"Walkability"
I finally put together one of the most nagging things about DC: its relative lack of "walkability."
The first time I saw this term, it was in reference to a new site, WalkScore.com, that attempted to give various (US-centric) addresses a "walkability" score. This was loosely defined based on some general design principles that you see in, well, what you would expect to see in any reasonable city's neighborhood. Areas that include: a center, density, mixed income & use, parks, pedestrian design, and nearby schools and office space.
Big whoop.
Many parts of DC actually get high marks for "walkability." And frankly, for most of them, the site fails to capture precisely why many DC neighborhoods aren't anything near walkable. Certainly, as a whole, DC is 100% more walkable than a random suburb in Virginia, Maryland, or America in general.
But that's not the point. If you're in suburbia, you already know that your neighborhood has a poor walkability score by virtue of being in suburbia. Given the amount of cash we spend as a nation investing in elaborate homes trying to follow the elusive pioneer dream of "our own space" I don't see how one neighborhood's score would be enough incentive to move roots to a completely new environment (i.e. the city).
I digress.
Two things are missing from this idea of "walkability": hills, and the space between neighborhoods.
From personal experience, yes, hills have an influence on what gets considered as "close." That 5 minute downhill trek to a grocery store has to be tempered by a 10 minute uphill one, laden with groceries to boot.
More importantly, however, having "nothing" between neighborhoods makes an otherwise short distance feel even longer. DC's best pizzeria is about 1.3 miles away* from where I currently live. The only thing between that restaurant and me is 1.3 miles of poorly lit residential neighborhood. No businesses en route. Only one bus line goes to the pizzeria, and it takes 0.8 miles to walk to the stop in the first place!
I'm not advocating a business on every block. But simply placing a mental marker on a map or route makes it go by faster. And in the case of businesses, normally also reduces crime. Many times, walking between neighborhoods in DC - mostly because public transit options are not sufficient to get between these places - there's just nothing there that contributes to making the area feel livable. Manhattan is saturated with shops and kiosks; DC simply doesn't have anything there, which leaves derelict buildings and an uneasy feeling about the building you just walked past.
--
*Granted, it's far away. And that alone is a contributing factor to why I haven't been more often. It's also admittedly in a bizarre, transit-phobic corner of town. But it's really, really good.
The first time I saw this term, it was in reference to a new site, WalkScore.com, that attempted to give various (US-centric) addresses a "walkability" score. This was loosely defined based on some general design principles that you see in, well, what you would expect to see in any reasonable city's neighborhood. Areas that include: a center, density, mixed income & use, parks, pedestrian design, and nearby schools and office space.
Big whoop.
Many parts of DC actually get high marks for "walkability." And frankly, for most of them, the site fails to capture precisely why many DC neighborhoods aren't anything near walkable. Certainly, as a whole, DC is 100% more walkable than a random suburb in Virginia, Maryland, or America in general.
But that's not the point. If you're in suburbia, you already know that your neighborhood has a poor walkability score by virtue of being in suburbia. Given the amount of cash we spend as a nation investing in elaborate homes trying to follow the elusive pioneer dream of "our own space" I don't see how one neighborhood's score would be enough incentive to move roots to a completely new environment (i.e. the city).
I digress.
Two things are missing from this idea of "walkability": hills, and the space between neighborhoods.
From personal experience, yes, hills have an influence on what gets considered as "close." That 5 minute downhill trek to a grocery store has to be tempered by a 10 minute uphill one, laden with groceries to boot.
More importantly, however, having "nothing" between neighborhoods makes an otherwise short distance feel even longer. DC's best pizzeria is about 1.3 miles away* from where I currently live. The only thing between that restaurant and me is 1.3 miles of poorly lit residential neighborhood. No businesses en route. Only one bus line goes to the pizzeria, and it takes 0.8 miles to walk to the stop in the first place!
I'm not advocating a business on every block. But simply placing a mental marker on a map or route makes it go by faster. And in the case of businesses, normally also reduces crime. Many times, walking between neighborhoods in DC - mostly because public transit options are not sufficient to get between these places - there's just nothing there that contributes to making the area feel livable. Manhattan is saturated with shops and kiosks; DC simply doesn't have anything there, which leaves derelict buildings and an uneasy feeling about the building you just walked past.
--
*Granted, it's far away. And that alone is a contributing factor to why I haven't been more often. It's also admittedly in a bizarre, transit-phobic corner of town. But it's really, really good.