Most Walkable city in the South ....

[gwiATLeman]

is Louisville which ranked #15 of the 40 largest cities by city population. 25% of Louisville residents have a Walk Score of 70 or above compared with 5% of Jacksonville residents on the other end of the scale. The #1 city nationally is San Francisco where 90% of city residents have a Walk Score of 70 or above.

22 Atlanta
24 Dallas
26 Houston
29 Austin
31 El Paso
32 San Antonio
33 Fort Worth
35 Memphis
36 Oklahoma City
38 Charlotte
39 Nashville
40 Jacksonville



Walk Score

[QueenCityDrag]

no surprise ab charlotte, that's probably the main reason i can't live there. i get road rage and go out of my mind! and university city is the least geared part of town and yet they have no shuttle for a 25,000 person university? HELL

[SRG]

Sorry this isn't a foolproof way because the results speak for themselves.

Louisville is not the most walkable city in the south..not even the most walkable city in Kentucky, since I like Lexington better for that. Likewise, OKC is not more walkable than Nashville and Charlotte. And El Paso? In that case they left out Jackson, Greenville, Birmingham, Huntsville, Chattanooga, Lexington, Mobile, New Orleans, Tulsa, Little Rock, Fayetteville, Asheville, Raleigh-Durham, Baton Rouge, Columbus, Columbia, Tampa, Orlando, Miami, and Richmond. But at least they got El Paso in there.

[Bobdreamz]

well the list does say the 40 largest cities in the US so the list is accurate by that measure but the list SRG gave is probably a more accurate reflection if you remove the 40 largest criteria.

[Lakelander]

The list is flawed because cities that carry more land area (ex. consolidated cities) are penalized for having their suburbs within their borders. For example, pre-consolidated Jax would go up the list, if separated from the suburbs, forest and wetlands that became a part of the city when it merged with Duval County. On the other hand, merge Chicago with Cook County and watch it's numbers drop. A better evaulation would be to have areas ranked by scale and density of urban developed areas. With this method, cities small municipal borders like Miami would also be included.

[Classof2010]

Originally Posted by Lakelander

The list is flawed because cities that carry more land area (ex. consolidated cities) are penalized for having their suburbs within their borders. For example, pre-consolidated Jax would go up the list, if separated from the suburbs, forest and wetlands that became a part of the city when it merged with Duval County. On the other hand, merge Chicago with Cook County and watch it's numbers drop. A better evaulation would be to have areas ranked by scale and density of urban developed areas. With this method, cities small municipal borders like Miami would also be included.

Jackson and OKC are in the same boat with this problem. Our large land area hurts us, even though the urbanized and suburban portion of the city lies within 250 sq. miles of our 607 sq. miles, the rest is rural countryside.

[Classof2010]

Originally Posted by Lakelander

The list is flawed because cities that carry more land area (ex. consolidated cities) are penalized for having their suburbs within their borders. For example, pre-consolidated Jax would go up the list, if separated from the suburbs, forest and wetlands that became a part of the city when it merged with Duval County. On the other hand, merge Chicago with Cook County and watch it's numbers drop. A better evaulation would be to have areas ranked by scale and density of urban developed areas. With this method, cities small municipal borders like Miami would also be included.

Jackson and OKC are in the same boat with this problem. Our large land area hurts us, even though the urbanized and suburban portion of the city lies within 250 sq. miles of our 607 sq. miles, the rest is rural countryside.

Looking at the walkability map they provide, almost all of the developed portion of OKC is at least somewhat walkable, but then the vast countryside within the city limits ultimately brings us down. The thicker blue line is drawn around the developed area of OKC, including suburban sprawl. The rest is all rural countryside that will most likely never be developed even partially.

[SRG]

^ I would rather walk on a street in the outer reaches of OKC, than in the built-up portions. That's just me.

[Cashville]

Originally Posted by SRG

Sorry this isn't a foolproof way because the results speak for themselves.

Louisville is not the most walkable city in the south..not even the most walkable city in Kentucky, since I like Lexington better for that. Likewise, OKC is not more walkable than Nashville and Charlotte. And El Paso? In that case they left out Jackson, Greenville, Birmingham, Huntsville, Chattanooga, Lexington, Mobile, New Orleans, Tulsa, Little Rock, Fayetteville, Asheville, Raleigh-Durham, Baton Rouge, Columbus, Columbia, Tampa, Orlando, Miami, and Richmond. But at least they got El Paso in there.

What a joke of a post, Im putting the over/under of the cities mentioned that you have actually been to at 4.5 and Im going with the under.

I guess sitting behind your computer screen all day somehow makes you an expert on the walkability of cities?

[LSyd]

Charleston, Savannah, Galveston, New Orleans, Richmond and maybe Key West.

oh wait, 40 largest cities in the country. maybe it's telling about the sprawl that there's no top 10 appearance, the highest-ranking might as well be a mid-western/northern city, and the usual "big 3" of the south are all near the same rank.

where's miami?

-

[SRG]

Originally Posted by Cashville

What a joke of a post, Im putting the over/under of the cities mentioned that you have actually been to at 4.5 and Im going with the under.

I guess sitting behind your computer screen all day somehow makes you an expert on the walkability of cities?

Cashville, how do I sit behind a computer screen all day long? And you're right, there are quite a few of those I have never even been to or never had a desire to go to, such as Mobile or Chattanooga, BUT I think you missed my point like always. I was randomly spouting out towns because El Paso's inclusion on the list over New Orleans, Tulsa, Birmingham, Raleigh-Durham, and more just seems bizarre AND the fact that it suggests El Paso is one of the more walkable cities when compared to those in the South (although it should be noted that between 30 and 40, only 2 cities aren't Southern, and I bet those two are Phoenix and Indy).

[Lakelander]

Originally Posted by LSyd

Charleston, Savannah, Galveston, New Orleans, Richmond and maybe Key West.

oh wait, 40 largest cities in the country. maybe it's telling about the sprawl that there's no top 10 appearance, the highest-ranking might as well be a mid-western/northern city, and the usual "big 3" of the south are all near the same rank.

where's miami?

-

Its not on the list. The actual city of Miami is only 36 square miles. As I stated earlier, take this thing with a grain of salt. Its based on imaginary municipal boundaries, not actual true patterns of development, density and walkability.

[eweezerinc]

Originally Posted by Lakelander

The list is flawed because cities that carry more land area (ex. consolidated cities) are penalized for having their suburbs within their borders. For example, pre-consolidated Jax would go up the list, if separated from the suburbs, forest and wetlands that became a part of the city when it merged with Duval County. On the other hand, merge Chicago with Cook County and watch it's numbers drop. A better evaulation would be to have areas ranked by scale and density of urban developed areas. With this method, cities small municipal borders like Miami would also be included.

I don't think that has anything to do with the criteria used because Louisville had a city-county merger of its own. Unless the "study" used older, pre-merger statistics, it wouldn't appear that extra land area could have altered the results. Louisville has its very walkable areas, and it has its very unwalkable areas, like any other city. I think its absurd to try and say one city can be walked more than another.

[Lakelander]

^Sure, extra undeveloped land area would alter statistical data. In Louisville's case, most of the recently added land was already developed. In a Jacksonville or Nashville case, a significant portion of consolidated land remains undeveloped or rural to this day, 40 years after their mergers. With Walkscore, those areas are considered unwalkable neighborhoods, which in turn drag their overall averages down. On the other hand, Miami is not even included in the list because the actual city is only 36 square miles and the population is not large enough to crack the top 40. However, that urban area is five times the size of Jacksonville's and the densest in the South. I could go on, but in short, you can't determine what is walkable or not on imaginary city limit lines (I think you agree, based on the second half of your response). American urban areas are too diverse to be classified that way.

[just4ivaylo]

That site is garbage. It's telling me that Houston is more walkable than Bellevue, WA, where there are sidewalks everywhere. Along with that, almost everything you could need is located in walking distance. I don't understand that at all.

[SouthmoreAvenue]

Since when was "Pasadina" a Houston neighborhood?

[MiamiMan305]

How are Nola and Miami not on this?

[IberiaCLT]

El Paso more walkable than Charlotte, Nashville, etc.?

[LSyd]

Originally Posted by IberiaCLT

El Paso more walkable than Charlotte, Nashville, etc.?

-

[po-boy]

Some flaws in this for sure, but if you don't use it as much to compare cities, and just look at what neighborhoods in each city are most walkable, I think it provides some good information.