Comments on: Today’s Headlines http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charlie D. http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/comment-page-1/#comment-41185 Charlie D. Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:17:07 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/#comment-41185 Studies like these are so arbitrary. Your results will vary greatly depending on what you're trying to measure. For example, you could measure the percentage of people who walk to work, the average distance walked per person per day, etc. Each one would give you a different result. I don't really understand the approach of identifying specific "walkable" areas and then using a per capita approach, one because the identification of these areas can be somewhat arbitrary, and two because as density increases, the number of walkable areas per capita goes down even though walkability itself may go up. Studies like these are so arbitrary. Your results will vary greatly depending on what you’re trying to measure. For example, you could measure the percentage of people who walk to work, the average distance walked per person per day, etc. Each one would give you a different result. I don’t really understand the approach of identifying specific “walkable” areas and then using a per capita approach, one because the identification of these areas can be somewhat arbitrary, and two because as density increases, the number of walkable areas per capita goes down even though walkability itself may go up.

]]> By: Steve http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/comment-page-1/#comment-41182 Steve Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:10:31 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/#comment-41182 Angus, agree 100%. I wonder why this real estate developer was permitted to do a study in the name of the Brookings Institution that puts NY 10th in walkable cities, just above (gasp) L.A.? What a joke. The mass media widely reported on this report, but completely ignored the problem with the per-capita approach. Angus, agree 100%. I wonder why this real estate developer was permitted to do a study in the name of the Brookings Institution that puts NY 10th in walkable cities, just above (gasp) L.A.? What a joke. The mass media widely reported on this report, but completely ignored the problem with the per-capita approach.

]]> By: Boogiedown http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/comment-page-1/#comment-41164 Boogiedown Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:31:29 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/#comment-41164 Angus: I was just about to make the same comment, but you said it better than I would have! Angus: I was just about to make the same comment, but you said it better than I would have!

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/comment-page-1/#comment-41163 Angus Grieve-Smith Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:27:46 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/todays-headlines-296/#comment-41163 That Brookings report is funny. Here's the full version: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/1128_walkableurbanism_leinberger.aspx New York is #10 because it "only" has 21 regionally significant walkable places for its population of 18 million? Well, to have as many places per capita as DC it'd have to have at least 71. Honestly, I'm sure it has more than 71 places that are at least as walkable as Dupont Circle and as regionally significant as Park Slope and Morningside Heights. We shouldn't be penalized for Leinberger not doing his homework. Here are my nominations for 21 places not mentioned; I'm sure others here can add at least 29 more. Queens: Jamaica, Flushing, Jackson Heights, Long Island City, Astoria, Sunnyside, Woodside, Bayside, Corona, Ridgewood, Elmhurst, Rego Park, Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Ozone Park. The Bronx: Fordham, The Hub, Parkchester, Woodlawn, Riverdale, Norwood, Concourse Village. That Brookings report is funny. Here’s the full version:

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/1128_walkableurbanism_leinberger.aspx

New York is #10 because it “only” has 21 regionally significant walkable places for its population of 18 million? Well, to have as many places per capita as DC it’d have to have at least 71. Honestly, I’m sure it has more than 71 places that are at least as walkable as Dupont Circle and as regionally significant as Park Slope and Morningside Heights. We shouldn’t be penalized for Leinberger not doing his homework.

Here are my nominations for 21 places not mentioned; I’m sure others here can add at least 29 more.

Queens: Jamaica, Flushing, Jackson Heights, Long Island City, Astoria, Sunnyside, Woodside, Bayside, Corona, Ridgewood, Elmhurst, Rego Park, Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Ozone Park.

The Bronx: Fordham, The Hub, Parkchester, Woodlawn, Riverdale, Norwood, Concourse Village.

]]>