Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This list is useless. It is made up of a collection of large, polluted, oversized cities and most of those cities are only walkable if you are in the downtown core areas. I personally think smaller cities like Boulder, Boise, Eugene, and Madison are a hell of a lot more pedestrian friendly than most cities on this list, except Portland and Seattle of course, but even in those cities panhandlers are eveywhere. And in the cities I listed you are not going to be panhandled or have to worry of being mugged just because you are walking
This list is useless. It is made up of a collection of large, polluted, oversized cities and most of those cities are only walkable if you are in the downtown core areas. I personally think smaller cities like Boulder, Boise, Eugene, and Madison are a hell of a lot more pedestrian friendly than most cities on this list, except Portland and Seattle of course, but even in those cities panhandlers are eveywhere. And in the cities I listed you are not going to be panhandled or have to worry of being mugged just because you are walking
Well, Boulder did make the list as part of Denver. And there is a substantial homeless population there that panhandles people.
Los Angeles is not walkable either. Unless youre smack in the middle of Hollywood maybe.
I was surprised how Hollywood turned out when I visited in July. On my last visit in 2000, it felt like a nice urban area. It turned into a ghetto within 7 years. What's so great about this place? Everyone has moved out to Burbank, Fairfax District, Culver City, Studio City (KCBS-TV and KCAL) to name a few. Just like West Oaks Mall in Houston.
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 815,047 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by quijote
It seems that the study only studied and ranked the 30 largest metros, so any ranking is only as good as its relative position among the thirty. In theory, all 30 metros could be terrible places for being "walkable," yet there would still be a #1, a #2, and so on.
It's strange that the quantity, and not the size, of "walkable neighborhoods" featured so strongly here. This could possibly skew results to the more populated metros; perhaps a better measure would be surface area of walkable neighborhoods in proportion to total urbanized land area in metro.
According to one list I saw (U.S. Census 2006 population estimates of largest metro areas), Charlotte fell among the top thirty--but is not included in this list.
And it's unfortunate, in my estimation, that the list stops at 30. (why not all of the official metros?) The metro area I currently live in, Milwaukee, has many walkable neighborhoods and probably would have done reasonably well in this study. And in the latest lists I've seen, the Milwaukee metro ranks at number 31 or 32 (just behind Las Vegas), so would have been one of the very next metros to be included. This would be no small issue for a city that's been successfully trying to revitalize its walkable neighborhoods, and whose efforts have been spearheaded by leaders of "the New Urbanism" such as the former mayor John Norquist.
Yeah, they simply compared metro areas, rather than cities to cities. Those who reside within city limits only rather than out in counties, would be a whole different list and ranking.
IMO, so many of these magazines make up lists by polling the opinions of staff members, family and friends. And, for just a little variety, some of them get the opinions from internet forums like this. In fact, they probably come to this website becuase of all the random polls we post.
Almost all of those lists are just mindless filler. But people like to read 'em, so advertisers and editors keep comping up with them.
Dallas needs to mosey on up and do a flip flop with my stanky H-town. My feet are enticed by the concrete jungle that is Houston, but my lungs politely remind me with a mouthful of flem that walking along Westheimer is probably no better than staying at home.
This list is useless. It is made up of a collection of large, polluted, oversized cities and most of those cities are only walkable if you are in the downtown core areas. I personally think smaller cities like Boulder, Boise, Eugene, and Madison are a hell of a lot more pedestrian friendly than most cities on this list, except Portland and Seattle of course, but even in those cities panhandlers are eveywhere. And in the cities I listed you are not going to be panhandled or have to worry of being mugged just because you are walking
I don't know about Boulder, Eugene, and Boise, but there are plenty of panhandlers in Madison, primarily along the State St. corridor and Capitol Square area. Some of them are pretty darned aggressive, too. Crimes such as muggings in Madison aren't as numerous as in larger cities, of course, but muggings have increased in the student-dominant neighborhoods closest to campus.
That list put Miami ahead of NYC in walkability. That, my friend, is a load of crap. That being said, I do find Boston more pedestrian friendly than NYC. Can't speak for San Fran, never been .
Last edited by Cornerguy1; 12-06-2007 at 12:05 AM..
Reason: orphaned content
I'm just wondering how the **** Phoenix managed to make it on that list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
