SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
100 Best Walking Cities in America
---------------------------------------
(midwest region)

#75 Akron, OH
#77 Chicago , IL
#20 Cincinnati, OH
#37 Cleveland, OH
#30 Columbus, OH
#44 Des Moines, IA
#59 Detroit, MI
#66 Fort Wayne, IN
#29 Indianapolis, IN
#96 Kansas City, IN
#24 Lincoln, NE
#48 Louisville, KY
#3 Madison, WI
#71 Minneapolis, MN
#78 Milwaukee, WI
#100 Oklahoma City, OK
#41 Omaha, NE
#60 St. Louis, MO
#93 Toledo, OH
#82 Tulsa, OK

Cincinnati did better than any other big city in our region.
Park system? Because of the hilly topography and the Ohio River basin?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Disappointed with Milwaukee's showing? Have you ever been to Cincinnati?


CRITERIA:
-------------------

When Prevention and the American Podiatric Medicine Association (APMA) evaluated the 100 most populous US cities for the ranking, the criterion that counted most was the percentage of people who regularly walked--either for fitness and health or to get to and from work. APMA President Dr. Harold Glickman says, "The Best Walking Cities competition recognizes those cities that don't just 'talk the talk' but literally 'walk the walk.'"

Other criteria included various walker-friendly attributes such as low crime rates, mild year-round temperatures, the number of cultural attractions, participation in recreational sports, and pet ownership.

The overall survey included more than 18,000 topics of information about the top 100 cities from sources including the Census Bureau, other government agencies, and market research surveys.

--------------------------
END CRITERIA
 

·
I left cold for roaches
Joined
·
134 Posts
I cant believe Milwaukee with the huge amount parks & trails/paths and especially Minneapolis with those incredible lake paths are not higher on this list. Not knocking Cinci, I love that city, not too big, not too small.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I don't know about Minneapolis it is big metro area, lots of suburbs lots of sprawl. Sprawl happens when you have a big area, rich and fortified with 40+ suburban communities with individual city councils, and no intervening planning body overseeing the SMSA. Chicago is the same way. It's hard to pull off. It's always an afterthought, so it's no slight against Minneapolis, it just means that region is growing, especially the suburbs.

I would think Milwaukee would fare pretty well with its contiguous lakefront access, and stringent DNR regulations on development. Detroit fared much better than Minneapolis and Milwaukee. I would imagine that has everything to do with Detroit having more (older) developed, wealthier suburbs than those two other cities.
 

·
I claim to be staff.
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
historybuffer said:
Disappointed with Milwaukee's showing? Have you ever been to Cincinnati?
Cincinnati does have good "walkability" but from what I saw, it's nothing spectacular. Then again, what makes any city's walkability so great? Milwaukee has an amazing riverwalk, lakefront trails, the oak leaf trail, and signage all over the place telling people how long it takes to get to points of interest. I'm gonna have to agree with you milwaukeeunseen with regard to this being bullshit.
 

·
Look closer...
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
historybuffer said:
Disappointed with Milwaukee's showing? Have you ever been to Cincinnati?
Dude. I don't give a shit where my city or any other city ranks on this list. Because I think these pseudo-scientific lists are for the most part worthless. My response to these lists that are posted here every other day is the same, whether Milwaukee ranks high or not -- I think they're stupid.

Look at the criteria that prevention.com supposedly used to come up with this list. It seems they based a lot of the ranking on the percentage of people who walk in a given city. How did they come up with this figure? Did they take a survey? Did they use the US Census figures that count the percentage of people who commute to work using transit, cars, walking, etc? How did they define "the percentage of people who walk?" Was it people who walk every day? Once or twice a week? People who walk to get around or only for pleasure? People who walk for basic neccessities or people who go on hikes in state parks and other natural places?

They say they also "factored in" things such as nice climate, crime rate, "pedestrian amenties," etc. Again, how did they quantify and measure these attributes? With the psuedo-scientific "lists" these magazines put out every month, you never really know. There is also the distinct possibility that the people who write and "research" these lists are magazine writers who wouldn't know true data analysis if it came up and bit them in the arse.

Awhile back there was some discussion about a list in Men's Fitness Magazine that ranked Milwaukee in the top 5 for "Fittest Cities in America." I mean come on, that's ridiculous on it's face. When you try to determine why the writers chose to rank a city a particular way, all you find are vague "criteria" that are "weighted" in some BS black box somewhere. I recall rejecting the validity of that "list" as much as am right now with this one.

Also, notice how these lists that come out yearly or once every few years seem to regularily change their "criteria." Perhaps this is so that they can have a new list of cities every time to keep it fresh and therefore keep selling magazines. Sure beats trying to come up with new, engaging, original material.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,631 Posts
historybuffer said:
I don't know about Minneapolis it is big metro area, lots of suburbs lots of sprawl. Sprawl happens when you have a big area, rich and fortified with 40+ suburban communities with individual city councils, and no intervening planning body overseeing the SMSA.
Isn't this about best walking cities? What you say about sprawl doesn't apply to the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Walking:
http://www.minneapolisparks.org/grandrounds/home.htm

And we do have a planning body, it's called the metropolitan council and it is the regional planning organization for the seven-county Twin Cities area.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I think this makes a lot of sense Cincinnati is much older than Milwaukee, or Minneapolis.
That means that there larger density clusters of developments, neighborhoods, add the hills and you have natural barrier for uncontrolled sprawl.

Detroit is much older than Milwaukee, and Minneapolis so the same rule would apply with suburban neighborhoods. That's why Saint Louis scored higher, older, one the original frontier river towns (Soulard, Saint Charles, etc.)
And Saint Louis has walkable access to its light rail system (Metrolink.)

Indianapolis, is all about annexation. Annexation means regional oversight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,631 Posts
historybuffer said:
I think this makes a lot of sense Cincinnati is much older than Milwaukee, or Minneapolis.
That means that there larger density clusters of developments, neighborhoods, add the hills and you have natural barrier for uncontrolled sprawl.

Detroit is much older than Milwaukee, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis so the same rule would apply with suburban neighborhoods. That's why Saint Louis scored higher, older, one the original frontier river towns (Soulard, Saint Charles, etc.)
And Saint Louis has walkable access to its light rail system (Metrolink.)
Minneapolis population density is greater than all of the older cities you mentioned. Minneapolis also has walkable access to it's light rail system. I walk there 5 days a week. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The anti-cheesehead said:
Isn't this about best walking cities? What you say about sprawl doesn't apply to the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Walking:
http://www.minneapolisparks.org/grandrounds/home.htm

And we do have a planning body, it's called the metropolitan council and it is the regional planning organization for the seven-county Twin Cities area.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/

The Minneapolis suburbs are growing, and I think that as the lightrail system expands in the region you will see a dramatic shifting of the ranking.
 

·
1981 Civic
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
Yes sir, Indianapolis is a flat, bland, megasuburb that sprawls and annexes like crazy (well, not since 1970 anyway). Without the sprawl, our population inside our original 130 square miles would be 86. In fact, our city never really grew at all. We just kept annexing. ;);)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,631 Posts
NaptownBoy said:
Yes sir, Indianapolis is a flat, bland, megasuburb that sprawls and annexes like crazy (well, not since 1970 anyway). Without the sprawl, our population inside our original 130 square miles would be 86. In fact, our city never really grew at all. We just kept annexing. ;);)
^^^Lol, I never said anything about Indianapolis, but now that you mention it, I think historybuffer is confusing Indianapolis with Minneapolis. They sound kinda similar. I was responding to historybuffer talking about Minneapolis sprawl. There really isn't any Minneapolis sprawl. How can a city that's 55 sq. miles and hasn't had a significant land annexation since 1927 be considered sprawl?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,417 Posts
This list is bull....like most lists.

Milwaukee is a pretty good walking city in my opinion....this list puts us far to low. You can bike/jog/walk on the Oak Leaf Trail....which will connect you virtually to anywhere in the city--including to downtown, Miller Park, the Lakefront, UWM, Eastside, parks etc. You can take this to the Riverwalk and walk all along the River through Downtown/Third Ward/or Walkers Point--which is very walkable.
 

·
Premium Member
Seattle
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
This board is notorious for producing some dumb lists, but this has by far got to be the dumbest. Ranking a city's ease of walkability by factoring in weather and crime?? Forget using good urban planning practices as a factor for such a list, such as public transportation and small, efficient street grid systems.

I don't want to sound too negative, but how on earth did Indianapolis stomp over Chicago in walkability?
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top