I obviously have a soft spot for Ann Arbor. But much like your Cincy resident, I currently live near El Camino Real in San Bruno. It is almost ideal from an urbanist perspective - San Mateo Ave has more karate and dance studios than bars and coffee shops - with parks, grocers, dentists, schools, parks a library and everythin I need less than a mile away.
The one blight is El Camino Real - 6 travel lanes and a turn lane, it's basically a highway that cuts thru. Has a great bus route on it but the buses sit in traffic. It is intimidating to cross, and is the main reason I question how independent my kid can be.
In my journey into understanding urbanism I really dug into some population density statistics of cities that I’ve lived in or visited to get a more intuitive sense of what different densities /feel/ like. Obviously these stats are heavily influenced simply by how expansive city limits are—Portland has plenty of land to sprawl whereas SF or Seattle city limits stop at the water, for example. That caveat aside
Manhattan: ~60,000 ppl/square mile
Brooklyn: ~38,000 ppl/square mile
San Francisco: ~19,000 ppl/square mile
Seattle: ~9,000 ppl/square mile
Portland: ~5,000 ppl/square mile
For contrast, Phoenix: ~4,500 ppl/mile
Watching the density almost literally HALVE going down that list, when all of these are considered desirable, walkable cities by “urbanist” types goes to show that density alone does not create walkability. Portland and Phoenix is an enlightening contrast.
It’s also pretty shocking that SF is the second densest city in the country behind NYC, and it is not even anywhere close to the density of any borough of NYC except for Staten Island. There is so much room for infill development in all these NIMBY cities that complain they’re full. SF NIMBYs bemoaning the “Manhattanization” of San Francisco should try the Brooklynization of San Francisco on for size before they get all up in arms.
You know, this post helped me clarify the topic for a community walk through of my neighborhood later this month with our Strong Towns local conversation group: "What does it mean to live in a walkable city neighborhood in 2024?"
Judging from my own community, in terms of traffic, the answer is: there's the worst of both an urban AND a suburban environment.
On the urban side, our older streets and major arteries weren't built for the level of traffic in 2024. We all have our workarounds to avoid the inevitable tie ups during busy times, but there's no shortage of frustrated drivers who regularly run red lights or disobey no right turn on red signs in their haste to cut their commute time.
On the suburban side, we have commuters using our major arteries the way they would in their newer suburban or exurban environments. They expect to barrel through at speeds that aren't safe in our more urban environment. Our narrower streets make these cars dangerously close as we walk our sidewalks. It's one of the reasons few parents allow their children to walk to our two K-6 neighborhood schools alone.
So -- an interesting discussion. For many suburbanites in my city, even a suburban-light neighborhood like mine is still too urban. For those who want to live closer to the city center, it's not urban enough.
I obviously have a soft spot for Ann Arbor. But much like your Cincy resident, I currently live near El Camino Real in San Bruno. It is almost ideal from an urbanist perspective - San Mateo Ave has more karate and dance studios than bars and coffee shops - with parks, grocers, dentists, schools, parks a library and everythin I need less than a mile away.
The one blight is El Camino Real - 6 travel lanes and a turn lane, it's basically a highway that cuts thru. Has a great bus route on it but the buses sit in traffic. It is intimidating to cross, and is the main reason I question how independent my kid can be.
In my journey into understanding urbanism I really dug into some population density statistics of cities that I’ve lived in or visited to get a more intuitive sense of what different densities /feel/ like. Obviously these stats are heavily influenced simply by how expansive city limits are—Portland has plenty of land to sprawl whereas SF or Seattle city limits stop at the water, for example. That caveat aside
Manhattan: ~60,000 ppl/square mile
Brooklyn: ~38,000 ppl/square mile
San Francisco: ~19,000 ppl/square mile
Seattle: ~9,000 ppl/square mile
Portland: ~5,000 ppl/square mile
For contrast, Phoenix: ~4,500 ppl/mile
Watching the density almost literally HALVE going down that list, when all of these are considered desirable, walkable cities by “urbanist” types goes to show that density alone does not create walkability. Portland and Phoenix is an enlightening contrast.
It’s also pretty shocking that SF is the second densest city in the country behind NYC, and it is not even anywhere close to the density of any borough of NYC except for Staten Island. There is so much room for infill development in all these NIMBY cities that complain they’re full. SF NIMBYs bemoaning the “Manhattanization” of San Francisco should try the Brooklynization of San Francisco on for size before they get all up in arms.
You know, this post helped me clarify the topic for a community walk through of my neighborhood later this month with our Strong Towns local conversation group: "What does it mean to live in a walkable city neighborhood in 2024?"
Judging from my own community, in terms of traffic, the answer is: there's the worst of both an urban AND a suburban environment.
On the urban side, our older streets and major arteries weren't built for the level of traffic in 2024. We all have our workarounds to avoid the inevitable tie ups during busy times, but there's no shortage of frustrated drivers who regularly run red lights or disobey no right turn on red signs in their haste to cut their commute time.
On the suburban side, we have commuters using our major arteries the way they would in their newer suburban or exurban environments. They expect to barrel through at speeds that aren't safe in our more urban environment. Our narrower streets make these cars dangerously close as we walk our sidewalks. It's one of the reasons few parents allow their children to walk to our two K-6 neighborhood schools alone.
So -- an interesting discussion. For many suburbanites in my city, even a suburban-light neighborhood like mine is still too urban. For those who want to live closer to the city center, it's not urban enough.
If suburban ain't urban, than a village ain't urban.