intersection: yeah, a lot! But I think 9 different train lines go through that point, and one corner has the tallest building in Japan (doesn't look like it has long-term residences, but nearly 20 floors of hotel rooms). So it's busy.
"so many different ideas and definitions of it"
Including what I think of as misconceptions. The idea that I'm used to among urbanists is simply that you should be able to live well without a car, including having most of your daily needs _other than a job_ within a 15 minute walk. It's nice if you can get your job too, but many jobs clump by specialty and can't be spread out like convenience stores. Likewise there should be school options in range, but possibly not everyone's best school option.
So, Manhattan and Tokyo are walkable.
But some people think it means "you can walk everywhere" and thus get drawn into the size of places. "Of course a big city can't be walkable, it's too big!" That's not what we mean.
Though then there's the tourist definition, of "is everything I'd be interested in, walkable; I don't care about those residential areas beyond range".
Disabilities is a complex subject, though often it seems like disabled people get pulled in as a human shield. "You want to reduce parking? WELL WHAT ABOUT THE DISABLED???" Except many disabled people _can't drive_ because of their disability (or because of their lack of income). While the Youtube channel Not Just Bikes has a nice video about how Dutch bicycle infrastructure serves many disabled who use bike-alternatives (tricycles, handcycles) or electric mobility scooters.
As for bikes and my density models, woo. Even a very slow bike speed (6 MPH, I'm not sure that's even stable) can quadruple the area reachable in time. 9x if 9 MPH. In principle you could have pretty low density that's still livable without a car, because of everyone using bikes (or equivalents) -- like if you need 12,000 people/km2 for a really good walkable area, you could cut that to 1333 -- like Phoenix or Atlanta -- with bikes. Kind of like car living but with much less space needed for roads and 'parking', so I guess lots more green space. Maybe less urban parts of the Netherlands or Japan are like this.
Re: Thoughts
"so many different ideas and definitions of it"
Including what I think of as misconceptions. The idea that I'm used to among urbanists is simply that you should be able to live well without a car, including having most of your daily needs _other than a job_ within a 15 minute walk. It's nice if you can get your job too, but many jobs clump by specialty and can't be spread out like convenience stores. Likewise there should be school options in range, but possibly not everyone's best school option.
So, Manhattan and Tokyo are walkable.
But some people think it means "you can walk everywhere" and thus get drawn into the size of places. "Of course a big city can't be walkable, it's too big!" That's not what we mean.
Though then there's the tourist definition, of "is everything I'd be interested in, walkable; I don't care about those residential areas beyond range".
Disabilities is a complex subject, though often it seems like disabled people get pulled in as a human shield. "You want to reduce parking? WELL WHAT ABOUT THE DISABLED???" Except many disabled people _can't drive_ because of their disability (or because of their lack of income). While the Youtube channel Not Just Bikes has a nice video about how Dutch bicycle infrastructure serves many disabled who use bike-alternatives (tricycles, handcycles) or electric mobility scooters.
As for bikes and my density models, woo. Even a very slow bike speed (6 MPH, I'm not sure that's even stable) can quadruple the area reachable in time. 9x if 9 MPH. In principle you could have pretty low density that's still livable without a car, because of everyone using bikes (or equivalents) -- like if you need 12,000 people/km2 for a really good walkable area, you could cut that to 1333 -- like Phoenix or Atlanta -- with bikes. Kind of like car living but with much less space needed for roads and 'parking', so I guess lots more green space. Maybe less urban parts of the Netherlands or Japan are like this.