If the "Sun Belt" is so great for weather, why isn't it more walkable? (waterparks, movies)
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.
So many people want to live somewhere with "good weather", but yet the places with the "good weather" (for the most part) don't afford people the ability to walk to a grocery store, different restaurants, libraries, coffee shops, children's stores, parks, etc. Isn't the point of being in a "good weather" area, you know, actually being outside as much as possible?
So what gives?
And before anyone mentions it, I don't want to hear the, "Well, it's hot/humid in city/area X during the summer" excuse. It's hot in the summer. It may be hot, but it's hot everywhere (relatively) nonetheless. Isn't the benefit of a "Sunbelt City" the fact that the other months that aren't deemed "summer" make the outdoors more accessible and pleasant?
And not to pick on L.A. in the least (I would consider that city in the "least part" when looking at my first paragraph) what about this?:
It's the time many of these cities grew and who built them. Many had much of their development post-WWII when auto-centric development reigned supreme, and still does, and many areas were built by developers looking to maximize profits with abundant, cheap parking. A lot of people wanted or at least were only given the option of a suburban lifestyle.
Cities that are more walkable simply grew large at a different time. It really has nothing to do with weather. New Orleans is walkable because it's old and was large and grew when cities were built more dense. Same with SF.
Southern CA is probably has the most comfortable weather to be outside but unfortunately much of it was built with the automobile in mind.
Why aren't the suburbs up north walkable? Same reason as the sunbelt, they are both new. Look at somewhere old like New Orleans or San Francisco, both very walkable.
nm, somebody beat me to it
People are still outdoors a lot in the sunbelt, they just might not be walking or biking to work...recreationally though? They might be canoeing, jogging, cycling, surfing, jet skiing, boating, fishing, at the beach, by the pool, waterparks, etc definitely. But I'd say for the most part the sunbelt is more outdoor oriented culturally, esp California and the rest of the west including Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington (the latter not being sunny, but relatively "mild" weather, than the midwest/ne.
I think people *are* outside a lot... so not sure if your post is very accurate. People in FL and CA were wayyyyy more into the outdoor lifestyle than people in Chicago, I've lived in all three, not even close. So again, I'm not sure your argument. Because people *are* outside, they just might not be milling around the downtown areas. I can't really comment on Texas,l but I know Austin is very much an outdoor enthused city. Atlanta is also.
Why aren't the suburbs up north walkable? Same reason as the sunbelt, they are both new. Look at somewhere old like New Orleans or San Francisco, both very walkable.
nm, somebody beat me to it
People are still outdoors a lot in the sunbelt, they just might not be walking or biking to work...recreationally though? They might be canoeing, jogging, cycling, surfing, jet skiing, boating, fishing, at the beach, by the pool, waterparks, etc definitely. But I'd say for the most part the sunbelt is more outdoor oriented culturally, esp California and the rest of the west including Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington (the latter not being sunny, but relatively "mild" weather, than the midwest/ne.
I think people *are* outside a lot... so not sure if your post is very accurate. People in FL and CA were wayyyyy more into the outdoor lifestyle than people in Chicago, I've lived in all three, not even close. So again, I'm not sure your argument. Because people *are* outside, they just might not be milling around the downtown areas. I can't really comment on Texas,l but I know Austin is very much an outdoor enthused city. Atlanta is also.
+1
It just depends on the city, here in florida, orlando, miami, and jacksonville(to a lesser extent) have walkable downtown areas while tampa does not
It's the time many of these cities grew and who built them. Many had much of their development post-WWII when auto-centric development reigned supreme, and still does, and many areas were built by developers looking to maximize profits with abundant, cheap parking. A lot of people wanted or at least were only given the option of a suburban lifestyle.
Cities that are more walkable simply grew large at a different time. It really has nothing to do with weather. New Orleans is walkable because it's old and was large and grew when cities were built more dense. Same with SF.
Southern CA is probably has the most comfortable weather to be outside but unfortunately much of it was built with the automobile in mind.
So why does New Orleans have a walkscore of 55.6? It is arguably one of the oldest cities in America. It has the oldest bar, correct? It was here and visited long before America was a country.
Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Fort Lauderdale, and many others are not as old as New Orleans, but still have higher walk scores.
L.A.? 65.
L.A. grew, and only grew because of oil, the rise of cars, and good weather with diverse terrain/environments to make movies. But yet it still has a rating higher than many places that are "older" "Sunbelt cities" and pre-automible cities.
What sunbelt? Here in western Colorado there's miles of trails, sidewalks, tons of places to walk. Northwest Arkansas has some of the most scenic walking paths in the country. In southern California I've seen people walk, skate, bicycle all the time.
What sunbelt? Here in western Colorado there's miles of trails, sidewalks, tons of places to walk. Northwest Arkansas has some of the most scenic walking paths in the country. In southern California I've seen people walk, skate, bicycle all the time.
Do they do that as a way of transportation? Or as a way of entertaining themselves?
Those trails and sidewalks, do they lead you to a place that can entertain you AND offer economic activity?
People walk for enjoyment anywhere in the country, but do they kill two birds with one stone? Walk because they can and walk because it leads them someplace they want to go?
So, why is the "Sun Belt" and its cities such a "good weather" location but yet so unwalkable, generally speaking?
Why not walk in that "good weather" and and run an errand you would need to do anyways?
Many Sunbelt cities exceed triple digit temps in the summer months. Who wants to walk anywhere when it's 103 degrees out?
Reading?
Do you do that from time to time?
From the OP (ORIGINAL POST):
...And before anyone mentions it, I don't want to hear the, "Well, it's hot/humid in city/area X during the summer" excuse. It's hot in the summer. It may be hot, but it's hot everywhere (relatively) nonetheless. Isn't the benefit of a "Sunbelt City" the fact that the other months that aren't deemed "summer" make the outdoors more accessible and pleasant?...
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.
