News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 539     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Canada's Tallest Tower to be Taller, Again
 4.3K     1 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Originate Developments Achieves Zoning Approval for Two Ambitious Residential Projects
 2.2K     4 

Toronto ranked second most pedestrian-friendly city in Canada by WalkScore

B

balenciaga

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
372
Reaction score
1
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...nd-most-pedestrian-friendly-city-by-walkscore

WalkScore, a Seattle-based mobile app company, ranked Toronto the second most walkable city in Canada in a recent survey. (See below for charts.)

Toronto is sandwiched below Vancouver in first place and above Montreal. Toronto’s performance was dragged down by sprawling GTA neighbourhoods like Scarborough, according to WalkScore CEO Josh Herst.

The three inner-city districts that ranked highest are the Bay Street corridor, Church-Wellesley Village and Kensington Market.

The data also shows we have less in common with the Big Apple than we believe. With a score of 71.4, Toronto ranks in the vicinity of cities like Seattle and Washington D.C., while New York City ranks far higher with an overall score of 85.3.
 
Sounds about accurate to me. Of course we are comparing a group of generally unwalkable urban areas here. Toronto is not very walkable at all in my opinion. In isolation the Old city of Toronto is more walkable but I wouldn't call it very walkable either. Realistically, owning or having access to a car is a must for any but the most die-hard or those who both live in the few select neighbourhoods and work in the few select employment areas where it is not necessary.
 
TrickyRicky said:
Sounds about accurate to me. Of course we are comparing a group of generally unwalkable urban areas here. Toronto is not very walkable at all in my opinion. In isolation the Old city of Toronto is more walkable but I wouldn't call it very walkable either. Realistically, owning or having access to a car is a must for any but the most die-hard or those who both live in the few select neighbourhoods and work in the few select employment areas where it is not necessary.
Click to expand...

agree. Toronto as an entire city is actually not walkable to a large extent. The walkable area is restricted to south of Bloor and a few very small neighourhoods near Yonge or Bloor st.
The vast majority of Toronto (85% at least) is completely not walkable, judging by those wide roads and big space between buildings. For example, East York or Leaside are not walkable at all, although being pretty close to the core.

it sounds about right that TO is as walkable as DC/Seattle, both with a relatively walkable core and large unwalkable suburbs.
NYC's walkability is a different level, more in line with many European and Asian cities.
 
Dashboard_1.jpg


Looking at the map, its is obvious that existing, old neighbourhoods are most likely to be pedestrian-friendly. Unfortunately, municipal zoning laws, developers, and NIMBYs prevent new neighbourhoods to be created to be pedestrian-friendly. There is no way that a new "Kensington Market" can be formed in Rob Ford's neighbourhood.
 

Attachments

  • Dashboard_1.jpg
    Dashboard_1.jpg
    14.9 KB · Views: 1,018
W. K. Lis said:
View attachment 10084

Looking at the map, its is obvious that existing, old neighbourhoods are most likely to be pedestrian-friendly. Unfortunately, municipal zoning laws, developers, and NIMBYs prevent new neighbourhoods to be created to be pedestrian-friendly. There is no way that a new "Kensington Market" can be formed in Rob Ford's neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

what is sad is that in Toronto, all the "upscale" neighhourhoods are very unwalkable (except tiny Yorkville).
Look at it, Rosedale, Forest Hill, Leaside are very unwalkable and extremely boring. Anything north of Eglinton is not. even Cabbagetown being so close to downtown, is not.
It appears that anything south of the Gardiner is not walkable.The beaches is not either.

what it means is that Toronto's middle and upper class still love their purely car dependent suburbs. We are a completely different city from NYC. We need more neighbourhoods like St Lawrence Market, and less Rosedale/Leaside.
 
A lot of hysterics in this thread. Most of Toronto not walkable? How do you think people most people get to the TTC stop? By car?

A place that's walkable and a place that's pleasant to walk in are two different things. Walkable is just about the distance between places. How far are services/amenities (i.e. what are the euclidean distances)? Is it possible to walk in a straight line to these services (i.e. what are the effective distances)? How many services within walking distance (i.e. what is the density)?

The problem with WalkScore is that the calculation was based entirely on euclidean distances and number of services. It assumes everyone can walk in straight line, regardless of the layout of streets and sidewalks. The effective distances are ignored.

So the suburban areas of the GTA, which are actually laid out to allow pedestrians to walk in a straight line and therefore minimize the effective distances (and that's partly why post-war suburban GTA has vastly higher local transit ridership than the post-war suburbs of NYC, for example), have an underestimated Walkscore compared to other suburbs, which are generally designed to block pedestrian movement.

The GTA suburbs still have much higher Walkscore due to their higher density (it ranks Mississauga fourth best in Canada), but if the calculation was based on effective distances instead of euclidean, the difference berween Walkscores of typical suburbs and that of GTA suburbs would be even greater. But on the other hand, the difference between Toronto's suburbs and Toronto itself would be greater as well. You can see that Mississauga's walkscore is 58.6 compared to Toronto's 71.4. If the calculation was based on effective distances, it might become 50 vs 75 or something.
 
being able to walk to a transit stop doesn't mean walkable.

Walkability means you essentially are able to get most things you need within walking distance from your house (restaurants, grocery stores, shops, doctor's office, movie theatres, gyms, banks, various retailers), say within 20 minutes (no matter how you calculate distances).

It is true that the vast majority of Toronto is not walkable. Is it an over statement? Living 10 minutes walking from a TTC stop in the boring suburb with nothing but residential houses is still low walkability.
 
If your neighbour operates an "illegal" hairdressing saloon in the basement, the neighbourhood becomes more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour operates an "illegal" car repair service in their garage, the neighbourhood becomes more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour sells you their tomatoes from their back garden, the "illegal" green grocer makes the neighbourhood more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour does your income tax for a fee in their home office, it would be "illegal" because it is against the zoning rules, but makes the neighbourhood more walk-able. If your next door neighbour babysits your kids, along with a group of other kids, while you work, the "illegal" day care centre would still be against zoning rules, but makes the neighbourhood more walk-able.
 
Toronto is easily walkable from Bloor West Village to The Beach and up to Eglinton, with many more walkable pockets distributed throughout the entire city.
 
balenciaga said:
being able to walk to a transit stop doesn't mean walkable.

Walkability means you essentially are able to get most things you need within walking distance from your house (restaurants, grocery stores, shops, doctor's office, movie theatres, gyms, banks, various retailers), say within 20 minutes (no matter how you calculate distances).

It is true that the vast majority of Toronto is not walkable. Is it an over statement? Living 10 minutes walking from a TTC stop in the boring suburb with nothing but residential houses is still low walkability.
Click to expand...

And people living in the 416 suburbs cannot walk at all to ANY amenities or services? The Walkscore says otherwise. The vast majority of Toronto is "boring suburbs" and Toronto still has a relatively high walkscore of 71.4. Mississauga has a walkscore of 58.6, fourth highest in Canada.

Really, the only thing that's boring is your black and white views of cities and suburbs and your inability to grasp the simple fact that "not walkable" and "walkable" occupy two extremes of a continuum, and that it is entrely possible for a place to lie in-between these two extremes. That's why the Walkscores for Mississauga and Toronto are 58.6 and 71.4 respectively instead of 0 and 1.

Try not to be so narrowminded, and you might be able to understand this simple concept. And you should certainly try to understand it before you try to lecture me about it and basically restate what I already said in my previous post.
 
W. K. Lis said:
If your neighbour operates an "illegal" hairdressing saloon in the basement, the neighbourhood becomes more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour operates an "illegal" car repair service in their garage, the neighbourhood becomes more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour sells you their tomatoes from their back garden, the "illegal" green grocer makes the neighbourhood more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour does your income tax for a fee in their home office, it would be "illegal" because it is against the zoning rules, but makes the neighbourhood more walk-able. If your next door neighbour babysits your kids, along with a group of other kids, while you work, the "illegal" day care centre would still be against zoning rules, but makes the neighbourhood more walk-able.
Click to expand...

Houston doesn't have zoning and it sure is walkable.
 
W. K. Lis said:
If your neighbour operates an "illegal" hairdressing saloon in the basement, the neighbourhood becomes more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour operates an "illegal" car repair service in their garage, the neighbourhood becomes more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour sells you their tomatoes from their back garden, the "illegal" green grocer makes the neighbourhood more walk-able but against the zoning rules. If your neighbour does your income tax for a fee in their home office, it would be "illegal" because it is against the zoning rules, but makes the neighbourhood more walk-able. If your next door neighbour babysits your kids, along with a group of other kids, while you work, the "illegal" day care centre would still be against zoning rules, but makes the neighbourhood more walk-able.
Click to expand...

all true.
I still prefer a walkable area with those business against zoning rules any day. It just means the zoning rules are stupid. Pure residential zones are stupid.
 
doady said:
And people living in the 416 suburbs cannot walk at all to ANY amenities or services? The Walkscore says otherwise. The vast majority of Toronto is "boring suburbs" and Toronto still has a relatively high walkscore of 71.4. Mississauga has a walkscore of 58.6, fourth highest in Canada.
Click to expand...

I didn't say ANY.
Walkable means being able to walk to most amenities.
For example, if there is no grocery store within 20 minutes walk, it is NOT walkable. If you have to drive or take transit just to buy some toilet tissue, it is not walkable. Simple idea.
 
I think this methodology has to be taken with a grain of salt. It is a good idea but they are obviously a bit limited by their data points. Put your own address in and give the findings a "logic test".

Apparently I can walk to do my groceries at M&M meats as long as I don't stop at that, you know, grocery store I pass at around the half way mark in that walk! It is a small (±15k s.f.) independent so not likely in their data......but far more useful for "groceries" than M&M would be.

This could be a factor in the relatively low scores of cities like Toronto relative to American cities......perhaps the Canadian data they are using is not as well developed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top