Major cities with few walkable neighborhoods

[edale]

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

For Cincinnati, it's smart to look at the NKY river cities as well, as they are really an extension of the urban core. Covington, KY must not be a big enough city to have neighborhoods listed on Walkscore, as it just gives one score for the whole city. But I checked a couple of places in their core neighborhoods, and got scores ranging from 82-89. The whole city of Covington has 40,000 people, and while I have no way of knowing how many would be captured in the high walk score area, I would imagine at least half, and probably more like 2/3 of it would have scores in the 70s and 80s.

Neighboring Newport, KY also only is given one score, as it is a smaller city. The score it gets is 88. Total Newport population is ~15,000.

The next town along the river is Bellevue, and it gets a score of 71. It's population is ~5,000.

Sooo, totaling that up, we are talking about an additional ~40,000 over 80, and ~5,000 over 70. With these included, Cincinnati's approximate totals are as follows:

Cincinnati:
11,848 at 90+
60,963 at 80-89
21,508 at 70-79

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's not that those cities don't have walkable nodes. It's that they have very little compared to the more urban cities, and the ones they have are overall less urban.

That's because cities like Houston, Phoenix, Dallas and Vegas have very little of anything when the more urban cities were in full swing as major cities. Phoenix had 5,000 people in 1900. Philly had 1.2 million. Vegas didn't even exist.

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Right. Sure, if you're at a beach location, you're not really going to need a car; and places like South Beach and yeah, Hollywood Beach and others are definitely walkable.

But the actual mainland city of Miami is a majorly designed for the automobile first and foremost.

It's funny to me when people visit Miami for the first time and think Little Havana is going to be some quaint neighborhood in the city with tons of side street shopping and cafes... and then they see Calle Ocho is three one-way traffic lanes with two lanes of curbside parking, and while there's some street front retail, most of the stretch is strip plazas with parking lots, gas stations, CVS/Walgreens, fast food, etc.

Coconut Grove is probably the only Miami neighborhood that has a commercial district integrated into the residential neighborhood and is pedestrian friendly (to an extent).

You do realize that Calle Ocho is originally US Highway 41 / Tamiami Trail right?
It's a Federal designated road that was built before the neighborhood even existed so I don't understand how you can equate it with being indicative of all Little Havana.
Have you ever walked the streets of Little Havana away from Calle' Ocho? It is quite walkable even though it is mostly residential.


https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...a%200624%20DEP


https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...0News%20rk.JPG


https://images1.apartments.com/i2/KU...ding-photo.jpg


https://media.istockphoto.com/photos...xXfF5RU0p-_rM=


https://i3.wp.com/farm1.staticflickr...32a4d0d6_b.jpg

US Highway 41 / Tamiami Trail aka Calle' Ocho :



https://images1.apartments.com/i2/Mb...-principal.jpg

As for your definition of "quaint" I guess everybody has their own definition.

[jd3189]

^^^That's what I was getting at before.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by edale

For Cincinnati, it's smart to look at the NKY river cities as well, as they are really an extension of the urban core. Covington, KY must not be a big enough city to have neighborhoods listed on Walkscore, as it just gives one score for the whole city. But I checked a couple of places in their core neighborhoods, and got scores ranging from 82-89. The whole city of Covington has 40,000 people, and while I have no way of knowing how many would be captured in the high walk score area, I would imagine at least half, and probably more like 2/3 of it would have scores in the 70s and 80s.

Neighboring Newport, KY also only is given one score, as it is a smaller city. The score it gets is 88. Total Newport population is ~15,000.

The next town along the river is Bellevue, and it gets a score of 71. It's population is ~5,000.

Sooo, totaling that up, we are talking about an additional ~40,000 over 80, and ~5,000 over 70. With these included, Cincinnati's approximate totals are as follows:

Cincinnati:
11,848 at 90+
60,963 at 80-89
21,508 at 70-79

this is legit. (i havent done the math but the concept is solid).. it’s pretty weird how neighborhoods in another state, especially kentucky, could feel like part of the core city across a river. but they do, and are serious urban neighborhoods that you can walk/bike from downtown.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

That's because cities like Houston, Phoenix, Dallas and Vegas have very little of anything when the more urban cities were in full swing as major cities. Phoenix had 5,000 people in 1900. Philly had 1.2 million. Vegas didn't even exist.

My point wasn't the history, but to establish the current condition.

PS, lots of new places are urban. It's newness plus a lot of bad policy that resulted in these places.

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by mhays

My point wasn't the history, but to establish the current condition.

PS, lots of new places are urban. It's newness plus a lot of bad policy that resulted in these places.

and to put that into perspective today is July 28th. which is Miami's 122nd. birthday.
Phoenix is only 15 years older than Miami.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

That's because cities like Houston, Phoenix, Dallas and Vegas have very little of anything when the more urban cities were in full swing as major cities. Phoenix had 5,000 people in 1900. Philly had 1.2 million. Vegas didn't even exist.

Vegas didn't even exist and now it's one of the most dense urban areas of the U.S. at 4,524.5 people per square mile. [2010]

It's only behind:
1] Los Angeles
2] San Francisco
3] San Jose
4] New York
5] Honolulu

^ wait, what? is that city proper density or urbanized area density? how big is Las Vegas' urbanized area? its urban population is only 2.2M. can you cite your source?

EDIT: ah, okay. urban area. includes suburbs. basically an "urban area" that is uniformly suburban can rank higher than an "urban area" with a dense core and sparsely populated suburbs.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/wende...b_5888424.html

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."

St. Louis has an overall walk score of 65.

https://www.walkscore.com/MO/St._Louis

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

My point wasn't the history, but to establish the current condition.

PS, lots of new places are urban. It's newness plus a lot of bad policy that resulted in these places.

History is definitely a factor. Cities like Vegas, Phoenix and Houston were developed in very different conditions than older more urban cities and their continued development mirrors existing norms; new projects in NYC are urban in nature ether because the city requires it and/ or they seek to conform to existing built environment. Here in Houston, there is no law or established urban fabric to conform to.

[photoLith]

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.

You circled right where I live, the line on the left goes right through my house. I'm on ophelia street and it's kinda cut off from most of the bars and restaurants. It takes a good 15 minutes just walking to get to most of the bars and such from me. Biking on the other hand, it takes 2 minutes. I wouldn't really consider south Oakland, at least most of it to be walkable to get to places to eat or the closest CVS.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Vegas didn't even exist and now it's one of the most dense urban areas of the U.S. at 4,524.5 people per square mile. [2010]

It's only behind:
1] Los Angeles
2] San Francisco
3] San Jose
4] New York
5] Honolulu

I wonder what the numbers would look like when Paradise is included. Not that, in practice, it'd make much a difference. As a matter of fact, the numbers may actually go up if hotel guests were included.

[Doady]

MSA/CMA   Bike+Walk% Bike% Walk%
Ottawa          8.54  2.23  6.31
Vancouver       8.08  1.80  6.27
Quebec	        7.46  1.27  6.20
New York	6.66  0.48  6.17
Montreal	7.09  1.75  5.35
Honolulu	6.37  1.05  5.32
Boston          6.14  0.85  5.29
Winnipeg        7.08  1.97  5.11
Calgary         6.04  1.19  4.86
Toronto         5.67  1.12  4.56
Hamilton        5.28  0.75  4.54
San Francisco   6.03  1.70  4.33
Edmonton        5.16  1.09  4.07
Philadelphia    4.31  0.61  3.70
Seattle         4.59  1.00  3.59
Pittsburgh      3.82  0.24  3.58
Portland        5.72  2.24  3.48
Washington      3.82  0.62  3.20
Chicago         3.75  0.61  3.14
Buffalo         3.42  0.43  2.99
Milwaukee       3.27  0.52  2.75
San Diego       3.41  0.69  2.72
Baltimore       2.95  0.27  2.68
Los Angeles     3.53  0.86  2.67
Hartford        2.90  0.24  2.66
Virginia Beach  3.02  0.42  2.60
New Orleans     3.31  0.84  2.46
Salt Lake City  2.51  0.23  2.28
Minneapolis     3.13  0.88  2.25
Denver          3.01  0.87  2.14
Columbus        2.56  0.43  2.12
Cincinatti      2.27  0.15  2.11
San Jose        3.73  1.68  2.05
Sacramento      3.85  1.80  2.05
San Antonio     2.07  0.15  1.92
Austin          2.65  0.81  1.84
Las Vegas       2.21  0.41  1.80
Miami           2.33  0.56  1.78
Riverside       2.16  0.38  1.78
St. Louis       2.00  0.25  1.75
Oklahoma City   1.92  0.28  1.64
Louisville      1.87  0.24  1.63
Indianapolis    1.88  0.29  1.59
Phoenix         2.37  0.80  1.57
Tampa           2.28  0.72  1.56
Charlotte       1.62  0.14  1.48
Houston         1.69  0.27  1.42
Tulsa           1.59  0.20  1.39
Richmond        1.82  0.43  1.39
Detroit         1.62  0.24  1.39
Raleigh         1.65  0.28  1.37
Jacksonville    1.96  0.61  1.35
Atlanta         1.50  0.17  1.33
Kansas City     1.49  0.17  1.32
Memphis         1.41  0.10  1.31
Nashville       1.43  0.18  1.24
Dallas          1.38  0.16  1.22
Orlando         1.59  0.46  1.12
Birmingham      1.16  0.10  1.06

[aderwent]

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."

Updating for 2022.

Austin: 42 overall at 320 square miles. 68 neighborhoods listed. 20 (29%) are Very Walkable+. 2 (3%), Downtown and West University, are Walker's Paradises at 92.

Their overall Walkscore increased by two. Their land area increased by 22. They gained 5 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods, and 1 Walker's Paradise. Downtown went from 90 to 92.

Charlotte: 26 overall at 307 square miles. 159 neighborhoods listed. 8 (5%) are Very Walkable+. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is Fourth Ward at 89.

Their overall score stayed the same. Their land area increased by 2. They gained 2 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods. Fourth Ward went from 86 to 89.

Cincinnati: 49 overall at 78 square miles. 47 neighborhoods listed. 7 (15%) are Very Walkable+. 2 (4%) are a Walker's Paradise with Over the Rhine with the city high at 94.

Their overall Walkscore decreased by 1. They lost 1 Very Walkable+ neighborhood. OTR went from 93 to 94.

Cleveland: 57 overall at 78 square miles. 36 neighborhoods listed. 7 (19%) are Very Walkable+. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is Downtown at 89.

Their overall Walkscore dropped by three. They gained a Very Walkable+ neighborhood, but Downtown dropped two, and is no longer a Walker's Paradise.

Columbus: 41 overall at 220 square miles. 216 neighborhoods listed. 25 (12%) are Very Walkable+. 3 (1%) are a Walker's Paradise with the Short North being the city high at 95.

Their overall Walkscore remained the same. Their land area increased by 3. They gained 4 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods and 2 Walker's Paradises. Short North increased from 92 to 95.

Indianapolis: 31 overall at 362 square miles. 93 neighborhoods listed. 3 (3%) are Very Walkable+. Zero are a Walker's Paradise with Downtown the high at 81.

Their overall Walkscore increased by 1. They gained 2 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods. Downtown increased from 77 to 81.

Kansas City: 35 overall at 315 square miles. 200 neighborhoods listed. 23 (12%) are Very Walkable+. 1 (1%), Old Westport at 93, is a Walker's Paradise.

Their overall Walkscore increased by 1. They gained 2 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods. Old Westport increased from 92 to 93.

Nashville: 29 overall at 504 square miles. 168 Neighborhoods listed. 15 (9%) are Very Walkable+. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The city high is the East End at 88.

Their overall Walkscore increased by 1. They gained 9 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods. The East End increased from 82 to 88.

Pittsburgh: 62 overall at 55 square miles. 80 neighborhoods listed. 25 (31%) are Very Walkable+. 7 (9%) are a Walker's Paradise with Downtown at 95 being the high.

Their overall Walkscore remained the same. They gained 2 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods and 2 Walker's Paradises. Downtown remained at 95.


In a table:

City............Very Walkable.....Walker's Paradise.....Total.....High
Austin...............18........................2...................20.......92
Charlotte............8.........................0...................8.........89
Cincinnati...........5.........................2...................7.........94
Cleveland...........7.........................0...................7..........89
Columbus..........22........................3...................25........95
Indianapolis........3.........................0...................3.........81
Kansas City........22........................1...................23........93
Nashville............15........................0..................15.......88
Pittsburgh..........18........................7...................25.......95

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Dale

I've visited nearly every major city in the US. And all of them have walkable neighborhoods.

Yes. Open up door. Go for walk. Tah dah. The notion that every single city should look like and function like a three hundred year old coastal seaport is goofy. Try your leisurely stroll in Tampa in August. Its fcking hot! Get on a bicycle instead and every city becomes instantly magical.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by aderwent

In a table:

City............Very Walkable.....Walker's Paradise.....Total.....High
Austin...............18........................2...................20.......92
Charlotte............8.........................0...................8.........89
Cincinnati...........5.........................2...................7.........94
Cleveland...........7.........................0...................7..........89
Columbus..........22........................3...................25........95
Indianapolis........3.........................0...................3.........81
Kansas City........22........................1...................23........93
Nashville............15........................0..................15.......88
Pittsburgh..........18........................7...................25.......95

Number of people living in these neighborhoods:

City............Very Walkable.....Walker's Paradise.....Total
Austin...........82,289...............22,770.................105,059
Charlotte.......20,674.....................0...................20,674
Cincinnati......30,808...............11,848.................42,656
Cleveland......64,394.....................0...................64,394
Columbus......73,128.................6,877.................80,005
Indianapolis...25,410....................0....................25,410
Kansas City....40,822.................1,191................42,013
Nashville........28,964...................0....................28,964
Pittsburgh......63,734...............49,857................113,591

[C.]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

Yes. Open up door. Go for walk. Tah dah. The notion that every single city should look like and function like a three hundred year old coastal seaport is goofy. Try your leisurely stroll in Tampa in August. Its fcking hot! Get on a bicycle instead and every city becomes instantly magical.

Tampa is not a good example because it's probably Florida's most walkable city, even with the oppressively heat during the summer months.

Of course, it's not for everyone. If someone prefers the The Villages sprawling retirement community up the Interstate, I don't begrudge that. It's just not for me. Tampa is also one of the fastest growing cities in Florida and Real Estate is in very high demand for its walkable neighborhoods. They're doing something right.

[C.]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Updating for 2022.

Austin: 42 overall at 320 square miles. 68 neighborhoods listed. 20 (29%) are Very Walkable+. 2 (3%), Downtown and West University, are Walker's Paradises at 92.

Their overall Walkscore increased by two. Their land area increased by 22. They gained 5 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods, and 1 Walker's Paradise. Downtown went from 90 to 92.

Charlotte: 26 overall at 307 square miles. 159 neighborhoods listed. 8 (5%) are Very Walkable+. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is Fourth Ward at 89.

Their overall score stayed the same. Their land area increased by 2. They gained 2 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods. Fourth Ward went from 86 to 89.

Cincinnati: 49 overall at 78 square miles. 47 neighborhoods listed. 7 (15%) are Very Walkable+. 2 (4%) are a Walker's Paradise with Over the Rhine with the city high at 94.

Their overall Walkscore decreased by 1. They lost 1 Very Walkable+ neighborhood. OTR went from 93 to 94.

Cleveland: 57 overall at 78 square miles. 36 neighborhoods listed. 7 (19%) are Very Walkable+. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is Downtown at 89.

Their overall Walkscore dropped by three. They gained a Very Walkable+ neighborhood, but Downtown dropped two, and is no longer a Walker's Paradise.

Columbus: 41 overall at 220 square miles. 216 neighborhoods listed. 25 (12%) are Very Walkable+. 3 (1%) are a Walker's Paradise with the Short North being the city high at 95.

Their overall Walkscore remained the same. Their land area increased by 3. They gained 4 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods and 2 Walker's Paradises. Short North increased from 92 to 95.

Indianapolis: 31 overall at 362 square miles. 93 neighborhoods listed. 3 (3%) are Very Walkable+. Zero are a Walker's Paradise with Downtown the high at 81.

Their overall Walkscore increased by 1. They gained 2 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods. Downtown increased from 77 to 81.

Kansas City: 35 overall at 315 square miles. 200 neighborhoods listed. 23 (12%) are Very Walkable+. 1 (1%), Old Westport at 93, is a Walker's Paradise.

Their overall Walkscore increased by 1. They gained 2 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods. Old Westport increased from 92 to 93.

Nashville: 29 overall at 504 square miles. 168 Neighborhoods listed. 15 (9%) are Very Walkable+. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The city high is the East End at 88.

Their overall Walkscore increased by 1. They gained 9 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods. The East End increased from 82 to 88.

Pittsburgh: 62 overall at 55 square miles. 80 neighborhoods listed. 25 (31%) are Very Walkable+. 7 (9%) are a Walker's Paradise with Downtown at 95 being the high.

Their overall Walkscore remained the same. They gained 2 Very Walkable+ neighborhoods and 2 Walker's Paradises. Downtown remained at 95.


In a table:

City............Very Walkable.....Walker's Paradise.....Total.....High
Austin...............18........................2...................20.......92
Charlotte............8.........................0...................8.........89
Cincinnati...........5.........................2...................7.........94
Cleveland...........7.........................0...................7..........89
Columbus..........22........................3...................25........95
Indianapolis........3.........................0...................3.........81
Kansas City........22........................1...................23........93
Nashville............15........................0..................15.......88
Pittsburgh..........18........................7...................25.......95

Interesting analysis. Not perfect as many would point out, but interesting.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Number of people living in these neighborhoods:

City............Very Walkable.....Walker's Paradise.....Total
Austin...........82,289...............22,770.................105,059
Charlotte.......20,674.....................0...................20,674
Cincinnati......30,808...............11,848.................42,656
Cleveland......64,394.....................0...................64,394
Columbus......73,128.................6,877.................80,005
Indianapolis...25,410....................0....................25,410
Kansas City....40,822.................1,191................42,013
Nashville........28,964...................0....................28,964
Pittsburgh......63,734...............49,857................113,591

Violent crime data could be a good instrument for whether people would ever want to walk. There may be 113k people in Pittsburgh, but that doesn’t mean all of them are walking (or enjoying that walk).