Desirable streets: where do people prefer to walk?
senseable.mit.edu
senseable.mit.edu
The same thing could be seen in the downtown core. Developers had torn down a quarter mile of the west side of the main shopping street and build a huge indoor shopping mall with virtually no street engagement except for a parking lot entrance midway. The east side of the street maintained its human-scale former streetcar-street landscape. Pedestrians would crowd both sides of the street above and below the mall, but only the east side in the stretch with the mall. It was obvious where people preferred to walk.
It's about human scale and human engagement. If you want to attract people, make it for them. Not for cars, not for architect's egos, not for political idiology. It's really just that simple.
This is actually a very studied problem in pedestrian-dominated areas such as stadiums, airports and theme parks. There is a breaking point when the numbers get so big that you simply have to haul people to/from the perimeter entrances. I'm sure that Disney works from some very exact specifications.
Another concept you may learn about is „mixed used neighborhoods“. It turns out you dont have to separate out working and residential areas, this will reduce travel distances. A related concept is the „polycentric city“.
Most people in downtown Toronto or Manhattan are not solely walking to work, but the walking environment is still pleasant.
I'm in Sydney, AU - I've never been to Toronto, and know only that it's much further from the equator than Sydney is. Even in the mild climate of Sydney, I've noticed myself and others favouring the south sides of streets in winter here, simply because it receives more natural light & warmth.
For any given street, there's probably a handful of other candidate explanations for one side of a street being more favoured. It may well be an abundance of shops - if I want to amble, that would (all other factors aside) rate it higher. If I wanted to get somewhere, then I'd eschew a store-dense route, to avoid the myriad amblers that would slow me down.
Also, while walking routes are not 1:1 with running routes, Strava has very good data on popularity of particular streets globally. Here's a link to the Boston area (you can navigate wherever from there) which has strong similarities to the map that the MIT site shows.
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#13.00/-71.12481/42.34039/hot/...
Also, a street lit well in some pockets but not others ruins night vision and creates hiding places. A residential street with lights on at every door might look nice at night but may also be worse for safety. Except for the psychological deterrence of "people live here, are home, and care enough to leave the light on."
As I recall, they didn't really figure out the reason for that, but the paper suggested one potential problem is that adding lights simultaneously ruins people's dark vision and creates more shadows to hide in. One other hypothesis I'd want to rule out before drawing any big conclusions is that law-abiding citizens aren't the only ones who know that people choose the more brightly lit streets when walking at night.
My own personal best guess is that, if there's any relationship, it's non-causative. I'm guessing that what muggers actually prefer is areas with low foot traffic, and it just happens to be that places with less foot traffic also tend to have fewer lights.
In contrast, the college student slum near my university had high foot traffic. From my biased sample, I estimated that 1/10 student residents of that neighborhood were mugged in a 4-year period.
One example for me personally is the level of aggression in the locals. There are certain streets I avoid due to this aggressive behavior, and something like that wasn't even mentioned.
Perhaps there are other missing variables too.
edit: in case anyone was wondering, no, I'm not implying some kind of racist undertone here. I've walked through many diverse neighborhoods in many cities without any problem whatsoever.
By "aggression" I mean panhandling and other interruptions by people undergoing obvious psychosis with no sense of social norms.
The reason I stated this oddly is because there's a large tangent of people on HN who will attack you for inferring that some homeless people (yes, these psychotic people are generally homeless) are psychotic and aggressive. Perhaps they live in gated communities?
No matter what I do, these people are allowed to exist where I live, but I don't consider them part of my community at all.
This is off-topic, but I can't help but notice how this is worded. I am having trouble articulating what bothers me about it. But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community, but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you and your household, and the "locals". The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
Just my thoughts. I know this is irrelevant but I feel like it needs to be heard.
> If you beat up someone for being "not of your community", you're scum.
but deleted it before I was able to reply. While I'm on this topic I would like to point out how this perpetuates the same issues by replying to it directly:
"Scum" is an interesting word choice. (Yes, that use of 'interesting' is a very loaded one.) But OP didn't say anything about "beating up," just "aggression." And they also didn't claim it's solely because they're "not of the community." There is a lot of obscured context here, but the invariant to notice is that folks who are generally antagonistic against those they perceive as lower classes will use this kind of reductive, dehumanizing language to describe their interactions.
If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not belong. I would wager that in nearly every city in the world, there are neighborhoods and communities which non-residents of those communities try to avoid walking through.
> The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
Honestly, what are you talking about? Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?
And you think that talking about people who live in other neighborhoods like a colonist marching through the Congo is an appropriate way to treat fellow citizens?
> Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?
Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else acting poorly. OP's framing does not allow for the cause of this "aggression" to be their actions. If someone was routinely speeding through my neighborhood in their car, for instance, I would be "aggressive" because I fear for the safety of my neighbors. The framing that OP uses strongly implies that they think they can do no wrong.
I've seen far more people acting aggressive to pedestrians without being provoked by the pedestrians because they're in a lot of internal distress (acting erratically, unkempt, possibly homeless) than I've seen pedestrians inciting "locals" to be aggressive back to them.
Walk down a street and past someone muttering that they're about to murder a bunch of people and you might not go back that way next time.
Sometimes "you were asking for it" isn't the explanation.
Yes, it is also possible for 'locals' to be upset by unreasonable behaviour like loutish drunkenness or reasonable behaviour like wearing a rainbow T-shirt, but it's a bit rich to accuse others of being deliberately obtuse when you're bringing up dangerous driving as an example of why an OP's concerns about walking through certain areas of the city is likely to be his own fault.
sometimes people are downright aggressive if they feel you are trespassing in a place that isn't "yours". I had a somewhat mischievous teacher in high school who liked to take us out to lunch in less affluent neighborhoods. more than once he was asked "why did you bring those kids here?" or told outright "you don't belong here" by the regulars.
> In my experience, those who speak in this and similar manners are forming narratives to reframe the event to re-orient culpability.
why would people do this? to what end? who is really "culpable" in your opinion? all I see in this thread is people recounting times they have felt unwelcome or unsafe somewhere. in response, they do nothing more extreme than to avoid that place in the future. what exactly is the problem here?
Doesn't seem that way to me. Lots of activity in the up/downvotes. Not everyone with an opinion is here expressing it.
> why would people do this? to what end?
When people do bad or otherwise undignified things, they routinely construct a narrative that conveniently leaves those bad things out, or otherwise reframes the events to cast them in a better light when they later recount the story. I don't think many would find this a controversial idea. This idea has been formalized in psychology since at least Jung in the concept of the shadow.
Frequently, this includes additional language to further reinforce the narrative, such as dehumanizing or reductive language like I explained above.
The pattern I've noticed in my interactions with sheltered techie-types who are uncomfortable in big city neighborhoods reflects the language used in OP, i.e., their understanding of minority communities is largely informed by stereotypes developed by local news and one-dimensional TV depictions before moving to neighborhoods and getting a chance to see what it's really like. Instead they stay sheltered in their castle and don't talk to their neighbors, and are subsequently (correctly) labeled gentrifiers. The feeling of not fitting in exacerbates the impulse to apply these stereotypes and colors any subsequent interaction before it begins.
If OP does not fit this description, they've certainly inherited their language (thus, worldview) from those who do.
I actually have plenty of experience in the big city, it's not like I'm someone who comes from the rich burbs and then acts disgusted by the people around.
If anything, I've only become more bitter and hardened over time by living in the city. I was much more empathetic before it happened for 10 years+ and before I was put in so many unsafe situations.
Again, I'm not even referring to minority neighborhoods, actually most of these people are white (though certainly not all).
> The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling. Your only “role” is being present.
You assume the OP is a "he," among many other things, such as:
> You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling.
Typically the approach of "scold motivated assumptions with unmotivated ones" does not engender support, because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates.
Nope, no assumption. Just a gross mistake of failing to put the global match in there. Updated accordingly.
> because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates.
Ah, insults and no content. I suppose trolling it is then.
The point is that if you spend any large amount of time in many US cities you will encounter aggressive panhandling and the only action on your behalf is your presence there.
There is a reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling, and it’s not because “racism”.
The reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to panhandling. It's because there is no support structure to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of human dignity. The vote is to assuage middle- and upper-class sensibilities to avoid thinking about the systemic issues by resorting to "out of sight, out of mind."
There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall into this situation. If you do not consider that racism, you have missed approximately the last decade of discussion around the matter.
> If you find this insulting, you may want to reconsider why.
I don’t consider it insulting. I consider it an attempt at an insult. If it’s not that, it’s just a lame attempt to construe a discussion participant’s level of cognition for no particular purpose.
> The reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to panhandling. It's because there is no support structure to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of human dignity.
This ignores entire countries where it is not allowed despite having stronger social safety systems.
> There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall into this situation. If you do not consider that racism, you have missed approximately the last decade of discussion around the matter.
Well it’s not racism because many communities dominated by one race have a homeless population dominated by the same race and still choose to ban it.
Clutching at the crutch of racism accusations is just a method of dehumanizing people attempting to improve their community after countless failed attempts to solve homelessness.
...only if you conflate "do not" with "cannot" in order to further your victimization narrative.
> many communities
Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing evidence are useless here.
I don’t think you know what “victimization” means. I’m not claiming to be a victim. I’m claiming your attempts to dismiss comments with insults instead of logic is pretty lame.
“Clearly you don’t know what’s going on here so I’m not going to address anything.”
> Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing evidence are useless here.
Go to “legal restrictions” on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging if you would actually like to discuss these things you find so “curious”.
For me, "the locals" means nothing more than "the people who are habitually in that area". In my neighborhood, I am one of "the locals", other places I go, I'm perhaps not.
I took "aggression" to mean something like "proclivity to force a social engagement regardless of my desire to be part of it".
In New York City, that's sometimes panhandling, sometimes people with mental health issues, sometimes the guys with the CDs or the people who want to tell the whole car about their personal religious conversion while you're riding on the subway.
If my only role is "being there" then my only element of control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's entire point.
But of course it's never that simple, which is sort of my entire point.
Obviously there exists some complex set of life circumstances, personal histories, elements of chance and so on that lead to there being some people who will interact in an insistent, even hostile, way with strangers on the streets.
In that both I and those people form part of the same economy, inhabit the same political reality, my actions are probably implicated in some unfathomably complex way. I have "a role".
To that extent: yes, it is not "that simple", in fact it's unknowably complex. But, in practical terms, what are you proposing?
I'd like to throw in interruptions by people who are completely sober but have something they want to sell. Going to get your coffee and having someone say "hey, let's have a chat really quick" then reply "wow, ignore me like I didn't just talk to you" when you ignore them is irritating as hell. In the pre-covid days people in my office would go to the Starbucks that was a half block further away just to avoid those people. Note: if a homeless person was this aggressive, the police would definitely get involved.
Also while calling it aggression is a bit of a stretch, I noticed the block that surrounds a couple of the busiest transit stations are noticeably less polite. Things like smaller personal space, more tolerance for cutting people off, less "excuse me" or "pardon me". It makes sense in the context, but if you are passing by it could be a hassle that you'll put a bit of effort into avoiding.
It really is.
> I'm kind of an anxious person and someone moving that aggressively to block my path sets off my fight or flight very badly.
I really think that is a correct response. In a lot of cases, the sale comes closed to guaranteed once they get you into the conversation. They can lean into things like guilt, social etiquette, the your desire to look nice in order to make you feel like you have to buy in order to leave. That's why they choose sell by interrupting people on the streets instead of via other means.
this makes me sad to hear. who would disallow them to exist? and how would that disallowing happen? how would things change if you did consider them part of your community? maybe your interactions would be different if your attitude and energy changed?
I'm not sure what the solution is, but many of these people are obviously extremely unhappy, and they show no sign of changing soon.
If I viewed them as part of my community, it would probably be like pouring money into a black hole. Heroin tolerance goes up very quickly, and the associated costs go up just as quickly.
if you are unable to give them money you can at least acknowledge their common humanity and treat them as a person, and not a problem to be fixed.
--edit-- HN is not letting me reply right now so to answer your question i'm putting it here: i live in the SF Bay Area, which is far more dense than Portland. I work with a lot of unhoused people. I volunteer to feed them, distribute blankets to them, and make an effort to let them see how people still care for them. Do some of them ramble incoherently? Sure, a few, but frankly, not much more than the average Fox news viewer.
Out of curiosity, do you live in a large city? Try crossing the Burnside bridge in Portland, OR every day for months and get back to me.
Really. I never would have guessed. Especially that last one. Really? People prefer to walk down a street with a path explicitly designed for humans instead of one that's designed entirely for cars?
And in this pandemic, I usually avoid walking near shops and businesses because there are more people. (That said, it kinda proves the point that those streets are more desirable, in general.)
Safety, directness, and pleasant surroundings in that order. Since pleasure strolls / exercise don't really have a direction, I'm not really counting them here.
The point where I had to frantically scroll to have elements fade in horizontally is where I gave up. I thought the page was broken or I'd reached the end because I kept scrolling down with no vertical movement.
Also related: Desire Paths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path). Desire Paths are often shortcuts (people often optimize for nearest path) but sometimes people prefer a more scenic view, a less frequented route etc.
Every corner is cut and all open spaces are crisscrossed with paths.
I remember seeing photos of some university - I can't remember where - that actually ripped up the old paths and paved over the desire paths, to great success.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DesirePath/comments/8nihbj/the_oval...
And when people do this: it makes the path a bit jarring since you intuitively know it's been designed that way for maximum efficiency and you are being 'played' in this subtle way.
For one, the videos keep stopping and pointing out trees/greenery on the "desired" path, but ignore trees on the "fastest" path.
Also, the route along Marlborough Street shows walking on a street versus walking down an alleyway. The "detour" is a half block on either side of the route. I live in Boston and wouldn't even consider those alleys to be streets - they only exist for garbage trucks and parking for the people who live in those buildings.
https://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-America/d...
Another good book is 'Happy City' although I liked Walkable City more.
https://www.amazon.com/Happy-City-Transforming-Through-Desig...
He has a couple talks he gives, one of which he's given at TED.