Major cities with few walkable neighborhoods

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by pj3000

The OP asked for ones with few walkable neighborhoods. For Houston's immense size, it definitely falls into the few category.

It depends on what you mean by "few." If by few you mean overall, then no it's not true, Houston has numerous walkable areas. By percentage, it has few but anyone who wants to live a walkable urban lifestyle in Houston can do so in many neighborhoods.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I feel like most American cities are on a smooth continuum of more or less walkable, and then a couple are extreme outliers. Namely Atlanta, Charlotte, and Nashville. They have almost no widespread grid neighborhoods and its almost intentionally designed to keep anyone from walking anywhere or being able to drive directly from point A to point B.

Let me preface what I'm about to say by making it perfectly clear that I am under no illusions that Nashville is anywhere close to being some sort of urban utopia. Nashville does, unquestionably, have the reputation of being a low density city, and that reputation is well deserved. However, I think it gets a worse rap than it might deserve due to it's very low overall density numbers, which are due at least in part to the city/county consolidation which took place in the sixties, which means that included in the city of Nashville today is roughly 200 or so square miles of either water or mostly undevelopable wilderness.

Nashville has a long, long way to go before it can make the claim that it has an appropriate for it's size number of healthy, functional, multi-use, walkable urban neighborhoods. That being said, though, aside from the pitiful mass transit system (that recent transit referendum defeat was a real gut punch) I think it's a lot closer to achieving that goal than one might think. Urban development has absolutely exploded there over the past five to ten years, and specific to your comment, it actually has a larger traditional grid network than Atlanta or Charlotte (much larger in Charlotte's case.) Essentially the entire old street grid of the original city of Nashville (Nashville prior to aforementioned City/County consolidation) is still intact. I'm certainly not saying that the majority of that isn't still just relatively low density residential development at the moment. I'm just saying, the actual no-outlet, connection free suburban sprawl doesn't start until you're at least a good four or five miles outside of downtown in most directions, and that original grid, though it has a long way to go, is filling in rapidly with urban development not just in downtown, but in multiple nodes around the city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Take a more granular look. Within those prosperous regions, the wealthiest neighborhoods tend to be car oriented suburbs. The wealthiest people in the US do not ride the bus or the subway, unless there is no other option.

Not true. The biggest concentration of wealth in the U.S. is the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which has some of the lowest auto ownership and highest transit usage in the country.

And the wealthiest suburbs of NYC have very high transit usage for U.S. suburban standards.

The four wealthiest major U.S. metros, by most measures, are Bay Area, DC, NYC and Boston. They also have the four highest % of transit users. Other relatively wealthy, high transit usage metros include Chicago, Philly and Seattle.

In contrast, the metros with the highest share of car usage tend to be among the poorest.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

No even the wealthiest people in New York ride the subway, they have personal drivers.

This isn't true. Many wealthy New Yorkers regularly ride the subway. Of course many also have for-hire drivers, but New Yorkers with extreme net worth regularly take transit.

If you're a regular rider of transit, you will have celebrities, investment bankers, law firm partners, etc. as fellow passengers.

[aderwent]

Columbus has an overall Walkscore of 41. That's due to its 217 square mile size. According to Walkscore there are 216 neighborhoods in those 217 square miles. They break down into:

21 (9.7%) are Very Walkable+. Only one (1%), the Short North at 92, is a Walker's Paradise.

Some peer cities:

Indianapolis: 30 overall at 362 square miles. 93 neighborhoods listed. One (1%) is Very Walkable; Downtown at 77. Zero are a Walker's Paradise.

Cincinnati: 50 overall at 78 square miles. 47 neighborhoods listed. Eight (17%) are Very Walkable+. Two (4%), the CBD and OTR, tie at 93 for a Walker's Paradise.

Cleveland: 60 overall at 78 square miles. 36 neighborhoods listed. Six (17%) are Very Walkable+. One (3%), Downtown at 91, is a Walker's Paradise.

Pittsburgh: 62 overall at 55 square miles. 80 neighborhoods listed. 23 (29%) are Very Walkable+. Downtown is the most walkable at 95 with a total of five (6%) at Walker's Paradise.

Nashville: 28 overall at 504 square miles. 168 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The East End and Downtown tie at 82, the high for the city.

Charlotte: 26 overall at 305 square miles. 159 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is the Sixth Ward at 86.

Kansas City: 34 Overall at 315 square miles. 200 neighborhoods listed. 21 (11%) are Very Walkable+. One (1%), Old Westport at 92, is the only Walker's Paradise.

Austin: 40 overall at 298 square miles. 68 neighborhoods listed. 15 (22%) are Very Walkable+. One (2%), Downtown at 90, is the only Walker's Paradise.

So according to Walkscore Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Nashville are three "major cities with few walkable neighborhoods."

[C.]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Columbus has an overall Walkscore of 41. That's due to its 217 square mile size. According to Walkscore there are 216 neighborhoods in those 217 square miles. They break down into:

21 (9.7%) are Very Walkable+. Only one (1%), the Short North at 92, is a Walker's Paradise.

Some peer cities:

Indianapolis: 30 overall at 362 square miles. 93 neighborhoods listed. One (1%) is Very Walkable; Downtown at 77. Zero are a Walker's Paradise.

Cincinnati: 50 overall at 78 square miles. 47 neighborhoods listed. Eight (17%) are Very Walkable+. Two (4%), the CBD and OTR, tie at 93 for a Walker's Paradise.

Cleveland: 60 overall at 78 square miles. 36 neighborhoods listed. Six (17%) are Very Walkable+. One (3%), Downtown at 91, is a Walker's Paradise.

Pittsburgh: 62 overall at 55 square miles. 80 neighborhoods listed. 23 (29%) are Very Walkable+. Downtown is the most walkable at 95 with a total of five (6%) at Walker's Paradise.

Nashville: 28 overall at 504 square miles. 168 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The East End and Downtown tie at 82, the high for the city.

Charlotte: 26 overall at 305 square miles. 159 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is the Sixth Ward at 86.

Kansas City: 34 Overall at 315 square miles. 200 neighborhoods listed. 21 (11%) are Very Walkable+. One (1%), Old Westport at 92, is the only Walker's Paradise.

Austin: 40 overall at 298 square miles. 68 neighborhoods listed. 15 (22%) are Very Walkable+. One (2%), Downtown at 90, is the only Walker's Paradise.

So according to Walkscore Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Nashville are three "major cities with few walkable neighborhoods."

This is excellent. It backs up what I've personally experienced about Indianapolis. Also Austin is a good point, it's not as walkable as most people thing. There is a few lively districts, but the majority of people need a car to get around.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This isn't true. Many wealthy New Yorkers regularly ride the subway. Of course many also have for-hire drivers, but New Yorkers with extreme net worth regularly take transit.

If you're a regular rider of transit, you will have celebrities, investment bankers, law firm partners, etc. as fellow passengers.

Ditto. More misconceptions from people that never lived in New York. Everyone rides the subway. The most experience real estate in the city is partly due to its proximity to a subway station. The subway is often faster to get around than any cab or private limo. Good luck getting to your corner office on Wall Street from your your Upper East Side brownstone by black car. The poorest of the poor living on the fringes of the city would be more likely to take a dollar van jitney and a millionaire would be more likely taking the subway than a livery car to their financial district office.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

I spent a summer once living in Albuquerque for an internship, and I didn’t have a car. I got a lot of pitiful looks, and sometimes surprise, from drivers who saw me walking around (often on grassy embankments). My coworkers were in disbelief that I came to ABQ without a car.

One day after work I waiting at a bus stop for a bus running over an hour late, while it was raining (in the desert!). A lady stops her car at the intersection and says to me through her window “Oh honey, you’re not from around here, are you?” I asked her how she knew, to which she responded, “because nobody takes the bus around here!”

Man I am sure a lot of southern have stories similar to that lol

I had some Saudi friends in college and they always were talking about how people would stop and ask them if they needed a ride when they were walking to target or the Walmart nearby. First, they were surprised that 'redneck southerners' were stopping to help and second they didn't understand why they would need a ride when they were perfectly fine walking. Its not like the heat got to them lol

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Columbus has an overall Walkscore of 41. That's due to its 217 square mile size. According to Walkscore there are 216 neighborhoods in those 217 square miles. They break down into:

21 (9.7%) are Very Walkable+. Only one (1%), the Short North at 92, is a Walker's Paradise.

Some peer cities:

Indianapolis: 30 overall at 362 square miles. 93 neighborhoods listed. One (1%) is Very Walkable; Downtown at 77. Zero are a Walker's Paradise.

Cincinnati: 50 overall at 78 square miles. 47 neighborhoods listed. Eight (17%) are Very Walkable+. Two (4%), the CBD and OTR, tie at 93 for a Walker's Paradise.

Cleveland: 60 overall at 78 square miles. 36 neighborhoods listed. Six (17%) are Very Walkable+. One (3%), Downtown at 91, is a Walker's Paradise.

Pittsburgh: 62 overall at 55 square miles. 80 neighborhoods listed. 23 (29%) are Very Walkable+. Downtown is the most walkable at 95 with a total of five (6%) at Walker's Paradise.

Nashville: 28 overall at 504 square miles. 168 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The East End and Downtown tie at 82, the high for the city.

Charlotte: 26 overall at 305 square miles. 159 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is the Sixth Ward at 86.

Kansas City: 34 Overall at 315 square miles. 200 neighborhoods listed. 21 (11%) are Very Walkable+. One (1%), Old Westport at 92, is the only Walker's Paradise.

Austin: 40 overall at 298 square miles. 68 neighborhoods listed. 15 (22%) are Very Walkable+. One (2%), Downtown at 90, is the only Walker's Paradise.

So according to Walkscore Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Nashville are three "major cities with few walkable neighborhoods."

Overall walkscore is crappy as a comparison, because cities vary dramatically in terms of the percentage of suburban neighborhoods within city limits.

Neighborhood count is better. The problem here is some cities define neighborhoods narrowly (so that each has only a few thousand people) where others define neighborhoods more broadly (with average populations more in the tens of thousands).

The best count using the overall Walkscore metrics would be to count the total population at each threshold.

Columbus:
1,922 at 90+
39,110 at 80-89
30,269 at 70-79

Indianapolis:
0 at 90+
0 at 80-89
14,587 at 70-79

Cincinnati:
11,848 at 90+
20,963 at 80-89
16,508 at 70-79

Cleveland:
9,118 at 90+
0 at 80-89
51,212 at 70-79

Pittsburgh:
25,895 at 90+
47,000 at 80-89
35,515 at 70-79

Nashville:
0 at 90+
5,806 at 80-89
10,198 at 70-79

Charlotte:
0 at 90+
8,931 at 80-89
8,370 at 70-79

Kansas City:
1,191 at 90+
24,191 at 80-89
11,984 at 70-79

Austin:
7,412 at 90+
37,239 at 80-89
35,278 at 70-79

It's time consuming, and requires adding up neighborhood populations in excel, but it can be done. The only negative for this sort of measure is some cities have geographically large neighborhoods where certain sections are walkable, but others are not. For example, here in Pittsburgh some neighborhoods with walkscores in the 70s have very walkable portions closer to a business district (East Liberty, Garfield, Squirrel Hill) and other portions which aren't walkable at all. Other neighborhoods with walkscores in the 70s, in contrast, basically aren't walkable (Crawford Roberts, Larimer, South Oakland).

[pj3000]

I would say that Pittsburgh neighborhoods, like South Oakland, with walkscores in the 70s are WAY more walkable than many cities' 90s walkscore neighborhoods. Displays how walkscores are total BS.

I mean... South Oakland:



It's a totally walkable neighborhood to me. Adjacent to one of the largest "downtowns" in Pennsylvania (Central Oakland). Neighborhoods like this were built for walking humans, not motoring vehicles.

It's quite obvious that Pittsburgh is in a different league than these other "peer" cities when it comes to actual urban density/walkability.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I would say that Pittsburgh neighborhoods, like South Oakland, with walkscores in the 70s are WAY more walkable than many cities' 90s walkscore neighborhoods. Displays how walkscores are total BS.

I mean... South Oakland:

It's a totally walkable neighborhood to me. Adjacent to one of the largest "downtowns" in Pennsylvania (Central Oakland). Neighborhoods like this were built for walking humans, not motoring vehicles.

It's quite obvious that Pittsburgh is in a different league than these other "peer" cities when it comes to actual urban density/walkability.

South Oakland proper - meaning Oakland South of the Boulevard of the Allies - isn't that walkable. It's exclusively residential, save for right along Boulevard of the Allies, where it's mostly doctors offices and car service shops. There's one Italian restaurant (Papa D's) but that's really it.

Now, if you cross over into Central Oakland, there are walkable businesses. Semple Street has a mini-business district, for example. But much of South Oakland is over a 10-minute walk from here, and Boulevard of the Allies is not a very pedestrian-friendly street to cross. All of South Oakland is outside of a reasonable pedestrian commute to the core of Oakland, although since a lot of students live there, there are tons of people walking anyway.

I do agree that it's much more walkable than most neighborhoods nationwide with a score of 74 would be however. Still, it's the sort of neighborhood where if you had a car, you would drive to amenities instead of walking, which is why I don't consider it truly walkable.

[eschaton]

Here's some other mid size cities: Same metric

St. Louis:
0 at 90+
34,801 at 89-80
78,675 at 79-70

Buffalo:
4,916 at 90+
36,644 at 89-80
72,076 at 79-70

Baltimore:
92,234 at 90+
116,191 at 89-80
89,352 at 79-70

Detroit:
0 at 90+
14,625 at 89-80
18,435 at 79-70

Providence:
16,606 at 90+
73,386 at 89-80
67,148 at 79-70

Rochester:
2,176 at 90+
18,029 at 89-80
30,207 at 79-70

Milwaukee:
19,443 at 90+
69,057 at 89-80
150,403 at 79-70

So far Baltimore, Providence, and Milwaukee are the only cities I've found with a higher population in the highly walkable (80+) core.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

South Oakland proper - meaning Oakland South of the Boulevard of the Allies - isn't that walkable. It's exclusively residential, save for right along Boulevard of the Allies, where it's mostly doctors offices and car service shops. There's one Italian restaurant (Papa D's) but that's really it.

Now, if you cross over into Central Oakland, there are walkable businesses. Semple Street has a mini-business district, for example. But much of South Oakland is over a 10-minute walk from here, and Boulevard of the Allies is not a very pedestrian-friendly street to cross. All of South Oakland is outside of a reasonable pedestrian commute to the core of Oakland, although since a lot of students live there, there are tons of people walking anyway.

I do agree that it's much more walkable than most neighborhoods nationwide with a score of 74 would be however. Still, it's the sort of neighborhood where if you had a car, you would drive to amenities instead of walking, which is why I don't consider it truly walkable.

I think my definition of "walkable" is probably different... since I find South Oakland to be totally within a "reasonable pedestrian commute to the core of Oakland". Like you said, tons of people walking there. You definitely don't need a car... and I would guess that many (most?) of S Oakland residents don't own a car or rarely drive as part of their daily routine. It's certainly not among the most amenity-rich, walkable neighborhoods in Pittsburgh by any measure, but when compared to some other cities' 90+ neighborhoods...

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm guessing by 1950 even the majority of people in Phoenix outside of the poor parts of town had their own cars. If you turn the clock back to 1900 the city had only like 5,500 residents. Almost all of the "prewar" fabric is from the period between 1920 and 1949.

I really don't think people understand how new Phoenix really is, There was still open desert and farmland between Scottsdale, Tempe and Phoenix (now all sort of the core of the city) in the late 1960's

when I was in elementary school in the mid 90's what is now fully suburbanized "first ring" suburbs like Chandler and south Tempe had cotton and citrus farms more than they had homes.

I regularly drive on 6 lane highways that were ranch properties and local dirt roads 15 years ago.

Technically the city began to grow in the postwar period but it didn't explode into the major city it is now until the late 80's and 90's And even now that we get healthier growth patterns post recession there are massive acres of leapfrogged farmland only 1 or 2 miles south from downtown.

It some ways this is great because it gives us a chance for infill now that design preferences are...shall we say... better. Several large home developers have completely refocused to infill development which now makes up easily half of our growth as opposed to 1945-2005 and earlier when it was entirely suburban development on the ever growing fringes of town.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Overall walkscore is crappy as a comparison, because cities vary dramatically in terms of the percentage of suburban neighborhoods within city limits.

Neighborhood count is better. The problem here is some cities define neighborhoods narrowly (so that each has only a few thousand people) where others define neighborhoods more broadly (with average populations more in the tens of thousands).

The best count using the overall Walkscore metrics would be to count the total population at each threshold.

Columbus:
1,922 at 90+
39,110 at 80-89
30,269 at 70-79

Indianapolis:
0 at 90+
0 at 80-89
14,587 at 70-79

Cincinnati:
11,848 at 90+
20,963 at 80-89
16,508 at 70-79

Cleveland:
9,118 at 90+
0 at 80-89
51,212 at 70-79

Pittsburgh:
25,895 at 90+
47,000 at 80-89
35,515 at 70-79

Nashville:
0 at 90+
5,806 at 80-89
10,198 at 70-79

Charlotte:
0 at 90+
8,931 at 80-89
8,370 at 70-79

Kansas City:
1,191 at 90+
24,191 at 80-89
11,984 at 70-79

Austin:
7,412 at 90+
37,239 at 80-89
35,278 at 70-79

It's time consuming, and requires adding up neighborhood populations in excel, but it can be done. The only negative for this sort of measure is some cities have geographically large neighborhoods where certain sections are walkable, but others are not. For example, here in Pittsburgh some neighborhoods with walkscores in the 70s have very walkable portions closer to a business district (East Liberty, Garfield, Squirrel Hill) and other portions which aren't walkable at all. Other neighborhoods with walkscores in the 70s, in contrast, basically aren't walkable (Crawford Roberts, Larimer, South Oakland).

Great work! Your point as to large neighborhoods is right on. Walkscore isn't perfect, but it does give a good overview, and most people's personal experience matches the overall picture it paints.

*edit

With your numbers this particular set of peer cities would be ranked from most people in Very Walkable+ areas to least:

Pittsburgh: 108,410
Austin: 79,929
Columbus: 71,301
Cleveland: 60,330
Cincinnati: 49,319
Kansas City: 37,366
Charlotte: 17,301
Nashville: 16,004
Indianapolis: 14,587

I assume these are 2010 census numbers. If so, I can say at least in Columbus the number of people in these areas is well over 100,000 now.

*edit 2

Even the inner and outer ring suburbs of these cities have walkable neighborhoods. This is probably more so important to adding numbers to the small footprint cities of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This isn't true. Many wealthy New Yorkers regularly ride the subway. Of course many also have for-hire drivers, but New Yorkers with extreme net worth regularly take transit.

If you're a regular rider of transit, you will have celebrities, investment bankers, law firm partners, etc. as fellow passengers.

Not believing this at all, sure there might be some but the vast majority of high wealth real estate brokers, bankers, etc. aren't touching New York's transit system, especially when it's in such a pitiful and disgusting state, any celeb that isn't Z-list would get totally harassed. Highly doubt a CEO is going to tolerate piss filled subway stations with all it's delays on his way to a meeting just so he can ride transit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Milwaukee:
19,443 at 90+
69,057 at 89-80
150,403 at 79-70

Milwaukee: always punching above its weight.


thanks for compiling those numbers.

[JManc]

Providence punches way above its weight since it's the smallest city on that list. Absolutely charming town.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Not believing this at all, sure there might be some but the vast majority of high wealth real estate brokers, bankers, etc. aren't touching New York's transit system, especially when it's in such a pitiful and disgusting state, any celeb that isn't Z-list would get totally harassed. Highly doubt a CEO is going to tolerate piss filled subway stations with all it's delays on his way to a meeting just so he can ride transit.

Feel free to not believe, we already have census tract-level transit share data and it confirms the wealthy are indeed riding transit. Trains are faster than for-hire cars during much of the workweek.

Anecdotal, but I've seen Wesley Snipes and Norah Jones riding the trains, and obviously most high-level corporate types ride the trains at least occasionally. My wife has seen Jennifer Connelly and Paul Bettany, with their kids, waiting at the 7th Ave. F stop.

Celebrities obviously have the same issues walking the street as riding transit. That's why we have hats, sunglasses, and anonymous clothing. That doesn't mean you don't see celebrities walking down the street or shopping at grocery stores. Have seen Spike Lee, Madonna, Bill Clinton and a ton of celebrity athletes just walking around. Spike Lee was getting a prescription at CVS.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

South Oakland proper - meaning Oakland South of the Boulevard of the Allies - isn't that walkable.

I don't fully know what constitutes Walkscore methodology... but I do wonder if it places too high of a value on walk time to particular amenities without correcting for neighborhood density variation within official neighborhood boundaries. South Oakland technically includes the Pittsburgh Technolgy Center property, which is isolated by steep hillsides, a river, and highways, and not really a part of the neighborhood. Are walk times to amenities from that area plugged into the calculation and we thus get an average value for the entire area?