[HN Gopher] Desirable streets: where do people prefer to walk?
___________________________________________________________________
Desirable streets: where do people prefer to walk?
Author : sebg
Score : 99 points
Date : 2021-02-04 16:24 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (senseable.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (senseable.mit.edu)
| awillen wrote:
| The example routes they give don't seem like realistic
| comparisons - in most of them, the shortest route doesn't really
| have a safe sidewalk to walk on. They're just not practical
| options, and in some cases I doubt they're legal for pedestrians.
| tuckerpo wrote:
| People in cities optimize for safety when traveling on foot.
| America is an interesting place.
| bregma wrote:
| I spent some time last century living in Toronto, a moderately
| large North American city. The main street of the neighbourhood
| in which I lived was a former streetcar route crowded with small
| human-scale shops on the north side, and a church with a parking
| lot and some large office blocks on the south side. The north
| side was always crowded, the south side was always empty. It was
| obvious where people preferred to walk.
|
| The same thing could be seen in the downtown core. Developers had
| torn down a quarter mile of the west side of the main shopping
| street and build a huge indoor shopping mall with virtually no
| street engagement except for a parking lot entrance midway. The
| east side of the street maintained its human-scale former
| streetcar-street landscape. Pedestrians would crowd both sides of
| the street above and below the mall, but only the east side in
| the stretch with the mall. It was obvious where people preferred
| to walk.
|
| It's about human scale and human engagement. If you want to
| attract people, make it for them. Not for cars, not for
| architect's egos, not for political idiology. It's really just
| that simple.
| Jedd wrote:
| > I spent some time last century living in Toronto, a
| moderately large North American city. The main street of the
| neighbourhood in which I lived was a former streetcar route
| crowded with small human-scale shops on the north side, and a
| church with a parking lot and some large office blocks on the
| south side. The north side was always crowded, the south side
| was always empty. It was obvious where people preferred to
| walk.
|
| I'm in Sydney, AU - I've never been to Toronto, and know only
| that it's much further from the equator than Sydney is. Even in
| the mild climate of Sydney, I've noticed myself and others
| favouring the south sides of streets in winter here, simply
| because it receives more natural light & warmth.
|
| For any given street, there's probably a handful of other
| candidate explanations for one side of a street being more
| favoured. It may well be an abundance of shops - if I want to
| amble, that would (all other factors aside) rate it higher. If
| I wanted to get somewhere, then I'd eschew a store-dense route,
| to avoid the myriad amblers that would slow me down.
| LargeWu wrote:
| This sounds a lot like downtown Minneapolis. In the 70's they
| went all in on the skyway system - a series of enclosed
| walkways over streets that went through the second floor of
| many buildings. The result is that all of the retail and
| amenities got pushed to the interiors of these buildings, and
| the facades were reduced to featureless stretches, save for a
| few particular streets (Hennepin and Nicollet). I admit when I
| worked downtown that I enjoyed not having to go outside in the
| winter, but much of downtown lacks charm and utility.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| There is some basic math that can make a pedestrian downtown
| difficult. A walking person needs the resource of space, time
| in the pathway. So take the number of employees per square foot
| of office space (~200 sf per employee) to get an estimate of
| the total number of people in a downtown area. If we assume
| they each need to commute in/out each day we need a system of
| movement that can accommodate that number. Even if they are all
| elite joggers willing to run a couple miles each day, there is
| only so much street before people have to be relegated to
| tunnels/bridges. Depending on the office density, there are
| likely a great many cities where pedestrian commutes are
| physically impossible for the majority (London, NYC). Either
| they live downtown or we must move them in/out by faster
| mechanical means.
|
| This is actually a very studied problem in pedestrian-dominated
| areas such as stadiums, airports and theme parks. There is a
| breaking point when the numbers get so big that you simply have
| to haul people to/from the perimeter entrances. I'm sure that
| Disney works from some very exact specifications.
| ant6n wrote:
| Uh, firstly, have you heard of this invention called public
| transit. Or this other invention called a bike? Also, this
| comparison to crowds around stadiums is bizarre. Cars use up
| more space than pedestrians, so it is possible to commue by
| car, then it is possible to commute on foot - at least as far
| as crowding is concerned.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Did I say car? I said "by faster mechanical means". That
| would be bikes/busses/trains/helicopters/escalators and
| everything else _mechanical_ as in _mechanisms_ as in
| everything not-pedestrian, a big field.
| ant6n wrote:
| Neither pedestrian crowding nor travel distance is an
| issue in walkable cities, because public transit and
| cycling is compatible with a walkable city. There is
| nothing difficult about it, there exist thousands of
| walkable cities.
|
| Another concept you may learn about is ,,mixed used
| neighborhoods". It turns out you dont have to separate
| out working and residential areas, this will reduce
| travel distances. A related concept is the ,,polycentric
| city".
| blindm wrote:
| Would be interesting to see how may people inadvertently employ
| Dijkstra's Algorithm on their runs/walks
| https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/dijkstras-shortest-path-al...
| whalesalad wrote:
| This would be so much cooler if it wasn't designed around the
| mousewheel.
| viburnum wrote:
| Jan Gehl is all over this. "How to Study Public Life" is
| particularly good. People interested in a complex understanding
| of streets and public spaces will want to check him out.
| neom wrote:
| Sadly the Gehl institute shut down it's public life/how cities
| work initiatives with the departure of Shin-pei Tsay.
| neom wrote:
| One of the companies that graduated from the Urban-X accelerator
| (BMW+VC firm) in my cohort was numina, they create a
| technology/dev tools for understanding how people use streets. I
| think it's an awesome company. Their blog has some interesting
| stuff and is worth digging through if you're interested in urban
| ecology: https://numina.co/blog/ (particularly interesting to the
| HN crew: https://numina.co/announcing-numina-api-sandbox/)
| Etheryte wrote:
| I can't help but feel like this is overthinking the reasons
| behind the actions. Human beings need variety in their life,
| fresh stimulus. Walking to the store taking different paths every
| now and then is a great way to do this. If anything, I think it
| would be more useful to measure undesirable streets -- places
| people avoid on purpose. In my personal opinion, those would be
| ones by busy roadways, bad infrastructure etc. As shown by car-
| free regions in Madrid and other cities, people like being out
| and about even in the city, so long as it isn't made too
| uncomfortable by the man-made nuisances.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Personally, if I am out on business, I have always preferred
| busier streets when living in the city- more people means less
| opportunity to get mugged, unless a less busy street or park
| both looked safe and were more direct routes.
|
| Safety, directness, and pleasant surroundings in that order.
| Since pleasure strolls / exercise don't really have a
| direction, I'm not really counting them here.
| lexicality wrote:
| Is there a non-fancy version of this anywhere? My chromebook
| freezes whenever I try to scroll.
| quirkot wrote:
| Page is jumping all around on me and barely comprehensible and
| all I can think is "Desirable Websites: where do people prefer
| to browse?" and the answer is not this =/
| heikkilevanto wrote:
| I had no technical problems with the site, but it really
| irritates me that I have to scroll down half a screen just to
| get to see the next bullet point. I closed it before reaching
| the end of the page.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Agreed. Feels bloated.
| saalweachter wrote:
| This feels like the internet equivalent of increasing the
| line spacing and font size because you don't have that much
| to say.
|
| The point where I had to frantically scroll to have elements
| fade in horizontally is where I gave up. I thought the page
| was broken or I'd reached the end because I kept scrolling
| down with no vertical movement.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| There is no consistent presentation of progress or
| organization. Is my scrolling doing anything? How much
| content is there? Does the content have a logical
| structure? Is this the end?
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| I don't know if that particular website uses it, but you can
| usually turn on the "prefers-reduced-motion" flag to get rid of
| the animations in compatible websites.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| Interesting article... it does make me wonder if they're missing
| some key ingredient.
|
| One example for me personally is the level of aggression in the
| locals. There are certain streets I avoid due to this aggressive
| behavior, and something like that wasn't even mentioned.
|
| Perhaps there are other missing variables too.
|
| edit: in case anyone was wondering, no, I'm not implying some
| kind of racist undertone here. I've walked through many diverse
| neighborhoods in many cities without any problem whatsoever.
|
| By "aggression" I mean panhandling and other interruptions by
| people undergoing obvious psychosis with no sense of social
| norms.
|
| The reason I stated this oddly is because there's a large tangent
| of people on HN who will attack you for inferring that some
| homeless people (yes, these psychotic people are generally
| homeless) are psychotic and aggressive. Perhaps they live in
| gated communities?
|
| No matter what I do, these people are allowed to exist where I
| live, but I don't consider them part of my community at all.
| uoaei wrote:
| > the level of aggression in the locals
|
| This is off-topic, but I can't help but notice how this is
| worded. I am having trouble articulating what bothers me about
| it. But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community,
| but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you
| and your household, and the "locals". The "aggression" you
| reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely
| with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any
| role.
|
| Just my thoughts. I know this is irrelevant but I feel like it
| needs to be heard.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| For what it's worth, I think you're reading way too much into
| what the poster said.
|
| For me, "the locals" means nothing more than "the people who
| are habitually in that area". In my neighborhood, I am one of
| "the locals", other places I go, I'm perhaps not.
|
| I took "aggression" to mean something like "proclivity to
| force a social engagement regardless of my desire to be part
| of it".
|
| In New York City, that's sometimes panhandling, sometimes
| people with mental health issues, sometimes the guys with the
| CDs or the people who want to tell the whole car about their
| personal religious conversion while you're riding on the
| subway.
|
| If my only role is "being there" then my only element of
| control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's
| entire point.
| uoaei wrote:
| > If my only role is "being there" then my only element of
| control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's
| entire point.
|
| But of course it's never that simple, which is sort of my
| entire point.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Not to be obtuse, but what is your point?
|
| Obviously there exists some complex set of life
| circumstances, personal histories, elements of chance and
| so on that lead to there being some people who will
| interact in an insistent, even hostile, way with
| strangers on the streets.
|
| In that both I and those people form part of the same
| economy, inhabit the same political reality, my actions
| are probably implicated in some unfathomably complex way.
| I have "a role".
|
| To that extent: yes, it is not "that simple", in fact
| it's unknowably complex. But, in practical terms, what
| are you proposing?
| [deleted]
| wassenaar10 wrote:
| > But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community,
| but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you
| and your household, and the "locals".
|
| If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the
| city focused on for this webpage), then there will
| undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not
| belong. I would wager that in nearly every city in the world,
| there are neighborhoods and communities which non-residents
| of those communities try to avoid walking through.
|
| > The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling
| because it is framed entirely with an external locus of
| control, which absolves you of any role.
|
| Honestly, what are you talking about? Are you insinuating
| that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which
| they don't live to start trouble?
| uoaei wrote:
| > If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston
| (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will
| undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not
| belong.
|
| And you think that talking about people who live in other
| neighborhoods like a colonist marching through the Congo is
| an appropriate way to treat fellow citizens?
|
| > Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into
| neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?
|
| Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse
| interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The
| insinuation is that there are many reasons people may
| become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else
| acting poorly. OP's framing does not allow for the cause of
| this "aggression" to be their actions. If someone was
| routinely speeding through my neighborhood in their car,
| for instance, I would be "aggressive" because I fear for
| the safety of my neighbors. The framing that OP uses
| strongly implies that they think they can do no wrong.
| majormajor wrote:
| > Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately
| obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling
| debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons
| people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve
| someone else acting poorly.
|
| I've seen far more people acting aggressive to
| pedestrians without being provoked by the pedestrians
| because they're in a lot of _internal_ distress (acting
| erratically, unkempt, possibly homeless) than I 've seen
| pedestrians inciting "locals" to be aggressive back to
| them.
|
| Walk down a street and past someone muttering that
| they're about to murder a bunch of people and you might
| not go back that way next time.
|
| Sometimes "you were asking for it" isn't the explanation.
| uoaei wrote:
| Evidence of exceptions does not disprove the rule. You
| already know this, I'm sure.
| majormajor wrote:
| What do you think is the exception here?
|
| We're both making assumptions about what the original
| poster meant with their wording. In my experience, the
| normal, _non-exceptional_ case, of aggressive behaviour
| between people on the street is unprovoked harassment by
| troubled individuals. (Or outright crime like being held
| up... but fortunately I haven 't encountered this myself)
|
| That harrasment is hardly uncommon. I have a hard time
| thinking of _other_ sorts of conflict or aggression I 've
| seen walking around...
| uoaei wrote:
| > That harrasment [sic] is hardly uncommon.
|
| I have never experienced significant harassment, and I am
| a white male-presenting person in a city that is about
| 30% white. I've lived in various neighborhoods with
| varying levels of average income and demography. I would
| walk and bike basically everywhere that wasn't super
| hilly. I wonder what is different about your experience,
| the way you carry yourself, etc. that causes these
| interactions.
|
| > In my experience, the normal, non-exceptional case, of
| aggressive behaviour between people on the street is
| unprovoked harassment by troubled individuals.
|
| My experience is that those people usually know each
| other in some way. Have you ever taken the time to
| listen, or is it just too shocking to handle?
|
| The situation you describe would seem to be the
| exception. Compare to violent crimes like sexual assault
| or shootings, which are overwhelmingly perpetrated by
| people who already know the victim prior to the assault.
| kortilla wrote:
| You're the one making up rules here. Please provide some
| evidence showing that passerby harassed by people on the
| street are normally the initial aggressors.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| I edited my post if you're interested, I assure you that
| I don't do anything to agitate these people, and if I
| did, I'd deserve whatever came to me (probably a knife).
| uoaei wrote:
| > probably a knife
|
| Come on, seriously? Still? It's like your only
| understanding of violent crimes comes from TV dramas...
| notahacker wrote:
| The world is full of streets where people who are not
| local or do not look like they are local are likely to be
| mugged, chased by gangs who regard it as their
| 'territory', regarded as suspicious on account of their
| ethnicity or crowded with extremely persistent vendors or
| beggars. It is sensible to avoid them.
|
| Yes, it is also possible for 'locals' to be upset by
| unreasonable behaviour like loutish drunkenness or
| reasonable behaviour like wearing a rainbow T-shirt, but
| it's a bit rich to accuse others of being deliberately
| obtuse when you're bringing up dangerous driving as an
| example of why an OP's concerns about walking through
| certain areas of the city is likely to be his own fault.
| leetcrew wrote:
| you are extrapolating a lot here from the choice of a
| single, somewhat vague, word. the looks you receive from
| passersby can make it very clear that you are not welcome
| or at least not expected to be in that area. I'm not sure
| I would call it "aggressive", but certainly
| "uncomfortable" and to be avoided if possible. this
| observation is not unique to affluent white people.
|
| sometimes people are downright aggressive if they feel
| you are trespassing in a place that isn't "yours". I had
| a somewhat mischievous teacher in high school who liked
| to take us out to lunch in less affluent neighborhoods.
| more than once he was asked "why did you bring those kids
| here?" or told outright "you don't belong here" by the
| regulars.
| uoaei wrote:
| The broader point is this: readers of such comments will
| extrapolate exactly in the manner dictated by the
| language used. Language matters, word choice matters, and
| it is incumbent upon civil participants in society to
| avoid drawing rhetorical lines like "local/not-local" and
| reducing forms of street-level interaction to
| "aggression." In my experience, those who speak in this
| and similar manners are forming narratives to reframe the
| event to re-orient culpability. Obviously that works
| better when you dehumanize someone who isn't there to
| defend themselves.
| leetcrew wrote:
| it seems that you are the only one who is making this
| extrapolation, but I'll bite.
|
| > In my experience, those who speak in this and similar
| manners are forming narratives to reframe the event to
| re-orient culpability.
|
| why would people do this? to what end? who is really
| "culpable" in your opinion? all I see in this thread is
| people recounting times they have felt unwelcome or
| unsafe somewhere. in response, they do nothing more
| extreme than to avoid that place in the future. what
| exactly is the problem here?
| uoaei wrote:
| > it seems that you are the only one who is making this
| extrapolation
|
| Doesn't seem that way to me. Lots of activity in the
| up/downvotes. Not everyone with an opinion is here
| expressing it.
|
| > why would people do this? to what end?
|
| _When people do bad or otherwise undignified things,
| they routinely construct a narrative that conveniently
| leaves those bad things out, or otherwise reframes the
| events to cast them in a better light when they later
| recount the story._ I don 't think many would find this a
| controversial idea. This idea has been formalized in
| psychology since at least Jung in the concept of the
| shadow.
|
| Frequently, this includes additional language to further
| reinforce the narrative, such as dehumanizing or
| reductive language like I explained above.
|
| The pattern I've noticed in my interactions with
| sheltered techie-types who are uncomfortable in big city
| neighborhoods reflects the language used in OP, i.e.,
| their understanding of minority communities is largely
| informed by stereotypes developed by local news and one-
| dimensional TV depictions _before_ moving to
| neighborhoods and getting a chance to see what it 's
| really like. Instead they stay sheltered in their castle
| and don't talk to their neighbors, and are subsequently
| (correctly) labeled gentrifiers. The feeling of not
| fitting in exacerbates the impulse to apply these
| stereotypes and colors any subsequent interaction before
| it begins.
|
| If OP does not fit this description, they've certainly
| inherited their language (thus, worldview) from those who
| do.
| cousin_it wrote:
| Most of the "aggression" is just mugging attempts.
| "You're walking in here like you own the place", "what's
| with these glasses, think you're so smart", "you got any
| money, what if I find some" is stuff I've heard many
| times irl.
| uoaei wrote:
| Someone replied with
|
| > If you beat up someone for being "not of your community",
| you're scum.
|
| but deleted it before I was able to reply. While I'm on this
| topic I would like to point out how this perpetuates the same
| issues by replying to it directly:
|
| "Scum" is an interesting word choice. (Yes, that use of
| 'interesting' is a very loaded one.) But OP didn't say
| anything about "beating up," just "aggression." And they also
| didn't claim it's solely because they're "not of the
| community." There is a lot of obscured context here, but the
| invariant to notice is that folks who are generally
| antagonistic against those they perceive as lower classes
| will use this kind of reductive, dehumanizing language to
| describe their interactions.
| kortilla wrote:
| You assume the OP doesn't refer to him/herself as a local.
| Have you considered it's meant to be about how the article
| doesn't distinguish between behavior of the locals in various
| regions?
|
| > The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling
| because it is framed entirely with an external locus of
| control, which absolves you of any role.
|
| You've clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling. Your
| only "role" is being present.
| uoaei wrote:
| > You assume the OP doesn't refer to himself as a local.
|
| You assume the OP is a "he," among many other things, such
| as:
|
| > You've clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling.
|
| Typically the approach of "scold motivated assumptions with
| unmotivated ones" does not engender support, because it
| shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this
| conversation operates.
| kortilla wrote:
| > You assume the OP is a "he,"
|
| Nope, no assumption. Just a gross mistake of failing to
| put the global match in there. Updated accordingly.
|
| > because it shows that you do not comprehend the context
| in which this conversation operates.
|
| Ah, insults and no content. I suppose trolling it is
| then.
|
| The point is that if you spend any large amount of time
| in many US cities you will encounter aggressive
| panhandling and the only action on your behalf is your
| presence there.
|
| There is a reason some communities vote to entirely ban
| panhandling, and it's not because "racism".
| [deleted]
| uoaei wrote:
| I spend a lot of time in US cities. I live in one of
| them.
|
| The reason some communities vote to entirely ban
| panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to
| panhandling. It's because there is no support structure
| to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of
| human dignity. The vote is to assuage middle- and upper-
| class sensibilities to avoid thinking about the systemic
| issues by resorting to "out of sight, out of mind."
|
| There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall
| into this situation. If you do not consider that racism,
| you have missed approximately the last decade of
| discussion around the matter.
| kortilla wrote:
| (From your now deleted first high-brow reply
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26029344)
|
| > If you find this insulting, you may want to reconsider
| why.
|
| I don't consider it insulting. I consider it an attempt
| at an insult. If it's not that, it's just a lame attempt
| to construe a discussion participant's level of cognition
| for no particular purpose.
|
| > The reason some communities vote to entirely ban
| panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to
| panhandling. It's because there is no support structure
| to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of
| human dignity.
|
| This ignores entire countries where it is not allowed
| despite having stronger social safety systems.
|
| > There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall
| into this situation. If you do not consider that racism,
| you have missed approximately the last decade of
| discussion around the matter.
|
| Well it's not racism because many communities dominated
| by one race have a homeless population dominated by the
| same race and still choose to ban it.
|
| Clutching at the crutch of racism accusations is just a
| method of dehumanizing people attempting to improve their
| community after countless failed attempts to solve
| homelessness.
| uoaei wrote:
| > a lame attempt to construe a discussion participant's
| level of cognition
|
| ...only if you conflate "do not" with "cannot" in order
| to further your victimization narrative.
|
| > many communities
|
| Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing
| evidence are useless here.
| [deleted]
| cuddlybacon wrote:
| > By "aggression" I mean panhandling and other interruptions by
| people undergoing obvious psychosis with no sense of social
| norms.
|
| I'd like to throw in interruptions by people who are completely
| sober but have something they want to sell. Going to get your
| coffee and having someone say "hey, let's have a chat really
| quick" then reply "wow, ignore me like I didn't just talk to
| you" when you ignore them is irritating as hell. In the pre-
| covid days people in my office would go to the Starbucks that
| was a half block further away just to avoid those people. Note:
| if a homeless person was this aggressive, the police would
| definitely get involved.
|
| Also while calling it aggression is a bit of a stretch, I
| noticed the block that surrounds a couple of the busiest
| transit stations are noticeably less polite. Things like
| smaller personal space, more tolerance for cutting people off,
| less "excuse me" or "pardon me". It makes sense in the context,
| but if you are passing by it could be a hassle that you'll put
| a bit of effort into avoiding.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I'm glad someone brought this up, because I honestly find
| these sorts of aggressive sidewalk salespeople to be much
| worse than any panhandler. I've had them walk directly into
| my path, forcing me to walk around them or stop and I think
| that level of obstruction is asinine. I'm kind of an anxious
| person and someone moving that aggressively to block my path
| sets off my fight or flight very badly. Reminds me of the
| behaviour of the perpetrators of beatings I took in school.
| cuddlybacon wrote:
| > I think that level of obstruction is asinine
|
| It really is.
|
| > I'm kind of an anxious person and someone moving that
| aggressively to block my path sets off my fight or flight
| very badly.
|
| I really think that is a correct response. In a lot of
| cases, the sale comes closed to guaranteed once they get
| you into the conversation. They can lean into things like
| guilt, social etiquette, the your desire to look nice in
| order to make you feel like you have to buy in order to
| leave. That's why they choose sell by interrupting people
| on the streets instead of via other means.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| Yes, thank you, these people are actually a bigger issue than
| panhandlers in my experience (though panhandlers are much
| more common in my area and they slipped my mind)
| hshshs2 wrote:
| There's a major economic and racial discussion missing here...
| the huge gaps in the southern part of their map (east and west
| of warren st... roxbury and dorchester) are the poorest areas
| of boston and heavily segregated racially... I'd wager that
| this data isn't actually representative of the population and
| skews heavily towards high income white people...
| sep_field wrote:
| > No matter what I do, these people are allowed to exist where
| I live, but I don't consider them part of my community at all.
|
| this makes me sad to hear. who would disallow them to exist?
| and how would that disallowing happen? how would things change
| if you did consider them part of your community? maybe your
| interactions would be different if your attitude and energy
| changed?
| egypturnash wrote:
| "Three main features characterize desirable streets: access to
| parks, nearby shops & businesses, and sidewalks & street
| furniture".
|
| Really. I never would have guessed. Especially that last one.
| Really? People prefer to walk down a street with a path
| explicitly designed for humans instead of one that's designed
| entirely for cars?
| powersnail wrote:
| While it seems like a fatuous point, I think stating the
| obvious is a feature, not a bug, for research. Explicitly
| confirming common sense with data is a good thing.
| kortilla wrote:
| Definitely. Very often "common sense" is an after the fact
| explanation for some other underlying issue.
| elicash wrote:
| I will also take a longer path if the street is heavily tree-
| lined.
|
| And in this pandemic, I usually avoid walking near shops and
| businesses because there are more people. (That said, it kinda
| proves the point that those streets are more desirable, in
| general.)
| mrnzc wrote:
| This is super interesting!
|
| Also related: Desire Paths
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path). Desire Paths are
| often shortcuts (people often optimize for nearest path) but
| sometimes people prefer a more scenic view, a less frequented
| route etc.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I discovered the concept of desire paths in college and found
| it very interesting at the time. it flips the narrative of
| "these inconsiderate kids keep walking on the grass!" to "these
| landscape architects failed to anticipate how students would
| use the space where they live and work".
| coreyisthename wrote:
| If you ever need to find a desire path, for whatever reason,
| the first place to go is any college campus/quad.
|
| Every corner is cut and all open spaces are crisscrossed with
| paths.
|
| I remember seeing photos of some university - I can't
| remember where - that actually ripped up the old paths and
| paved over the desire paths, to great success.
| blindm wrote:
| > I remember seeing photos of some university - I can't
| remember where - that actually ripped up the old paths and
| paved over the desire paths, to great success.
|
| And when people do this: it makes the path a bit jarring
| since you intuitively know it's been designed that way for
| maximum efficiency and you are being 'played' in this
| subtle way.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Ohio State is one such example:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/DesirePath/comments/8nihbj/the_ova
| l...
| bregma wrote:
| When UC Davis was originally constructed they delayed
| paving until the desire paths appeared so they knew where
| to put them.
| sidpatil wrote:
| Lots of schools do this. You'll often hear college campus
| tour guides mention it to their groups.
| jelling wrote:
| Walking in NYC is the art of picking the most pleasant path.
| 10st across the villages is more pleasant than one block south
| or north, Henry St allows twice the rate of speed of walking on
| Canal.
| deanebarker wrote:
| Jeff Speck has written a great book called "Walkable City." I
| have nothing to do with city planning, but I found it super-
| interesting.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-America/d...
| 19g wrote:
| +1 for Walkable City! For everyone saying that the conclusions
| in the post are obvious, it apparently wasn't obvious enough
| that in the US, many cities are built for cars and not people.
|
| Another good book is 'Happy City' although I liked Walkable
| City more.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Happy-City-Transforming-Through-Desig...
| caturopath wrote:
| Speck has a somewhat contrarian take to urban design that's
| really fun, promoting things like street parking and 4-way
| stops.
|
| He has a couple talks he gives, one of which he's given at TED.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| Super timely as I'm on day two of the National Association of
| Realtors Green certification course, where aspects of walkability
| is one of the key topics. This "article" is really nifty for
| giving consumers a "live" prospective on a topic we're hearing a
| lot of from buyers. Neat to see the world slowly turning away
| from car-dependent.
| s1mon wrote:
| In San Francisco, many people avoid walking in areas with higher
| crime - which is not mentioned on this site. Sometimes higher
| crime areas are not as well lit, don't have enough visibility, or
| don't have clear egress in the case where someone might hassle
| you.
|
| Also, while walking routes are not 1:1 with running routes,
| Strava has very good data on popularity of particular streets
| globally. Here's a link to the Boston area (you can navigate
| wherever from there) which has strong similarities to the map
| that the MIT site shows.
|
| https://www.strava.com/heatmap#13.00/-71.12481/42.34039/hot/...
| leetcrew wrote:
| sadly I tend to avoid walking through parks at night for this
| reason, even though it ought to be a more pleasant (and often
| more direct) route. there's nothing good about crossing paths
| with a crowd after dusk where I live.
| ant6n wrote:
| Urban crime is all about lack of eyes on the street. Well
| utilized People friendly environments will create safety. (Cf
| jane jacobs, death and life of American cities)
| ghaff wrote:
| I wouldn't say it's _all_ about eyes on the street. There are
| more dangerous and less dangerous neighborhood overall--
| especially if you 're a confused-looking tourist. But I agree
| that a well-lit busy city avenue will tend to be safer than
| some deserted street.
| monadic3 wrote:
| If you're referring to the tenderloin, there's a larger issue
| there with obstruction of sidewalks. I'm certainly not arguing
| these should be 'cleaned' or 'swept', though, just pointing out
| that 'crime' is rather incidental to the reasons why someone
| might avoid the area.
| igorstellar wrote:
| My first day in SF downtown was "oh cool, here is a bunch of
| free parking spots along the street" when I got to
| Tenderloin. I didn't see any crime but at the same time I
| started to avoid this neighborhood since then.
| xapata wrote:
| Egress goes both ways. Streets with no hiding places nor alleys
| to flee down tend to be safer.
|
| Also, a street lit well in some pockets but not others ruins
| night vision and creates hiding places. A residential street
| with lights on at every door might look nice at night but may
| also be worse for safety. Except for the psychological
| deterrence of "people live here, are home, and care enough to
| leave the light on."
| mumblemumble wrote:
| I can't seem to find the paper, but there was a study
| conducted in my city that found that, beyond a certain point,
| more lighting makes people feel safer, but seems to also be
| associated with more crime.
|
| As I recall, they didn't really figure out the reason for
| that, but the paper suggested one potential problem is that
| adding lights simultaneously ruins people's dark vision _and_
| creates more shadows to hide in. One other hypothesis I 'd
| want to rule out before drawing any big conclusions is that
| law-abiding citizens aren't the only ones who know that
| people choose the more brightly lit streets when walking at
| night.
|
| My own personal best guess is that, if there's any
| relationship, it's non-causative. I'm guessing that what
| muggers actually prefer is areas with low foot traffic, and
| it just happens to be that places with less foot traffic also
| tend to have fewer lights.
| netsharc wrote:
| Argh, I wish the videos of the routes were pausable...
| snappieT wrote:
| These results seem selective and flawed to me.
|
| For one, the videos keep stopping and pointing out trees/greenery
| on the "desired" path, but ignore trees on the "fastest" path.
|
| Also, the route along Marlborough Street shows walking on a
| street versus walking down an alleyway. The "detour" is a half
| block on either side of the route. I live in Boston and wouldn't
| even consider those alleys to be streets - they only exist for
| garbage trucks and parking for the people who live in those
| buildings.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-04 23:02 UTC)