re: This "walkable cities" thing I keep hearing about...

quote:

---

In no way is BR a “walkable city.” The thought is actually comical. Everything is way too spread out, unsafe areas, and the weather is trash

---

I am remembering those scenes in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles where Steve Martin has to walk back to the rental car place. That is my mental picture of walking around Baton Rouge.

There’s a couple areas that are sorta walkable: Downtown (including spanish and Beauregard town), mid city (particularly along government from S. Eugene to Jefferson Highway), and the areas immediately bordering LSU’s campus to the overpass area.

Most of BR is simply far too spread out to be walkable. They seem to be doing some fairly smart development to connect these different denser areas to create a walkable core in BR. The developments along Nicholson, Highland, Government, and in Downtown East all seem to be geared at increasing population density and connecting downtown to more desirable neighborhoods so it feels less isolated.

All of BR would benefit from reducing parking minimums, improving street connectivity, and restoring some semblance of a street grid to south BR, but creating a successful, safe, walkable, and denseish urban core that incompases LSU, Downtown, lakeview, the overpass area, the garden district, downtown east, and much of mid city would be a massive boon to BR.

No one hates on chains that are actually good. McDonalds makes a shitty burger. Freddy’s makes good food. Applebees is garbage. Zea’s is really solid. No one hates on Cracker Barrel or Jersey Mike’s because they consistently put out a good product. People might hate on their service, wait, or politics, but no one has a bad thing to say about the food at Popeyes or Chik-fil-a.

Somehow this has turned into a car vs. no car thread. Even with the best "smart growth" imaginable most people of means will still own cars. But cities/towns should: 1) have areas with a development pattern where people who choose not to drive, or can't drive (senior citizens, people with disabilities, etc.) have choices other than using a car to make local trips, 2) eliminate draconian zoning and regulation that requires needless parking, and in many cases car storage, 3) develop public rights-of-ways that are safe for all user, whether walking, biking, taking transit or driving.

We have numerous friends that are a one-car households now, especially since COVID and more work from home. Have paid-off cars so no note right now, but we would go one car before ever having 2 car notes again living in the city. Doing the math at an unreasonably low $500/month (car note plus LA insurance), but in reality, probably 6 or 7 hundred a month after gas, maintenance, etc. I could uber/lyft/bike/transit a ton each month and not come close to spending that much, while only using the car when no one else in the house needs it.

Two caveats, obviously doesn't work in rural areas, and we pay a good house note to live in an area where this is possible.

quote:

---

Somehow this has turned into a car vs. no car thread. Even with the best "smart growth" imaginable most people of means will still own cars. But cities/towns should: 1) have areas with a development pattern where people who choose not to drive, or can't drive (senior citizens, people with disabilities, etc.) have choices other than using a car to make local trips, 2) eliminate draconian zoning and regulation that requires needless parking, and in many cases car storage, 3) develop public rights-of-ways that are safe for all user, whether walking, biking, taking transit or driving.

---

Based. Most American cities are only designed for cars and are not planned to allow for other modes of transportation.

Get rid of parking minimums and stupid zoning laws and the rest will hopefully sort itself out.

quote:

---

You think you're doing well because you rent a studio apartment and ride a Huffy bike. Realize that other people own their own homes and multiple vehicles.

---

Keep projecting, baw.

Id rather them not be shitholes

quote:

---

You can have walkable neighborhoods, not entire cities.

---

I agree. The essential characteristic of a truly walkable area/neighborhood is safety. For example, my daughter (no pics) lives in the Midtown area of Starkville. She can walk to campus, the Cotton District, church, and the downtown area from her apartment. There are several restaurants and shops in her area, and the restaurants are mostly dog-friendly. She loves it. She often takes her dog for a walk, sees several friends along the way, and can then sit on the patio of a local restaurant or coffee shop with her friends and her dog and just catch-up and people watch. It’s a great area that fosters a real sense of community. However, a low crime rate is necessary to have the walkable areas. She takes reasonable precautions and maintains situational awareness, but if the area were dangerous, people wouldn’t be out walking like they do.

Also, she still must drive to get to grocery stores and such. It isn’t totally walkable, but it is far more walkable than most areas.

Austin between 51st street and Oltorf is very walkable