Eat My Blog: Blogger Bake Sale Will Benefit LA Foodbank
-thumb-110x110-461780.jpg)
Simply Wrong Food: IHOP's Holiday Pancakes
Review: Living In Emergency
Galaxy 2009 Season Recap
Get Out: LA Plays Itself, Design Pod Holiday Gift Bazaar, Kiss My Bundt Cookbook Party, Patchwork in the LBC
Photo by maxedaperture via Flickr
Remember Walkscore, the website where you type in your address and the spit out a score rating the walkability of your neighborhood? Today, they released America's Most Walkable Neighborhoods and Los Angeles came out at #9. #9?!?! Well, it's not for the city as a whole, but rather for certain neighborhoods, specifically Mid City West, Downtown, Hollywood.
Ahead one step of Los Angeles is Long Beach at number 8 with their downtown and the Belmont Shore and Belmont Heights neighborhoods listed as walkable. San Francisco came in at #1, San Diego at #16, San Jose at #17 and Fresno at #19,
They are also using the list to promote some civic action. "We need your help to create more walkable neighborhoods," wrote Matt Lerner of Front Seat, the software company who runs Walkscore, in an e-mail. "Please sign this petition to Congress to support more walking, biking, and transit in the 2009 Transportation Bill (the Transportation Bill only comes along once a decade)."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I guess this proves that L.A. is indeed walkable but people just prefer not to. Shame.
While they're at it, could they also make it NOT be 100 degrees outside? That would help.
walking is so ... primitive
According to their map, I live in the Mid-Wilshire area, and not Hollywood. WTF? I'm even north of Beverly, and all of the numbered streets for that matter. Still, Mid-Wilshire is very walkable, it's only a point less than Hollywood. I guess the reason for that is that elite in Hancock Park do not walk, except when their little trophy dogs are on a leash and they are strolling through Larchmont.
Although according to the article, I live in LA's most walkable neighborhood, there's something they don't take into account:
Would one *want* to walk there?
Between the homeless problem, the shit - human and trophy-dog - and other grossness on the sidewalks, and the fact that indie businesses are shutting down in boatloads, leaving a generic, suburban consumer experience, I'm sad to say that I don't walk nearly as much as I expected I would when I first moved in six months ago.
At first, I walked *everywhere*. But after being accosted by aggressive types each time, and being visually treated by an astounding amount of everything from dead animals to used feminine hygiene products to the aforementioned trophy-dog shit, I'm feeling defeated.
68 out of 100 — Somewhat Walkable
Woohoo!
Pity Amoeba is far from walkable. :)
Who decided where these boundries lay? According the this the Jedi lives in Mid Wilshire. WTF!? >_
stupid gerymandering
Koreatown: 92
The problem is they only seem to take into account what places you can walk to. What is can't gauge is how enjoyable the walk actually is. There's a big difference between walkable (NYC and SF are walkable) and having stuff to walk to (I can walk to stuff but it's a generally unpleasant experience.)
You have lots of stuff to walk to when you're on the strip in Vegas, but it is by no means walkable since buildings are built back from the street, traffic is very loud and distances between attractions are quite large.
... gee, sounds like LA