Walkable Neighborhoods

Posts Mentioning RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  Eric Fredericks 11:57 pm on July 29, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

  Day 28: The Strip – Las Vegas, NV 

  The number 3 top photo of this series is a true shocker: Las Vegas. Why is Las Vegas a shocker, you ask? Well, because I really don’t consider Las Vegas to be walkable at all. In fact, I think it’s one of the least walkable cities in the US. The region is plagued by sprawl – in the middle of the desert. Not a good plan for utility resource management. Nor the billions of dazzling lights and the grandiose car-oriented scale of the Las Vegas Strip. I almost choked when I read that Las Vegas was selected as a top 10 walking city. This proves that the list has no credibility.

  With that said, there are some great examples of pedestrian design and some really beautiful sights to behold. This photo really stuck out to me because of the lights and the way the people turned out in the photo. It’s kind of haunting in a way to me.

  Perhaps Las Vegas is a good lesson for those that aren’t familiar with walkable neighborhoods. Great sidewalks and design does not a walkable neighborhood make. There is a lot more to it—like mixes of uses, higher residential density, small setbacks—all of these are things Las Vegas doesn’t have much of. Plus, I hate being forced to enter casinos to continue walking down a sidewalk or to use a pedestrian bridge to cross the street—something that Las Vegas is very good at. Perhaps it does keep pedestrians safer, but for a city lover like myself, it’s a deal breaker.

  You can view more photos of Vegas in the photo gallery.

  This article is a part of the Exploring the Walkability of America in 30 Days photo series.

  Popularity: 1% [?]

   

  Reply Click here to cancel reply.

  Name (required)

  Email (required)

  Web Site

   
• 

  Eric Fredericks 9:22 pm on April 1, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

  New Slogan For Applebees 

  Today, Applebees released a new slogan for their restaurants: Neighborhood-Destroying Bar and Grill.

  …April Fools…

  In all seriousness, maybe Applebees should change their slogan to that. Currently, they market their restaurants as the “Neighborhood Bar and Grill” and “Eatin’ Good in the Neighborhood.” I saw plenty of commercials for the restaurant stating this during March Madness. In reality, I have only seen maybe one Applebees in an urban “infill” or walkable neighborhood. The rest are in sprawl suburbia, usually in places that I do not think of as neighborhoods.

  If Applebees did want to locate in a residential neighborhood, can you imagine all of the NIMBYs that would oppose it? And can you blame them? I surely would not want a huge parking lot surrounding a non-descript building in my neighborhood. However, I have welcomed the new Indian Restaurant on my block. The building architecture is excellent and right up on the sidewalk. It also has outdoor seating and superb pedestrian facilities with beautiful plants. I have not eaten there yet, but I would imagine that it is better than Applebees!

  Popularity: 4% [?]

   
• 

  Eric Fredericks 7:01 am on March 22, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

  Big-Box Debate: Wal-Mart vs. Target 

  I never understand why Wal-Mart gets so much criticism and other big-box retailers like Target are lauded and welcomed. I worked in a city where a development application came in for a Wal-Mart and the city exploded in outrage, so much so that Wal-Mart withdrew the application. Meanwhile, just a few months before that, a Target came in with no problems that I know of. Why is this? I assume it is all about marketing for a more “hip” image by Target, the clientele that is associated with shopping at Wal-Mart, and the supposed higher-quality products sold at Target. From a planning standpoint, they are both just as bad in my book. Although, Target seems to be willing to locate in more urban environments and even have parking garages, but perhaps that is only because Wal-Mart was run out of town first. It is amazing what the power of marketing and image can do for a company.

  I also will freely admit that I frequently shop at Target. The store I shop at in Sacramento is the closest major retailer to where I live and is located on the fringes of downtown. Why do I shop there? Because there is nowhere else left to shop for the kinds of goods that Target sells! Okay, maybe if I went to four or five different stores, paid double, drove dozens of miles, and spent hours doing all of this.

  The picture above is of one of the better developments I have seen that includes a Target store. This development, located in State College, Pennsylvania also includes Dick’s Sporting Goods, Wegmens, and Circuit City among others. The street that accesses the development has bike lanes, wide sidewalks, mid-block crossings, and pretty decent bus shelters. There are also some public art features mixed in to the development. Here are a few photos I took of the site:

  See, sprawl can be a little more eye-pleasing. In general, California is much better about incorporating these pedestrian and bicycling enhancements than the Midwest and East Coast. However, the growth of sprawl is much more rapid in most cases in California.

  Popularity: 1% [?]

   
• 

  Eric Fredericks 6:18 pm on November 12, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

  A Prediction: In 20 Years, Lifestyle Centers Will Be the Failed Malls 

  The current trend in mall revitalization or new mall construction is to build “Lifestyle Centers.” Essentially, they are malls without a roof. They are supposedly built to promote active living and try to recreate the old Main Street USA feel. Here is my short analysis of them:

  Some positives:
  – Can integrate mixed-uses including housing
  – The fresh air of the outdoors
  – Public plazas, art, water features, and outdoor seating are common features
  – Smaller seas of parking surrounding the development
  – Often quality designs that work well for pedestrians
  
  

  Some negatives:
  – Not really any different from your average mall
  – Often found in suburbia isolated from any other uses and not within a safe and walkable distance from anything else (residents nearby are essential to keeping outdoor places viable)
  – Bad weather and winter months can be brutal for business, especially in frigid climates
  – Some people do not like to walk even a short distance from their car and may seek out other malls that have their ever-so-friendly seas of asphalt around them
  – Harder and more costly to keep the outdoor built environment “fresh” over the course of time – normal malls frequently redesign their interiors to keep up with the change in trends

  So, why did I make my prediction that these lifestyle centers built today will be the failures in 20 years? Because, I feel that they are no different from regular malls. The key to successful lifestyle centers is to integrate with the existing neighborhoods, or to incorporate the right balance of housing and activities for residents to make it sustainable. If they can do this well, they will still be popular in 20 years.

  A good example of this is the downtown open-air mall in Sacramento (pictured above). I feel it really integrates well with existing uses, and all parking is located underground. Parking is validated if you make a purchase. While the mall does struggle to compete with other regional malls, it may stand the test of time if Sacramento continues to invest in downtown housing units. Urban dwellers often hate to drive to the suburbs to get things they need. With enough residents surrounding malls, they can be incredibly sustainable. Other examples of very successful outdoor shopping districts include Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Fifth Avenue in New York, and Market Street in San Francisco. What is a common theme for all of these places? High-density, good pedestrian design, excellent access to transit, and places people want to shop.

  Popularity: 2% [?]

  Eric, and Sharon Machlis Gartenberg are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Sharon Machlis Gartenberg 5:54 am on November 27, 2005 Permalink

    Outdoor malls are nothing new. The key to the “lifestyle centers” is that there’s supposed to be attention paid to making an attractive pedestrian streetscape and ambiance, instead of simply having open-air space for getting from one indoor location to another.

    I couldn’t agree more about the importance of integrating “lifestyle centers” into the surrounding neighborhood, so nearby office workers as well as residents can walk there. That’s the crucial difference in creating a sense of place vs. soul-less suburban sprawl.

    I’d add that it’s equally important to integrate enclosed malls with the surrounding neighborhood. That’s been done successfully in malls like CambridgeSide Galleria (Mass.), on a city block, where the food court includes both indoor and outdoor sitting, and the outdoor seats are along a very nice walkway with waterview; as well as Copley Place in Boston, where it’s at least reasonably possible and appealing to walk between the mall and neighboring Back Bay retail district. It’s how malls and local business districts can not only co-exist, but enhance each other; and it’s how you make a livable, pleasant streetscape.

  • 

    Eric 9:09 pm on December 6, 2005 Permalink

    Read my response to Sharon on her website – http://www.pedestrianfriendly.com/?p=391

• 

  Eric Fredericks 10:21 pm on September 15, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

  Gated Communities: Essentially Like Zoos? 

  Heavy Trash is a Los Angeles project that “exposes” gated communities using a very interesting approach: they put up viewing platforms so that people can look over the walls of a gated community. It kind of reminds you of looking at animals in a zoo. I think that this project makes a strong point, but it is sad to think of humans as locked in cages. The site also offers answers to the question “what’s wrong with gated communities?” (Photo source: http://heavytrash.blogspot.com/)

  Popularity: 1% [?]

   
• 

  Eric Fredericks 10:34 pm on August 22, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

  The Five-Bedroom, Six-Figure Rootless Life 

  
  

  This is a fantastic article from the New York Times on community choices made by upper middle class executive gypsies, refered to as relos. This gives some insight to those that have never lived in “super suburbia” (like myself) on the trials and tribulations faced by those that do. The article focuses on a typical relo family in Alpharetta, Georgia, an elitist suburb of Atlanta. While this article goes beyond the realm of typical walkability issues usually discussed here, the underlying hint seems to be that the quality of life is better in walkable neighborhoods. And the story has a positive ending! Here is an exerpt:

  Kathy Link is 41 with blond-streaked pigtails and, at 5-foot-9, straight as a spear. She is still in the red sun visor and tennis whites she wore leading her fitness class at the Forum Gym and winning at doubles afterward. Tucked by her seat is her color-coded itinerary.

  Kaleigh, 8, is red. With school over this afternoon in late August, she has already been dropped off at her soccer practice blocks from home. Kristina, 11, is dark green, and Kelsey, 13, is yellow. Kristina must get to her soccer practice four miles to the north, and Kelsey to her practice 14 miles to the south.

  Ms. Link (blue for work, light green for family and volunteering) surveys the clotted intersection at the mouth of her 636-house Medlock Bridge subdivision. After moving here four years ago and choking on traffic, she made a rule: “Wherever I’m going has to be within one mile of the house,” she said. But she breaks the rule two or three times a day, driving 10 and 15 times the one-mile distance.

  Click here for the full article (subscription required – visit BugMeNot for assistance).

  Popularity: 1% [?]