SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Yes, it's another list! Can't get enough of them, can we?
This one ranks the "walkable cities" of America for 2008, as featured in Prevention Magazine. Here are the top 50:

1. Cambridge, MA
2. New York NY
3. Ann Arbor, MI
4. Chicago, IL
5. Washington, DC
6. San Francisco, CA
7. Honolulu, HI
8.Trenton, NJ
9. Boston, MA
10 Cincinnati, OH
11. (tie) Madison, WI
Appleton, WI
13. St Paul, MN
14. Waukesha, WI
15. Philadelphia, PA
16. Oakland, CA
17. Silver Spring, MD
18. Worester, MA
19. New Haven, CT
20. Wilmington, DE
21. Alexandria, VA
22. Santa Fe, NM
23. Seattle, WA
24. Denver, CO
25. Quincy, MA
26. Anaheim, Ca
27. Portland, OR
28. Kenosha, WI
29. Austin, TX
30. Newport, RI
31. New Rochelle, NY
32. Plano, TX
33. Eugene City, OR
34. Morgantown, WV
35. St Petersburg, FL
36. Greenville, SC
37. Columbus, OH
38. Lawrence, KS
39. Yonkers, NY
40. Arlington, VA
41. Racine, WI
42. Burlington, VT
43. Waterville, ME
44. Naperville, IL
45. Aurora, IL
46. West Hartford, CT
47. Charleston, WV
48. Hillsboro, OR
49. San Antonio, TX
50. Bellingham, WA

According to the magazine, the worst American city for walking is Oklahoma City, OK.
 

·
Cajun504
Joined
·
124 Posts
You have got to freakin kidding me! How the hell is New Orleans not on this list? Some one dosent know there ass from there elbow!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
815 Posts
You have got to freakin kidding me! How the hell is New Orleans not on this list? Some one dosent know there ass from there elbow!
Darn tootin'!!!! Also where is ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND ????? It's the most walkable city in the US of A.
 

·
Paradise Island
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
This list is bunk, St Paul is #13 but Minneapolis isn't even on the list. I don't have a car or a bike and I get around fine, when I lived in St Paul it was much harder because the density was lower which made everything farther apart. I lived in St Paul for 15 years, it is not a walkable city - infact walkability is one of the main reasons I moved across the river. My guess is that they created a bunch of statistical criteria and ran it through a computer rather than tried to walk around these places.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
You have got to freakin kidding me! How the hell is New Orleans not on this list? Some one dosent know there ass from there elbow!
Walkable? Haven't you learned New Orleans has a population density about equal to San Antonio or less? It's a quite sprawling suburb, almost borderline rural.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,889 Posts
I put no stock, at all, in this opinionated list...sorry, don't buy into it..not just with New Orleans not even making the Top 50, but, there are ridiculous listings all over the list, as well as absurd omitions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Of all the cities in the Los Angeles area, Anaheim is the only one that makes the list? That's probably one of the least walkable places in all of LA and Orange County. What about Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Glendale, Pasadena, Redondo, Manhattan, Hermosa, or Long Beach? But Anaheim???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
And why would Boston and Cambridge be separate? First of all, it's basically the same city using the same public transportation system. It's the exact same geographically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Hillsboro,Oregon? Is that some way to compensate for Portland itself being ranked low? Hillsboro is, despite Max, very much a car-centric suburb.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
18,165 Posts
And why would Boston and Cambridge be separate? First of all, it's basically the same city using the same public transportation system. It's the exact same geographically.
Considering that this is about walkable cities, sharing public transportation with the big city next door means nothing. Whether it's cars, commuter rail, subways, or whatever, they are not being looked at in this instance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Considering that this is about walkable cities, sharing public transportation with the big city next door means nothing. Whether it's cars, commuter rail, subways, or whatever, they are not being looked at in this instance.
Actually, I disagree. Cities that have better public transportation tend to be better walking cities, in general. The reason is that people are less dependent on cars and tend to walk more. In cities that lack public transportation people become so dependent on automobiles that they barely walk a block or two.

Look at the top "walkable" cities. Most of them have decent public transportation systems. It plays a part in walkability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
How embarrassing for us...

The reason OKC will always be defined as the "least walkable" city even if it's gets light rail and dense areas is because of the unique situation of having 300 undeveloped square miles within city limits... The list most likely uses some figures of general population density and other "per square mile" figures, and while the developed area of OKC is generally 5000 to 8000 people per square mile, half of the city's land area has densities of less than 100 per square mile - a density that is not the result of sprawl or non-walkable planning, but simply rural character. The survey also claims that OKC has one of the lowest Walk Scores in the state, but downtown OKC currently gets a walkscore of 92 out of 100.

I looked up the criteria, and one of the highest rated criteria is green space per square mile. A medium criteria is schools per square mile. These are what bring OKC to the bottom of the list.

(The winner, Cambridge, is only 6.4 square miles.)

By no means am I suggesting that OKC (as a whole) should be considered "walkable" it's just that the position of being "least walkable" is probably skewed. Take 1/3 of Oklahoma City's land area- the developed 1/3- and it would not be at the bottom of the list.

So if you're noticing some cities that seem like they should or shouldn't be on the list, take a look at their land area and if they have any huge parks in the city compared to the ones you think should take their place.

I recommend checking out the website for this, it's kinda cool- you can also find the top ten cities in your state for walkability http://www.prevention.com/bestcities/.

So being on the "fattest city" list made the mayor challenge us to lose 1 million pounds- maybe being on the "least walkable" city list will finally urge the city to deannex the hundreds of square miles of undeveloped land (some even further away than the suburbs) that are causing the city problems.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
53,111 Posts
Hillsboro,Oregon? Is that some way to compensate for Portland itself being ranked low? Hillsboro is, despite Max, very much a car-centric suburb.
They probably surveyed the walkable options, like sidewalks, paths etc. The reality can be different. If there are lots of sidewalks, that doesn't mean everybody walks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Actually, I disagree. Cities that have better public transportation tend to be better walking cities, in general. The reason is that people are less dependent on cars and tend to walk more. In cities that lack public transportation people become so dependent on automobiles that they barely walk a block or two.

Look at the top "walkable" cities. Most of them have decent public transportation systems. It plays a part in walkability.
It's about municipalities. No one is saying that cities that have better public transit aren't better walking cities, but you have to draw the line somewhere therefore municipalities that happen to border one another aren't going to be separated. Alexandria, VA, Silver Spring, MD and Arlington, VA could all be combine with DC if that were the case. They all share public transit systems as well as have their own systems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
OK, but for all intensive purposes Boston and Cambridge are pretty much the same city. Technically they're not. But most people living here would agree that when somebody talks about Boston they're including Cambridge as a neighborhood.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top