aliendroid (Jul 8, 2007)

Tcmetro said:


> Maybe walkable areas are more expensive than non-walkable areas, jeez.


It's more dependent on density then anything else. For example, in Clear lake (near Houston) the walkability is very good but the house lots are not very large and there are lots of apartments. Theres a community close by that is more rural in nature, with 2 or 3 acres per house and they have zero walkability without any sidewalks. You'll see this trend all over the USA, low density equal poor walkability, high density equals good walkability.


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

trainrover, what the **** are you babbling on about? I can't understand a word you're saying. Using big words to create complicated, poorly-structured sentences does not make you sound smart or sound like you have an advanced vocabulary, so stop trying.

Personally I am fine with walking, but driving isn't as bad as a lot of people here seem to make it out to be. Like someone previously noted, if you live in a suburb with no bus service (or buses that only come every 1 or 2 hours), what's the point in waiting for it to take you to the store when you can hop in your car and be there and back in 20 minutes?

Although I happen to live in the main city itself, it's a very suburban-like neighborhood built in the 1960s with sidewalks on every street. There are a few very small sections of streets that don't have sidewalks around here (mainly to the south where homes were built in the 50s or earlier), but they're few and far between. I live right near a major arterial road that has a bus that comes every 15 minutes and can take me directly to any shopping I want or down to the TRAX station (our light rail). Unfortunately, the bus only takes me halfway to my work (although it's only a 20-minute walk). Looking at some suburban areas, there's huge sections with no bus service, and this is AFTER they just redesigned the entire bus system in the city.


----------



## mdude (Jul 8, 2005)

Mr_Denmark said:


> People honked at me in Miami because I had parked at a free parking lot a little out of the center and ( as I normally would everywhere else ) desided to walk to the center ( along a sidewalk free road ) :lol:


I think it was because you were walking along a sidewalk free road, which is not only dangerous, but in some areas it is against the law depending on how close you are to the road's edge.


----------



## seapug (Jan 11, 2004)

*....*

hmm when i lived in cali there were sidewalks everywhere. when i lived in southern missouri there were no sidewalks anywhere, in connecticut it was really hit and miss. here in seattle there's sidewalks nearly everywhere. we have a bus system witch for a bus system is really good i live in the city and work in the burbs during peaak there's a bus every 10 minutes to my work off peak theres one every 30 minutes it's about a 45 minute bus ride. i will get a car soon after i move closer to work then i can walk to work but have a car to drive to the mountains the oceans or hangout with large groups of friends. while we may disagree with johny dramka he is completely entitled to his opinions. why do a majority of us liberals insist that the only people aloud to have opinions are other liberals. i lived in the ultra conservative heart of the bible belt and all the "fanatic christian nazis" were completely fine and accepting of my liberal views none of em were homophobic or racist.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*FEATURE-Car-driven society poses risk to Americans' health *

ATLANTA, May 29 (Reuters) - When Seema Shrikhande goes to work, she drives. When she takes her son to school, they drive. And when she shopping, to the bank or to visit friends, she gets into her car, buckles up and hits the road.

Driving is a way of life for Americans but researchers say the national habit of driving everywhere is bad for health.

The more you drive, the less you walk. Walking provides exercise without really trying.

Ideally, people should take 10,000 steps a day to maintain wellness, according to James Hill, professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado.

But for those who only walk from their home to the car and from their car to an office and back again, that figure can sink to only 1,000 steps.

A car culture forces people to make time to exercise and driving long distances reduces the time available to work out.

"If it (Atlanta) was a city where I walked more I would automatically get a lot of the exercise I need. Now I have to ... schedule it into my life. Sometimes it's very difficult because I'm busy," said Shrikhande, a professor of communications at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta.

Obesity and heart disease are two of many problems associated with a sedentary lifestyle.

Car dependence makes it harder to get the 75 minutes of intense weekly exercise or the 150 minutes of moderate exercise the government recommends, said Dr. Dianna Densmore of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia has even quantified the link between the distance people drive each day and their body weight.

"Every additional 30 minutes spent in a car each day translates into a 3 percent greater chance of being obese," he said. "People who live in neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking distance are 7 percent less likely to be obese."

READJUSTING THE BALANCE

Older cities such as New York, Boston and Chicago contain neighborhoods built around a grid of densely populated streets and tend to have more public transport.

But fast-growing newer cities like Atlanta, Dallas and Phoenix are surrounded by sprawling suburbs that can only be navigated behind the wheel, not least because fiercely hot summers limit the attraction of walking.

Shrikhande said that as a student in Philadelphia she didn't own a car and walked a lot but in Atlanta car reliance was a small price to pay for a lifestyle whose benefits include better weather and living in a leafy suburb.

Health is just one factor that has caused town planners to seek alternatives to driving-only towns. High gas prices, a desire for more tightly knit communities and environmental concerns also play a role.

Atlanta is seeing a rise in inward migration as people move back into neighborhoods around the city center.

But the question of how to readjust the balance away from car dependence and toward sidewalks, cycle lanes and denser communities is intensely political.

Groups worried about climate change and others promoting a healthier lifestyle are lobbying for a new federal transport bill that shifts policy toward alternatives to car use.

"We have designed cities to suppress walking," said David Goldberg of Smart Growth America, a coalition of nonprofit groups that works to improve town and city planning. "It's much easier to widen highways in an ... exurb than to get money to retrofit an over-wide highway for non-driver.".

In a country where the car is a symbol of freedom, efforts to promote alternatives are caricatured as social engineering or a bid to undermine the country's spirit by powerful lobbies representing the transportation and construction industries.

Even so, efforts are underway. In Atlanta, local governments have devised strategies to promote urban living, said Dan Reuter of the Atlanta Regional Commission.

The city is also exploring building light rail to connect northern suburbs with the center and has embarked on a project to link a disused "Beltline" tram loop around the city center with parks, communities and business, he said.

"A CULTURAL THING"

In interviews, commuters reflected on the impact of spending hours each week in their cars.

"It's a total drain on my children," said Krystal Barrett, who drives her two sons to school each morning across Atlanta's northern suburbs -- a 45 minute journey on a good day.

Barrett and her husband want to move closer to work, school and church. Meanwhile, she often breaks the long journey home to let her two mall boys burn off energy at a playground.

But other commuters said they drove out of habit so ingrained it became a state of mind.

Francis Charfauros, a coffee shop manager in Scottsdale, Arizona, said he would drive to work at his previous job even though it was just a few yards away.

"I don't know why," he said. "It's a cultural thing."


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

I can't imagine living in a city where walking/PT wasn't an easy option. Even in Australia's outer suburbs (where car dependency is a concerning issue) you are still able to walk to a local shopping area. I think sidewalks must be mandatory here, I don't think I've ever seen a street without them.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I thought sidewalks were common features in American neighborhoods, even the suburbs. However, people just don't use them - they prefer driving instead.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

city_thing said:


> I can't imagine living in a city where walking/PT wasn't an easy option. Even in Australia's outer suburbs (where car dependency is a concerning issue) you are still able to walk to a local shopping area. I think sidewalks must be mandatory here, I don't think I've ever seen a street without them.


Not true. Large parts of Capalaba in Brisbane where I stayed with friends were without pavements (side walks). Her road didn't even have one. hno:

In NZ, lots of small towns don't have pavements either, which is a shame. Cambridge would be a lovely place if its suburbs actually went to the effort of installing pavements.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

I lived in Philadelphia for 12 years and walked everywhere. I can't say the same for Florida. Here the cops will stop you for walking because people walking look suspicious. You cannot judge the whole country by this. The Sunbelt and Middle America are the worst offenders for car oriented planning. South Beach, New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are the only true walking cities in the entire south.

America has no master plan. The whole Northeastern megapolis is very walkable and well connected by downtowns and rail. The newer parts of the country are the pits in terms of walkability.

Every state is different. I can't understand why GM doesn't focus more on producing light rail cars and systems. The car culture will bring down this entire country eventually. More people get in trouble with the law because they are forced by bad zoning to drive. Also more people get fat and die in auto accidents. Cars isolate people socially and road rage is on the rise.

I miss my walking lifestyle and hopefully soon I'll have it back.

Atlanta is very repairable. There are lots of pleasant walkable pockets and they just need to be connected. Atlanta is starting to understand. It is kind of a hybrid between a northern and southern city.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

krudmonk said:


> Maybe it's because Californians are vain and image-obsessed () but people around here use sidewalks in the burbs all the time. They're not necessarily going places, just keeping fit. Nevertheless, they're used.


:lol:so true. There's always people power-walking on the sidewalks in the burbs


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"I'm from New Jersey, and I've never once seen a street without a sidewalk, sometimes only on one side there's one, but it's still there. I'm not a frequent driver considering I go to NYC all the time, thank God we've got probably the best commuter rail system in the country (NJ Transit, so much better than MNRR and LIRR and those three are the only ones of that size in the country)."

New Jersey is pretty awesome. Even all the beach towns are walkable. Love Jersey, what a fantastic state. The rail system puts all the other 49 states to shame.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

philadweller said:


> I lived in Philadelphia for 12 years and walked everywhere. I can't say the same for Florida. Here the cops will stop you for walking because people walking look suspicious. You cannot judge the whole country by this. The Sunbelt and Middle America are the worst offenders for car oriented planning. South Beach, New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are the only true walking cities in the entire south.
> 
> America has no master plan. The whole Northeastern megapolis is very walkable and well connected by downtowns and rail. The newer parts of the country are the pits in terms of walkability.
> 
> ...


Basically, many newer suburbs don't have sidewalks and sometimes don't have a store or anything for miles. What's worse if Florida has a bad road system too, so driving is a pain in the ass. Aside from that there are many places with sidewalks that are hardly used, this time of the year walking really is miserable from the heat and humidity.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

philadweller said:


> "I'm from New Jersey, and I've never once seen a street without a sidewalk, sometimes only on one side there's one, but it's still there. I'm not a frequent driver considering I go to NYC all the time, thank God we've got probably the best commuter rail system in the country (NJ Transit, so much better than MNRR and LIRR and those three are the only ones of that size in the country)."
> 
> New Jersey is pretty awesome. Even all the beach towns are walkable. Love Jersey, what a fantastic state. The rail system puts all the other 49 states to shame.


Absolutely agree.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The problem is more on getting people to walk than to drive instead of giving the facilities to walk. It's shifting the choice to move away from the car.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

One big thing is the layout and wide open spaces you see all over in the United States.

My parents have a gas station and two little stores they can walk to about 15 minutes away (which they do), but that's it.

If they wanted to walk to a library or book store, the mall, supermarket, it would probably take them around an hour. Then they'd have to walk back. There isn't a bus for about 2 miles, and it comes once an hour.

My parents go on walk every night, but they're not going to walk over an hour to the mall and then back. You can drive to that mall in 8 minutes on very efficient roads. The US is planned for quick road access, but normally things are spaced way too far apart to let everyone walk. My parents just walk down from their house and go around the large pond in their subdivision, look at the deer, geese, beavers, rabbits, squirrels, relax and then come home. 30 minutes.

They do actually drive to the park to walk around as well, which I found funny at first. Thinking about it though, this park is about a 35 minute walk from their house with large hills. The park has a nice little parking lot right at the entrance, and then has a huge penned in area for dogs to run around, a really nice walk along the river, benches, and a footbridge across the river to a restaurant. It's an awesome place to walk around, and sometimes they actually just walk to the park - but that's at least a few hours commitment and a couple miles of walking. Sometimes they just want to hang out with the dogs and take a walk along the river and be home in 45 minutes.

My aunt and uncle live closer into town (still a burb), and they can walk to the store and mall in about 20 minutes. They actually do it all the time just to browse, but you're not going to want to haul that much back with you if you have a 20 minute walk ahead. It's also very hilly.

That said though - there are sidewalks in front of EVERY street in my town, and then on top of that there are dozens of KM of trails that criss-cross the city through ravines, forested areas and between housing subdivisions. It's a walkers paradise - even if there's really nowhere to go in the end! The trails are always packed, but with people out getting exercise, not really "doing" anything. My Grandparents favorite thing to do is to walk the cart paths at the golf course, which is really just a huge park.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

hkskyline said:


> The problem is more on getting people to walk than to drive instead of giving the facilities to walk. It's shifting the choice to move away from the car.


Well, having the infrastructure to enable people to have a walk without being stressed out by institutionalized jaywalking across streets with heavy traffic. Having proper side walks are the preconditions to make people walk. 

That does not mean that it will make them walk, but without them it won't work for sure.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

The problem is pod zoning...residential here, retail there. Retail should be at street level and residential should be above that. Unfortunately most Americans want a single family house. It would not be so bad if they were rowhomes. Side yards are useless and the biggest waste of space in residential communities. Cars were never meant to be abused like they are in the US. They were originally intended for a Sunday drive and not a 60 mile each way commute. New Jersey is the exception. Wedged between Philadelphia and New York City is it's greatest asset. Both cities create a massive web of transit which includes, Atlantic City, Camden, Jersey City, Trenton, Paterson, Hoboken and Newark. Eat your heart out America. New Jersey is the role model state.
Most of the train stops for all the transit lines are completely walkable downtowns.

NJ Transit








and PATCO








Hudson light rail map








Newark transit map








PATH rail system








and the Camden/Trenton Delaware River line









And tie all this in with Philadelphia's SEPTA








and New York City's MTA map


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Some of these lines are regional rail lines rather than frequent urban lines, right? The frequency for most of those lines appears to be hourly off peak both during the weekday and weekend (with some exceptions) which really doesn't make them very viable transport despite the map looking very impressive. The bundled segments of line though I'd imagine would be quiet well travelled as they would give far more managable frequencies if the timetables are structured properly.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

To it's credit, NJ is the most densely populated state in the entire nation with it's large population for it's small size. For it not to have at least a decent rail system would be really pathetic, especially with it's proximity with New York and Philadelphia.

However, that state is literally light-years ahead of Connecticut, the government here is pro-car and thinks of mass transit as an afterthought.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

NJ may be the most densely populated state, but isn't most of urban developments suburban in general? 



> However, that state is literally light-years ahead of Connecticut, the government here is pro-car and thinks of mass transit as an afterthought.


I could say the same about MD except for parts near DC.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I disagree that it is all related to density, if only because you can and often do see density in areas that aren't walkable, and walkability in small towns that are not very dense.

Remember some cities like Vegas or LA with expensive land build their suburbs fairly dense with developers trying to squeeze as many houses they can. But many of these areas built in the last 10 years aren't really walkable...Now me, I live in a small city in Texas that is very low density but the majority of areas have sidewalks and the road shoulders are marked as bike lines on residential arterial streets. And you do see people walking occasionally.

I think its planning, if the city or private developer includes ped features or not. Its so typical to see paths worn into the grass anyways.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

LtBk said:


> NJ may be the most densely populated state, but isn't most of urban developments suburban in general?


NJ has a large and still used rail network, as well as lots of town centers that were founded way before the car came along. Sure, it has it's ugly sprawl, but it has a lot more potential to get fixed...unlike in the Sunbelt.



zaphod said:


> I disagree that it is all related to density, if only because you can and often do see density in areas that aren't walkable, and walkability in small towns that are not very dense.
> 
> Remember some cities like Vegas or LA with expensive land build their suburbs fairly dense with developers trying to squeeze as many houses they can. But many of these areas built in the last 10 years aren't really walkable...


That is the worst of both worlds, with all of the disadvantages of crowding and little (and in most cases, no) of the advantages that density brings to an area. Your neighbor can see what you are doing in your window, but because there are no stores nearby, you still have to drive like 15 minutes to get a gallon of milk or medicine or whatever. I actually would consider that worse than a less dense suburban area.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

When higher densities are mixed with unwalkabilty, at least less land is being used, and driving distances can be shorter. Those are both very important.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"NJ may be the most densely populated state, but isn't most of urban developments suburban in general?" 

I would say NJ is as suburban as most US cities Midtowns. Most of the nasty sprawl is west of the isolated parts of the Jersey Shore (LBI and Toms River) or in the hinterlands of NW New Jersey away from the NYC and PHL. Also, many of the older towns like Princeton are surrounded by sprawl outside the core. Usually the sprawl is on former farmland or along the Route 1 corridor and The Jersey Turnpike between NYC and PHL. Most of northeastern New Jersey is about as urban as Brooklyn, NY.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

^^ Indeed, 7 of the 10 densest cities in the entire US are in New Jersey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density

(although there are several neighborhoods in NY and probably SF and some other cities that are denser)


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*NYC releases design guidelines to help architects, urban planners promote physical activity *
31 January 2010

NEW YORK (AP) - The city has come up with design guidelines to help architects and urban planners design buildings, plazas and other spaces in ways that promote physical activity.

The Active Design Guidelines, developed with the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, cover both outdoor design as well as overall building design.

"Architecture and health issues may not seem like overlapping areas, but the design of buildings, plazas and other outdoor spaces can make a real difference in the level of physical activity they allow and promote," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement Sunday.

The guidelines include strategies like encouraging bicycle use by incorporating bike parking in buildings, as well as making stairways convenient and accessible.

Others strategies include providing features that support being active, like gyms, locker rooms, and water fountains. Buildings can also be designed to encourage people to walk to common spaces like mailrooms and lunchrooms.

The guidelines are voluntary, but architects and planners designing public projects will be encouraged to use them.

Bloomberg has made public health a priority. The city's health department has banned trans fats in restaurant meals and forced chain eateries to post calorie counts on menus, and also issued guidelines for salt intake. His administration banned smoking in bars and restaurants in 2002.


----------



## citybus (Oct 22, 2008)

So is Jaywalking frowned upon by US police? In Britain everyone does it, it would be unthinkable in most cases to walk more than a few minutes out of the way to get to a pedestrian crossing (assuming it's safe to do so).


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

In some cities more than others, yes. In Seattle, I always look for cops first. In Boston, it's like the Britain.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Don't think I cared too much when I crossed the street in New York, or other American cities. If the police are around, they're more concerned about terrorism threats these days.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

citybus said:


> So is Jaywalking frowned upon by US police? In Britain everyone does it, it would be unthinkable in most cases to walk more than a few minutes out of the way to get to a pedestrian crossing (assuming it's safe to do so).


haha so true! I always just dash across the road to get to the shop, even tho the crossing is about 15 steps to the side!

But also to point out, here in the UK there are also plenty of suburban developments without side walks (Pavements)...in fact where I live in Cheshire is one of them!


----------



## dmarney (Jul 26, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> haha so true! I always just dash across the road to get to the shop, even tho the crossing is about 15 steps to the side!
> 
> But also to point out, here in the UK there are also plenty of suburban developments without side walks (Pavements)...in fact where I live in Cheshire is one of them!


Could I ask where? I really cant think of anywhere with no pavements, unless you live on one of the newer housing estates.

I think most suburbs in the Uk have plenty of pavements and things along the side of the road for pedestrians, but In Chester where I live there are lots of fences around parts of the inner ring road (especially the roundabouts) to protect you from cars I suppose, which makes it alot harder to cross!


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

dmarney said:


> Could I ask where? I really cant think of anywhere with no pavements, unless you live on one of the newer housing estates.
> 
> I think most suburbs in the Uk have plenty of pavements and things along the side of the road for pedestrians, but In Chester where I live there are lots of fences around parts of the inner ring road (especially the roundabouts) to protect you from cars I suppose, which makes it alot harder to cross!


I live in the 'posh' part of Cheshire. Where everyone drives big cars etc, its not really a suburb. But there are more suburban areas near me that don't have pavements...

'The Villas' is a big development near me, all of it has NO pavements...
Its a nice place to live, I have friends there, but they all gotta drive to the shops...

Here are some google maps screen shots of some places near me with NO pavements (sidewalks)...

The Villas










Tytherington










Birkdale










Walton Heath










From what I can see, its all the more wealthy places which have been built like this...People who are more willing to spend more on petrol?


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

^^

They're wealth!? WTF?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Solopop said:


> ^^
> 
> They're wealth!? WTF?


well middle class wealth. Its not exactly working class


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

bear in mind UK house prices too


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

and sizes...they're TINY!


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ I have never understood the fascination of owning huge homes. Its just an awful lot to maintain and keeping clean. But of course, thats what you have the gardener, cleaning lady and baby sitter for, don't you?

Those homes above, look like a perfect size and not too little at all.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

the spliff fairy said:


> bear in mind UK house prices too


Exactly. Most of those houses would fetch at least $800,000 U.S where I'm from (SF Bay Area), even though they're 'small'. SO they would be considered wealthy or upscale


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ I have never understood the fascination of owning huge homes. Its just an awful lot to maintain and keeping clean. But of course, thats what you have the gardener, cleaning lady and baby sitter for, don't you?
> 
> Those homes above, look like a perfect size and not too little at all.


Yes but most UK homes are the smallest in western Europe - they lack space standards and some of the rooms are so awfully small they have to be seen to be believed. Especially so with apartments/flats, which are often unfit for living a decent lifestyle, especially so compared to apartments on the continent - most here are tiny 1/2 beds with no storage or useful outside space. Balconies are rare - most are 'juliet' balconies - effectively doors which open out onto nothing but a metal grill. Yet, they are often built on plots with enough room to accommodate decent sized rooms. 
I think this is part of the reason that apartment living is not considered 'normal' or adequate here - most people rent/buy them reluctantly until they can afford to buy a house.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ That sounds bad indeed. I think apartments do not deserve to being considered an inferior choice. But I am aware that British real estates often are of terrible quality, but both single homes as well as apartments. At least those that are not built privately, which means most of them.

Somehow I don't get it. Real estates tend to be so expensive there but yet are often of terrible quality.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yep average UK house price is $341,000 (and thats with a massive crash), bearing in mind space is alot smaller too, and at a premium:

Detached	$526,044
Apartment	$304,498

as for Greater London it's:

Detached: $794,099
Duplex: $437,285
Rowhome: $413,108
Apartment: $338,700.


Back in 2007 those prices would have been stratospherically higher at the height of the bubble - literally millions became property millionaires


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

This is from an old post from a few years back, the extreme that it was taken to back in '07:
*
windowless 7ft 6 inch by 3ft 4 inch studio (the shower is under the bed, and under that is a squat toilet), $210,000:
-formerly a wardrobe and rented out at $290 a week. The buyer is 5ft tall.*









http://haha.nu/entertainment/londons-smallest-flat



*6ft by 12ft sized room unfurnished, $345,000:*









http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...able-sized-flat-is-smallest-ever-residence.do


*Single Studio in this rowhouse: $610,000*








http://www.findaproperty.com/rickmanproperties
*
2 bedrooms, ex stables block in row (stoop to get in the door): $6 million*








www.knightfrank.co.uk

*
ex-office, needs total refurbishment and conversion (and windows?), end of row $6 million*








www.telegraph.co.uk/property
*
5 bed rowhouse, $12 million*








www.knightfrank.co.uk/propertyImages
*
6 bed, end of row:
$13.22 million*








www.knightfrank.co.uk
*
large end of row, unspecified bedrooms, $50 million*








http://imagebank.ipcmedia.com, www.knightfrank.co.uk
*
12 bed single rowhouse (every 5 windows along is a new house): $120 million*








^These very rarely come on the market, one offer of $400 million was refused though it would have made it the most expensive property on the planet.
*
12 bed detached mansion, $128 million*








http://msnbcmedia.msn.com



*Penthouse apartment in St James' - $187 million:









www.thisislondon.co.uk


penthouse apartment overlooking Hyde Park, $210 million (normal flat here $50-170 million)







*
http://property.timesonline.co.uk









www.e-architect.co.uk
*
^It is thought that each flat is fitted with bullet-resistant walls and windows. There is underground parking for 115 vehicles and private lifts direct to each residence The site will also have an underground passage to the near-by Mandarin Oriental hotel, where 36 staff will be on hand to cater to residents’ needs.*


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

the spliff fairy said:


> 12 bed single rowhouse (every 5 windows along is a new house): $120 million[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:drool:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

The houses in my area are pretty expensive but are MUCH better value than the ones in and around London. Manchester is close by so you got the city and London is only 1hr 50mins ish by train!

Some houses for sale near me in Cheshire...

£3,750,000...5 bedroom house for sale, Withinlee Road, Prestbury, Cheshire


































*I love this one....*


£3,450,000...7 bedroom detached house for sale, Summerhill Road, Prestbury, Cheshire



































£2,950,000...5 bedroom detached house for sale, Heybridge Lane,Prestbury,Cheshire


----------



## steppenwolf (Oct 18, 2002)

In those neighbourhoods there are no sidewalks, but more importantly, nowhere nearby to walk to. Urban areas have shops and services within walking distance. In neighbourhoods liek this you have to drive for 20 minutes before you get anywhere near a shop


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

EricIsHim said:


> Diving next street over to visit a neighbour is ridiclous, but it's very common in many American's towns.
> .


Okay, we have issues with auto-dependency but even we aren't that insane. :lol:


----------



## mWoods (Dec 11, 2009)

This country needs to start re-thinking some of its infrastructural assumptions. Bike lanes, for example should, IMO, be an extension of sidewalks and away from the streets that cars use. Of course, this assumes that bike lanes are even under consideration.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

where I live now has an extremely bad road system.

It's a typical small town that grew too fast. Since the original town's extent wasn't very large it's mostly sprawling areas with only one or two outlets in or out. Traffic is funneled onto 4 lane roads that are still considered highways and have limited signals and high speed limits. It's nice around the old downtown and university where I live, just that it immediately starts looking ugly. It also represents inconvenience for getting around-you are forced to drive in some parts of town but in others like around the uni. campus there is no parking, and so depending on what part of town you live in its hard to go to the other. I can't easily visit my friend because my apartment is in a auto-centric area and he lives in a building with no visitor parking.

Alternatively, some suburbs in other places aren't as bad. Where I grew up was basically where developers put in subdivisions on the uniform tracts of land demarcated by a grid of farm roads, the traditional american land survey of the west. Over time it grew to be a more contiguous area with more street outlets and connections, and that had a greater mix of uses such as retail centers and parks adjacent to residential subdivisions.

I also think that no matter if you believe that walkability is important or not, it also benefits auto drivers to be able to move around town on streets that connect and have less traffic. Funneling a development 500 houses onto one old 2 lane road is bound to negatively impact everybody in the long run.


----------



## Pickle33 (Feb 7, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> I live in the 'posh' part of Cheshire. Where everyone drives big cars etc, its not really a suburb. But there are more suburban areas near me that don't have pavements...
> 
> 'The Villas' is a big development near me, all of it has NO pavements...
> Its a nice place to live, I have friends there, but they all gotta drive to the shops...
> ...


These are all shared suface access roads where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over cars. British planning laws don't allow housing estate layouts without pedestrian access and never have. The worst thing about these places is that they are cul de sac developments which arn't any good when you want to create direct and quick pedestrian routes with good natural surveillance from surrounding properties. Cul de sacs are now out of fashion in favour of streets with shared access roads, like "home zones" which were pioneered in the Netherlands.

British suburban development is still pretty dire, despite the pavements.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Pickle33 said:


> These are all shared suface access roads where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over cars.


But it still results in people having to walk on the road which puts people off walking. I know this as I have friends which live in some of them areas and all drive everywhere as its the only option. Buses cannot serve areas like that.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

steppenwolf said:


> In those neighbourhoods there are no sidewalks, but more importantly, nowhere nearby to walk to. Urban areas have shops and services within walking distance. In neighbourhoods liek this you have to drive for 20 minutes before you get anywhere near a shop


Where is that? Even in the worst american suburbia you drive no more than 5 minutes to a little neighbourhood mall with supermarket, pharmacy and bakery.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

goschio said:


> Where is that? Even in the worst American suburbia you drive no more than 5 minutes to a little neighborhood mall with supermarket, pharmacy and bakery.


You'd be surprised, look at this area and show me how many stores there are.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=28.959338,-82.456512&spn=0.08336,0.132351&t=h&z=13

It's funny because most of these neighborhoods without sidewalks are in areas built between the 50' and 80's. A good example is this part of Tampa, Florida where you see one newer house with a sidewalk to nowhere as I think its required in new developments. Whats said is this neighborhood is maybe 6 miles from the city center if that.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&i...=_2kOs5pZLr9I3wP4ZE7lEQ&cbp=12,299.79,,0,10.6


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ That sounds bad indeed. I think apartments do not deserve to being considered an inferior choice. But I am aware that British real estates often are of terrible quality, but both single homes as well as apartments. At least those that are not built privately, which means most of them.
> 
> Somehow I don't get it. Real estates tend to be so expensive there but yet are often of terrible quality.


I wouldn't say "terrible" quality, the average is probably not as high as German standards but compared to most other countries it is not so bad. There are good homes and not so good ones.

For price too, now there has been a fall in both house prices and the value of sterling, prices here are not much different to comparable countries elsewhere in western Europe. The median price of a UK home is now £165k, that's €192k or $250k.


----------



## julieCEO (Apr 22, 2010)

Walking on the side way. Not good.


----------



## graffhead91 (Aug 19, 2010)

Willets point Queens New York:


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

^^well, that's a little different of a case, it's an urban industrial area that there's little reason to walk in (mostly auto repair shops and such), but is served extremely well by transit (bus and subway nearby)


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

goschio said:


> Where is that? Even in the worst american suburbia...


I guess everyone here hates suburbia?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I can't help myself but everytime I look at these pictures from that area in Queens I think this has to be somewhere in India etc.


----------



## shtoopid (Jun 15, 2010)

Slartibartfas said:


> I can't help myself but everytime I look at these pictures from that area in Queens I think this has to be somewhere in India etc.


industrial sites aren't meant to be beautiful










venice, italy


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I did not imply that industrial areas have to look beautiful. What I said was that those shown in the pictures above, don't look ugly, they look incredibly poor and rundown. Industrial areas don't have to look like that and I dare to say that also in the US this is not standard.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> I did not imply that industrial areas have to look beautiful. What I said was that those shown in the pictures above, don't look ugly, they look incredibly poor and rundown. Industrial areas don't have to look like that and I dare to say that also in the US this is not standard.


That's not the _standard_ in the USA, that's just a very run down, cheap area that was thrown up without much thought and then basically forgotten about. If someone moved in with a lot of money and fixed up the buildings and started paying more in taxes - then they could make a case that the area needs to be brought up to much higher standards.

As it is the people in the businesses are probably paying little to no rent, they have power, water and a road you can (barely) drive on to get to their businesses. It's all about economics. 

That area is quite small, and is smashed into a random setting with a quirky past. There has been talk about putting a stadium in the area for a long time now, and going back 50 years there have been plans to finally "right" the place. Right now it's salvage yards, car repair places and waste processing plants.

There's always talk about what to do with the area, because it wasn't suppose to end up like this, and obviously needs to change at some point. It just keeps "existing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willets_Point,_Queens

The neighborhood is listed as having ONE resident.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ The Wikipdia photo does not even look as bad as those above. Anyway, an area with sewage, barely existing streets looks shocking. There seem to be no signs, street lights as well. This is not an industrial area, its an industrial slum.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Yeah, it's weird. It's an area that's ALWAYS been the center of discussion and debate, but neeeeeever quite enough attention has been drawn to get the funds and a solid plan of action. It's a slummy, crappy area of waste processing, junk yards and low cost car repair joints. I guess it just is what it is - it certainly has a solid stream of businesses and people.

Strangely a reason the area continues in its current state and is popular is because it's so unique.


----------



## ChitownCity (May 11, 2010)

Slartibartfas said:


> I can't help myself but everytime I look at these pictures from that area in Queens I think this has to be somewhere in India etc.


I agree with you. The first time I ever ran across this area I thought the same exact thing...


----------

