Walkable and bikeable, please. While it is nice to be able to exercise and explore, sometimes I just need to transport a few bags worth of groceries, and carrying bags for over an hour is not fun.
I’ll take a bike and some pannier bags please.If it’s an hour to the grocery store I don’t think that’s walkable either
an hour to walk to the grocery store is about 10 minutes on a bike. Just get a backpack to carry things.
Yeah, that’s bikeable, but not walkable
I think you’re off by a factor of 2 or so.
An average casual biking speed in a city is about 20 km/h. So, 10 minutes would be about 3.3 km. But, most people walk a lot faster than that, Google Maps estimates about 5 km/h.
I’d say 1 hour walking is closer to being 20 minutes of biking, especially if you have to lock and unlock your bike at the start and end of your trip.
A walkable city means everything, including the grocery store, is a conveniently walkable distance away, which would automatically make it bikeable, too. An hour’s walk to the grocery store does not a walkable city make.
It doesn’t mean everything is a convenient walking distance away, just the most important things that you do daily or weekly: groceries, pharmacy, library, schools, etc. For some things that aren’t needed as often, you might need to take a bigger trip. Say to go furniture shopping, go see a lawyer, go watch live sports, etc.
I’d say I live in a walkable city – or at least in the walkable part of a city. Everything I need regularly is a short walk away. I don’t have a car, and don’t feel like I need one. I can walk to get groceries (in fact, there are 2 different major grocery stores within a 15 minute walk). But, if I want to buy specialty groceries, like specialty Asian or Mexican foods, it’s a bit too long for a comfortable walk, so I prefer to bike.
Having said that, even though it is a very walkable part of the city, it is still dominated by cars. A lot of people don’t take advantage of the fact that it’s walkable and they drive, even just to get groceries nearby. Because of all the driving, the walking isn’t nearly as pleasant as it could be. The area has a fair number of things that make driving inconvenient, including cul-de-sacs, speed bumps, one-way roads, etc. There are enough things designed to reduce vehicle through-traffic that I can get almost anywhere nearby faster on a bike than someone can do in a car. There are cul-de-sac that have bollards allowing bikes to go through. There are little pathways between roads that are open to pedestrians and bikes, but not to cars. And, to be fair, it’s rare that cars are driving dangerously fast in the area. But, they still own the road. And, because they’re so incredibly convenient, most people around here still mostly do their errands in a car because… why not?
I feel it’s hard to find places which are walkable but not bikeable (outside of the USA)
A walkable grocery store is at max a 10-15 mins from the house (in my opinion). This allows you to just pop in and buy stuff while coming from the public transport stop without having to schedule big trips for the entire week/month.
carrying bags for over an hour is not fun.
I hate to break it to you, but if you have to walk an hour to buy groceries you’re not living in a walkable city.
Text:
Walkable cities sneak exercise into daily life. Coffee runs, grocery trips and commutes turn into steps that boost dopamine, mood and energy.
Car dependent cities keep you parked in traffic and at desks, fuelling sedentary habits linked to depression and cognitive decline.
Walkable cities invite chance encounters. Smiles on sidewalks, quick chats with neighbours and local shop hellos build connection and fight loneliness.
Car dependent cities keep people alone in cars and homes where isolation quietly chips away at mental well being.
Walkable cities give you options to stroll, bike or take transit. Less car dependence means less traffic stress, more freedom and calmer mornings.
Car dependent cities lock you into unpredictable commutes, noise and road rage that spike cortisol and strain mental health daily
Walkable cities weave green parks and trees into everyday life. Nature exposure lowers stress, improves focus and lifts mood.
Car dependent cities replace trees with asphalt and noise, pumping out pollution that can worsen anxiety, irritability and cognitive performance.
Walkable cities naturally promote activity, connection, calm & nature which are all protectors of mental health.
Car dependent cities lead to more isolation, stress & less movement.
How we build cities is not just transport planning. It needs to consider mental health planning.
Twitter is such shit. who types that much with character limits. can’t even be bothered to read that broken mess of posts
I still sometimes ask myself what was wrong with the web forum that it needed to be replaced by modern “social media” formats…
Corporate profits and control of speech, obviously!
/sarcasm
I’m guessing the sarcasm is because in truth that’s only part of the answer instead of the whole answer? or does the sarcasm signify that it’s none of the answer?
there’s def many reasons why shitty social medias won out, and you certainly named one of them, sarcastically or not. others may include: dopamine driven content, marketing successes, corporate collaboration, random chance, that one media effect that has a name but is basically survivorship bias, and so on
I’d say too sparse and no user friendly mobile app. Having your friends all in the same place and being able to join them just by downloading an app using an already available store on your phone does wonders
Yes but also a walkable city has to be a sitable city! I’m not about to enforce extra unneeded walk time under the climate change summer sun to an elderly person who enjoys the pleasure of irreversible knee damage that the state did not want to solve nor even palliate.
Yes, there will be plenty of place for outdoor seating space and shade from trees and water and stuff once there no cars in the cities (and countries). Also good public transport if it’s a bad knee day.
I was staying near Austin, tx a while back. We wanted to get some fast food at like 2am, so we chartered a shuttle for like $5 for a round trip to a 24hr joint. And we probably could have walked! Its insane what good public transport can do.
Live in a highly walkable city; can confirm.
Pretty sure walkable cities also have desks, but the rest is solid.
Sure, but walking/biking to the local rapid station to then walk to your job is much better than taking 24 steps from your home to your car. And then if you decide to go out for lunch at work, you can walk a block over to a cafe or deli and then walk back. If you have a local produce shop that’s a 15 minute walk from your home, you will likely prefer walking out there 3 times a week for groceries than driving out to a grocery shop once a week. Lots of little walks and rides add up to make you much healthier than the sedentary lifestyle encouraged by suburban life.
I agreed with everything else, just found the inclusion of desks to be silly.
Leaving my house which has a desk and Internet connection to go to a place with a desk and an Internet connection sounds ridiculous.
Nope, in walkable cities all desks have little treadmills under them.
What are top five best walkable cities in the US that are also affordable?
They’re not affordable, sadly. Walkable cities are so amazingly great that people will pay a lot of money to live in them. And they have to, because the demand is huge, but they’re illegal to build, so the supply is tiny.
In short, Americans are dumb.
I’m not sure I could name 5, period
What I was afraid of. Walkable cities is a great a noble thing. It just sucks we aren’t making those in America.
It’s all relative. Some cities are more walkable than others. Declaring the entire US to be so unwalkable you should give up comparing them is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Pennsylvania’s got you covered with Pittsburgh and Philly.
Pittsburgh has great walking but its transit is quite limited. Philly has good transit (for USA).
Both very affordable compared to other cities.
Chicago is pretty similar to Philly in terms of affordability, walkability and transit.
Chicago is really affordable for its size IMO. At least comparatively I guess.
Trying to decide if these could have data backing them up. Clearly if you look at people who walk/bike to work in our current cities, they will be healthier. But I would assume this is a selection effect? And probably not much less lonely? I was under the impression that loneliness was high everywhere.
Curious if transit systems really are more reliable than the typical car commute. I’ve certainly had missed connections, bus breakdowns, and people jumping in front of trains.
And I didn’t follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we’ll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.
It’s not really a “walkable” city if you are getting ass-blastes by the sun in the middle of summer. My small town is definitely a walkable city and has trees lining pretty much every street since something has ro go between the road and the sidewalk.
Trees are ideal because they:
- Will stop a car dead in its tracks if it drifts towards the sidewalk Produce shade to keep the surrounding area cool Are natural sound insulation (my town is on a busy cargo rail line and i never hear trains in the summer, but hear them frequently in the winter when the trees are bare) reduce pollution and increase air quality
Any town that is trying to become more walkable will put trees everywhere they are a cheap and easy way to make everything more pleasant.
The most walkable place I’ve lived in had pretty sparse greenery (to be fair, it was quite north). Shade from the sun comes from the residential and commercial buildings stacked high, with relatively narrow streets and alleyways.
I agree trees are great. Just not obvious to me that more walkable designs necessarily include them.
I’m along the south shore of Lake Erie, so trees are a godsend in my town in the summer. I live a block away from the main downtown in a west facing apartment. My apartment would absolutely fry in the summer if it wasn’t for the massive maple tree outside my apartment shading the place. The trees downtown aren’t very large, but if the city were to get rid of the on street parking downtown and focus on pedestrianizing the area, they could absolutely grow some beautiful oaks to offer shade at noon in the summer. They make being outside more pleasant, and if being outside is pleasant, people are going to walk more. My parents live in a 10 year old suburb in Houston with non-existent tree cover and it makes day time walks a
Also, just because i want to keep talking about how much i love my little walkable city, the city government recently started a program where if you have a patch of dead grass/gravel on the roadside next to your home, they will come out and plant a tree there. Residents are also able to take yard trimmings to the waste treatment plant in town and receive free mulch on a first come/first served basis.
That’s wonderful! I was amazed at how green and alive everything was when I went through Michigan, despite getting so dark in the winter.
I agree towns could put in more park space, but they could also put in more seating for restaurants, shops or water features, public service expansions, warehouses, housing, and so on. A good city will split between them, and common green spaces will show up. I’m curious what the range of ratios look like (especially over time).
And my city has a bunch of parking lots scattered aroun town, so it’s not like they need the street parking, PLUS, this is MAGA country so everyone is driving massive trucks that can’t parallel park anyway. But if you threaten to take away a parking space, people freak out. But people freak out whenever you propptany change, so might as well do something that has been shown to improve everyone’s quality of life.
It’s very difficult to take these questions/criticisms seriously when I live this everyday
That’s great! I’m imagining a data-is-beautiful chart showing the positives. Do you have/know of data on them from your neighborhood/town?
And I didn’t follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we’ll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.
Well yes, but a walkable city is already something that doesn’t really align with hardcore capitalism. And if your goal is a walkable city, then you need to make it enjoyable. Most people don’t enjoy walking through endless grey.
Although yes, in Europe, city leaderships that care about that are usually on the left side of the political spectrum.
Point is, a walkable city has no advantage to capitalism. So it’s a safe assumption that a leadership pushing for it is not really that capitalist.
Removed by mod
This sentiment is great, but I have 2 dogs, and play loud drums, and have loud dirt bikes…neighbors would hate me.
Walkable towns / cities doesn’t have to be high density housing, just means you need actual sidewalks and public transportation.
Oh, i see! I do wish I had a bike trail near me. Damn impossible to bike without about getting ran over.
On the metro in my city, the dogs are better behaved than the humans, and the drummers get tips. You could just ride your dirt bike to places instead of transporting it on a truck.
I agree. But for me is to have many more options around walking cities, but they should not forced to everyone.
Thank you for sharing.
Having recently taken a trip to NYC; this is so true. I got more exercise than I normally ever do, felt great, and never once thought about traffic. Walkable cities are amazing.
Wish I could invite twice
