SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,213 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)

·
Here come the warm jets
Joined
·
445 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,194 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,146 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,692 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
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.

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
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?
 

·
Megalomaniac
Joined
·
4,171 Posts
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?

-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,194 Posts
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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,692 Posts
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.
 

·
President of Catan
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,692 Posts
^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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top