daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > United States Urban Issues > Southeast

Southeast » Development News | Includes TX, OK, LA, MS, AL, GA, NC, SC, VA, TN, KY.



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 15th, 2009, 04:50 PM   #1
gwiATLeman
Registered User
 
gwiATLeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,273
Likes (Received): 111

Most Walkable city in the South ....

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

Last edited by gwiATLeman; July 15th, 2009 at 07:02 PM.
gwiATLeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old July 15th, 2009, 07:59 PM   #2
QueenCityDrag
Here come the warm jets
 
QueenCityDrag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CLT/CHA
Posts: 444
Likes (Received): 0

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
__________________
I grew up to myself, not round no park bench
QueenCityDrag no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2009, 08:52 PM   #3
SRG
keep jivin.
 
SRG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I ♥ OKC
Posts: 4,186
Likes (Received): 2

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.
__________________
until further notice i will be going out of my way to correct the spelling typos of people that annoy me on this forum..
my sites: http://www.downtownontherange.blogspot.com/ & http://www.okmet.org/
SRG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2009, 09:24 PM   #4
Bobdreamz
Registered User
 
Bobdreamz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Miami/Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,095
Likes (Received): 805

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.
__________________
Metro Miami...1000+ highrises completed & under construction.
Bobdreamz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2009, 10:08 PM   #5
Lakelander
Registered User
 
Lakelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jacksonville/ Lakeland, FL
Posts: 2,444
Likes (Received): 474

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.
__________________
Metro Jacksonville
Lakelander no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2009, 11:02 PM   #6
Classof2010
Registered User
 
Classof2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 400
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakelander View Post
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.
__________________
BRONCHO PRIDE
Classof2010 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2009, 11:26 PM   #7
Classof2010
Registered User
 
Classof2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 400
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakelander View Post
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.

__________________
BRONCHO PRIDE
Classof2010 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2009, 12:30 AM   #8
SRG
keep jivin.
 
SRG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I ♥ OKC
Posts: 4,186
Likes (Received): 2

^ I would rather walk on a street in the outer reaches of OKC, than in the built-up portions. That's just me.
__________________
until further notice i will be going out of my way to correct the spelling typos of people that annoy me on this forum..
my sites: http://www.downtownontherange.blogspot.com/ & http://www.okmet.org/
SRG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2009, 07:49 PM   #9
Cashville
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,097
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by SRG View Post
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?
Cashville no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2009, 07:56 PM   #10
LSyd
Megalomaniac
 
LSyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 4,079
Likes (Received): 250

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?

-
__________________
"To be fair to LSyd, he does have an eye for graffiti, dereliction and stray souls."

- gleegieboy
LSyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 03:13 AM   #11
SRG
keep jivin.
 
SRG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I ♥ OKC
Posts: 4,186
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cashville View Post
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).
__________________
until further notice i will be going out of my way to correct the spelling typos of people that annoy me on this forum..
my sites: http://www.downtownontherange.blogspot.com/ & http://www.okmet.org/
SRG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 11:59 PM   #12
Lakelander
Registered User
 
Lakelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jacksonville/ Lakeland, FL
Posts: 2,444
Likes (Received): 474

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSyd View Post
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.
__________________
Metro Jacksonville
Lakelander no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2009, 10:00 AM   #13
eweezerinc
President of Catan
 
eweezerinc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Louisville/Los Angeles
Posts: 2,295
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakelander View Post
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.
__________________
Alas, earwax!
eweezerinc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2009, 06:50 PM   #14
Lakelander
Registered User
 
Lakelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jacksonville/ Lakeland, FL
Posts: 2,444
Likes (Received): 474

^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.
__________________
Metro Jacksonville
Lakelander no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2009, 10:05 AM   #15
just4ivaylo
Registered User
 
just4ivaylo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 2,108
Likes (Received): 71

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.
just4ivaylo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2009, 10:22 PM   #16
SouthmoreAvenue
Registered User
 
SouthmoreAvenue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pasadena,Texas
Posts: 506
Likes (Received): 2

Since when was "Pasadina" a Houston neighborhood?
SouthmoreAvenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2010, 11:12 PM   #17
MiamiMan305
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 218
Likes (Received): 0

How are Nola and Miami not on this?
MiamiMan305 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 05:31 AM   #18
IberiaCLT
Registered User
 
IberiaCLT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 542
Likes (Received): 37

El Paso more walkable than Charlotte, Nashville, etc.?
IberiaCLT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 03:39 PM   #19
LSyd
Megalomaniac
 
LSyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 4,079
Likes (Received): 250

Quote:
Originally Posted by IberiaCLT View Post
El Paso more walkable than Charlotte, Nashville, etc.?


-
__________________
"To be fair to LSyd, he does have an eye for graffiti, dereliction and stray souls."

- gleegieboy
LSyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 07:10 PM   #20
po-boy
Registered User
 
po-boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 0

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.
__________________
Architecture is inhabited sculpture. ~ Constantin Branusci
po-boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu