City Re: Seattle as a Walkable City
posted by on December 5 at 0:52 AM
Like Dan, I was surprised that Seattle ranked so high on the Brookings Institution’s “walkability” scale. However, as some commenters pointed out, it appears that a huge flaw in the study is that it doesn’t factor in the size of cities directly, relying on a per-capita accounting of how many “regional-serving, walkable” places each city has. Places that were considered regional-serving (i.e., serving people who don’t actually live in the area) and walkable, under this model, included the wholly prefabricated “Town Square” in Sugar Land, Texas, where my parents live; having been there, I can tell you it’s certainly not walkable, unless you don’t mind dodging cars on their way to Starbucks and Panera Bread. Additionally, the study doesn’t factor in many other things that make cities walkable: Safety, weather conditions, availability of sidewalks, the relative number of pedestrians vs. cars, etc.
You guys should make your own criteria and create your own Top X list of most walkable/most green cities in the U.S. and/or Canada. Seriously.
Again, Top 10 lists are made mainly to argue about (and arguably as a way to sell a city), so why not make one and then explain the science behind it, contrary to most listmakers who just present the list without much explanation?
You guys have a continent-wide audience for Slog whom you can tap for info!
In the months leading up to my daughter's arrival, I used to walk from my place on 42nd to her mother's, up on 95th. I enjoyed the hell out of those walks. The walk up was time to prepare, the walk back time to let go. (You know those myths about crazy pregnant women? When people asked me how I dealt with it, I responded that I didn't really notice the difference.) But, yes, when I lived in Seattle proper, it was fairly easy to get just about anywhere without a car. Mind you, I didn't spend a lot of time hoofing to the South End, or anything, but Seattle is a good, comfortable walk.
Not always convenient, though. But like I said, time to prepare, time to let go. It's all in how you use your time. (Too bad I couldn't figure that out for the other facets of my pathetic life.)
Seattle is pretty walkable depending on where you are walking to. I noticed when I lived on Cap Hill I walked EVERYWHERE except work (which was in Kent)
Since I moved to Wedgewood I still walk but have to use FlexCar a great deal more since Wedgewood is not exactly brimming with Metro options in the evening or weekend hours and the relative lack of density means a lack of stores ect.
I'm glad someone finally noticed that Seattle's weather is still stuck in a car-centric, oil-dependent mindset. Getting out of your car isn't just making one little change: it's a complete rethinking of your approach to retail, living, work, and, yes, the weather. If we want the weather here to become more progressive, we have to work together to make it happen. Left to the forces of the free market, the weather is going to serve the interests of the wealthy corporations and not the people.
perhaps a cap and trade for rainfall is in line? personally i'm against new taxes or direct regulation, but i think incentives could really curb those grey days.
Yes instead of the top ten list why not work on how to make the weather better for a walkable Seattle. We could also develop a plan to regrade the entire city a point of walkability left off the post.
Or perhaps we could develop an offset system that would give miles of air travel for every mile of uphill walking in the rain.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).