How does Louisville compare... (Lexington, Richmond: insurance, crime, credit)

[otterhere]

...to other metropolitan areas of a similar size, if you've lived in others? Although it has its faults, my thinking is that -- relative to someplace like LA or NY or even some smaller places -- it has a decent number of amenities and desirable features without being prohibitively expensive to live in or a huge pain to get around in. Thoughts?

[BurnInTheMil]

I think Louisville overall is very decently set up as far as roads,streets, amenities, and not being too expensive.


The Highlands/Cherokee of course is the main focus as amenities go for me. You have tons of shopping, restaurants, bars, etc...everywhere around you. Also has a great housing market that isn't too expensive compared to cities like Nashville,TN where the "hip" areas can run easily in high 200's-low 300's for a nice place.


Also, getting around in Louisville to me is simple. Of course there are some 1 way streets that can be a problem if you aren't familiar, but again, a city like Nashville is terrible to get around in. I lived there for a year and still at times wouldn't know where I accidentally took a wrong turn.

[Kevin1813]

I have said for some time that the city punches above it's weight when you consider that it's competition is places like Memphis, OKC, Richmond, NC Triangle, Hartford, New Orleans, etc.


It may not have the amenities of larger metros like Cinci/Dayton, Indy, St. Louis, Nashville but it comes remarkably close considering the size differential. It certainly lacks a lot compared to a Chicago, Boston, Seattle, LA etc but that's not a reasonable comparison.


That isn't too say of couse that the city shouldn't be looking to improve at all times. Downtown needs a ton of love (far too many vacant lots although there are some signs of life), too much of the city isn't pedestrian friendly (far too many people die needlessly by vehicular collisions every year), transit is subpar, the city is still largely segregated. A lot of these issues are shared by other similarly sized metros, but that isn't to say that they shouldn't be addressed.


I personally consider Louisville metro a pain to get around in, if only because nearly every trip almost requires you to jump in a car which is very cost prohibitive compared to walking and transit. A lot of the low cost of living gets eaten up by vehicular ownership and maintenance, gas, and insurance.


But the city does have great arts for it's size, decent sports, great food, large parks, cool festivals, and low housing costs. Like I said, IMO the city really punches above it's weight considering how small the metro is.

[Peter1948]

Originally Posted by Kevin1813

I have said for some time that the city punches above it's weight when you consider that it's competition is places like Memphis, OKC, Richmond, NC Triangle, Hartford, New Orleans, etc.


It may not have the amenities of larger metros like Cinci/Dayton, Indy, St. Louis, Nashville but it comes remarkably close considering the size differential. It certainly lacks a lot compared to a Chicago, Boston, Seattle, LA etc but that's not a reasonable comparison.


That isn't too say of couse that the city shouldn't be looking to improve at all times. Downtown needs a ton of love (far too many vacant lots although there are some signs of life), too much of the city isn't pedestrian friendly (far too many people die needlessly by vehicular collisions every year), transit is subpar, the city is still largely segregated. A lot of these issues are shared by other similarly sized metros, but that isn't to say that they shouldn't be addressed.


I personally consider Louisville metro a pain to get around in, if only because nearly every trip almost requires you to jump in a car which is very cost prohibitive compared to walking and transit. A lot of the low cost of living gets eaten up by vehicular ownership and maintenance, gas, and insurance.


But the city does have great arts for it's size, decent sports, great food, large parks, cool festivals, and low housing costs. Like I said, IMO the city really punches above it's weight considering how small the metro is.

Nice assessment.

The metro is not that "small though." 43rd in the USA. Certainly not small, but not big either. That said, I think the food, arts, and some of the festivals make it "FEEL" like a top 20 city in amenities, and that is what I love about it.

Big city amenities with half the hassle. We will have to disagree about it being difficult to get around. I know of know other metro where you can utilize every side of it, from New Albany In's quaint downtown, to the bustling Highlands, to the hill country and beautiful homes near Jefferson Memorial Forest, to main street in Middletown and Lagrange. You literally can utilize every nook and cranny of the metro area, and when you realize all the nooks and crannies, it makes it cool!

[otterhere]

Lexington is infinitely more of a pain to drive around, in my humble opinion.

[Kevin1813]

I agree the city is very drivable with almost no traffic and very easy parking. However, for a vast majority of the metro it is almost completely necessary to drive between neighborhoods. If accessible only by car, a city in my view is not easy to get around in.

[eok]

Louisville is a good compromise between extremes. Some cities are too crowded, and some are too small. Louisville is a good compromise between those. Some cities are too far north and too cold, while others are too far south and too hot. Louisville is a good compromise between those extremes. And it has less crime than bigger cities, and is less expensive. And if you don't have a car, you can get around by doing some walking and taking some buses. But cars are more convenient, unlike NYC where you can't even find a place to park.

On the other hand, when I lived in NYC, I did a lot of fast walking, and got a lot of exercise that way. In Louisville, almost everyone has a car, so people are less motivated to walk, and get less exercise. People should try living in Louisville without a car to see if they can live that way. It might be the only way they're ever going to get enough exercise. And it might not be as bad as people expect it to be. Instead of waiting for the next bus, walk a few blocks to where the buses come more frequently. Instead of taking a bus to go shopping, walk to the shopping area. Shoes are cheap. Wear them out.

[cubedeathk]

Originally Posted by eok

On the other hand, when I lived in NYC, I did a lot of fast walking, and got a lot of exercise that way. In Louisville, almost everyone has a car, so people are less motivated to walk, and get less exercise. People should try living in Louisville without a car to see if they can live that way. It might be the only way they're ever going to get enough exercise. And it might not be as bad as people expect it to be. Instead of waiting for the next bus, walk a few blocks to where the buses come more frequently. Instead of taking a bus to go shopping, walk to the shopping area. Shoes are cheap. Wear them out.

Louisville's neighborhoods could definitely be more connected to be more walkable. The Nulu streetscaping is very exicting because that will be a big step towards connecting downtown and Nulu to the Highlands and to a lesser extent Clifton. If walking and transit is important to you though, you can choose to live in a walkable area, around the original Highlands it the best example, and accomplish virtually anything you want to do walking, riding a bike, or taking a simple bus ride that runs quite often downtown to where most of the jobs are. Cross town trips are way too difficult, but it is definitely possible to live a walking and transit oriented life here if you plan to live in the right area. Fortunately a lot of the missing teeth in the streetscapes are getting filled in so walking from the Highlands to Nulu wont' be such a bear, which it is not just because of distance but because of that vast swath that is kind of desolate right now.

[The Dissenter]

Originally Posted by otterhere

...to other metropolitan areas of a similar size, if you've lived in others? Although it has its faults, my thinking is that -- relative to someplace like LA or NY or even some smaller places -- it has a decent number of amenities and desirable features without being prohibitively expensive to live in or a huge pain to get around in. Thoughts?

One thing I like about Louisville is that it is more condensed when you are talking about center city and suburbs as opposed to a DC area, Columbus, or my native Hampton Roads VA which are super spread out. Louisville offers a lot of big city amenities without a lot of the big city drawbacks and has a favorable COL provided you can find decent employment there.

I went to New Orleans over the summer and as far as LIVING there, I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. The economy is even more limited than Louisville's and the crime is awful.

[Peter1948]

Originally Posted by Kevin1813

I agree the city is very drivable with almost no traffic and very easy parking. However, for a vast majority of the metro it is almost completely necessary to drive between neighborhoods. If accessible only by car, a city in my view is not easy to get around in.

Man, you are REALLY underestimating how easy and walkable urban hoods in Louisville are. I really wonder why you try to compare it to SF or top ten cities?

I will take Louisville ANY day for walkability over Charlotte, Atlanta, Phoenix, heck even Dallas, OKC, KC, Orlando, the list goes on and on and on!

Louisville's walkability is as good as or better than any of its peer cites in the Southeast. The only cities more walkable in the under 2 million class in the southeast? New Orleans and Charleston. What do all these cities have in common? All three were the major SE cities in the 18th (and mostly 19th) centuries.

None of those cities I listed have reliable transit (Atlanta has the best transit of those lackluster systems, and even it is horrible), and none have an urban core as dense as Louisville where it is so "tightly wound, i.e., the cool areas are only a 3-4 miles max from the core.

You really need to take my tour of Louisville. I could pick you 6 addresses, in 6 different neighborhoods, where one could live very comfortably without a car. Unless you are person who HAS to shop at Whole Foods or Macys, there is no need to even hit up the St Matthews retail corridor.

In Louisville, the Highlands is ways more walkable than you credit it for, and from there, I could be a 10 min bike ride or 25 minute walk from downtown, Nulu, Old Louisville, Clifton, Butchertown, and Crescent Hill. Left and Uber service is so good in these areas that you never wait more than 10 mins for a ride between these neighborhoods, ands never pay more than 10 bucks.

Want ti compare this to the big boys? Where I grew up in Chicago, there is no direct way to get from two of the happiest areas, like from Lincoln Park to Wicker Park. Either you can can or uber it, spend 15 mins or more if traffic, and spend 20 bucks in fares. Or, you can take an L all the way to the loop, then back west and northwest on the blue line, a waste of up to 40 mins travel time...I could have walked from the Highlands to Germantown in that time.

Again, its apples and oranges, since Lincoln Park in Chicago has more amenities than all of metro Louisville, but at the same time, Louisville offers a great slice of urbanity for its size class. I am just not sure why you do not see that.