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.
I used to live in a small town in SC where people would literally drive four blocks to get to the local grocery store. There was a main street where they once opened a sidewalk cafe but it didn't catch on. That goes for most southern towns. I was wondering if it's the same in the midwest.
The south has a few decent spots, but on average, the midwest is better at this. It's more widespread, even in smaller towns.
Walkable as in people really run errands without using their cars. Also they must be fairly dense and have easy access to public transit. Of course many cities have a few areas like that but in many cases people just DON'T walk.
I was looking at St Louis on street view. There were like 2 "busy" streets downtown and that's it. I could count six people walking on the main street in the supposedly walkable neighborhood west of downtow. That's not how I define walkable.
If you know St. Louis, you'd know that downtown isn't really where the action is after business hours (with a few notable exceptions). The Central West End, Delmar Loop, South Grand, etc have a much more exciting street culture in general. The golden rule of city exploration-- never judge a city solely based on its downtown. Many cities' true character, charm and vibrancy are found in the neighborhoods outside of downtown. I personally find downtowns to typically be the least interesting part of the city.
Apart from Chicago, which cities have walkable areas? Cities like Minneapolis and Milwaukee come to my mind but I'm not sure if we can call them walkable. I know the Midwest is very car-centric but maybe there are a few exceptions? Maybe some midsized cities?
I know little about the midwest in general... I've been to Cleveland (it looked very run-down and bland) and Des Moines (city seems very liveable but somewhat boring and not walkable at all).
Why can't we call Minneapolis walkable? Of course we can. Linden Hills, St. Anthony Park, Cathedral Hill, Summit-University, Mac-Groveland, Uptown, Dinkytown, Prospect Park? Lowry Hill? Loring Park? That's not even mentioning any of the neighborhoods in either downtown...
Madison, Omaha, and Des Moines are all small to mid-sized cities with numerous very walkable neighborhoods.
I'd say that Milwaukee is pretty walkable. I can literally walk past a few restaurants and a grocery store that is next to my in around 5 minutes. Milwaukee's inner ring suburbs are also walkable, especially Shorewood. Minneapolis/St. Paul is very walkable as well. In Minneapolis Linden Hills is very walkable. Madison is mid sized city that is walkbale, especially with pedestrian only, State Street.
With the exception of maybe Detroit, they all have walkable neighborhoods.
Yes, even Indianapolis. Even Grand Rapids.
And, including Chicago, they all have unwalkable, car-dependent neighborhoods too. Actually, most of Chicago is a sea of suburban bungalows built in the '40s and '50s. As a whole, I'd actually argue that Minneapolis is MORE walkable than Chicago.
Obviously as a whole, Chicago is the midwest city with the largest walkable areas, but pretty much every major city's downtown areas are walkable, not to mention dozens of smaller towns from IN to KS. This seems like an odd question unless what you're really asking is "are there any cities with a similar level of urban vibrancy and walkability as Chicago."
I'd say certainly none that are on the same level, but worthy of mention for me would be: Minneapolis and St Louis: both very respectable downtowns, nearby walkable neighborhoods, and decent light rail connections. Kansas City and Cincinnati : lots of very walkable pockets downtown and elsewhere. Once they both complete their streetcar projects expect a whole lot more corridors. Indianapolis: fantastic walkable downtown around Lucas Oil Stadium. Supposedly a large factor for keeping the NFL Combine there year after year. Cleveland and Detroit: I clumped these two rust-belts together as metros on the decline (though perhaps Cleveland is on the rebound now). Detroit's downtown future looks bright with massive private investment turning things around quickly (the rest of the urban core and inner ring neighborhoods are another story however). Cleveland has always been laid out well and served by decent rapid transit. The new BRT line (which I despise) has supposedly drawn hundreds of millions in new development and created a new walkable corridor as well. Columbus and Milwaukee: definitely a vibrant walkable downtown as well. No fixed rail transit, or really any definitive plans for it, however.
That about sums it up, I think.
Columbus is actually studying it's first rail line, and the city is also involved in a project to get HSR from there to Chicago, so I wouldn't say there aren't any plans in the works.
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.
