U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 04-04-2018, 09:16 AM
Location: The middle of nowhere
8,943 posts, read 4,095,428 times
Reputation: 7628


Oklahoma City is easily the worst out of cities over 1 million people. It's amazing how there are no sidewalks even in the "urban" core here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 04-04-2018, 09:09 PM
3,215 posts, read 1,541,554 times
Reputation: 2332
Originally Posted by Cowboys fan in Houston View Post
I call BS on that 2nd paragraph. Denver is much more comfortable in the winter than Chicago and yes I have lived in Chicago and spent ample time in Denver in all seasons.
Guess Denver is a Sunbelt city. Again I never knocked Denver in any way or said anything on its weather. I merely see neither City's winters comfortable.

I always say.... if you feel your city is better and former city worst? Then glad you are happy in your new choice. I posted a TRUE assessment on what Chicago has done toward improving biking and jogging trails in the city and especially downtown and along the lakefront.

No one can say its not true when clearly its being done and built literally. The links merely acknowledge all I said.

I do not get how I keep being called out about Denver? I never been to Denver and never comment on it. Others keep making comments on weather as if it negates anything Chicago is improving in aspects I noted..... it already has a walkable street-grid with modest set-backs for green-space that to me.....adds a increased aesthetic factor that isn't sprawling frontage.

Its uniform sidewalks and curbs also make walking superior then cities every property has differing sidewalks and conditions. Of course there are exceptions.... but overall most blocks are standard down to sidewalks and curbing.

But if one prefers Denver in walkability and biking and jogging? Boast of the reasons and improvements that city has done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-04-2018, 10:06 PM
Location: Atlanta
5,286 posts, read 3,501,481 times
Reputation: 4463
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Places to me are difficult to walk given their size

Austin, DFW, Houston (esp outside of the core its left to mostly strips and in Austin's case hardly even that), Phoenix (heat also factors), Vegas (don't tell me the strip), Jax, Atlanta (if you get more than blocks off of Peachtree it seems anywhere in the city among larger and more discussed cities
What does this even mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-05-2018, 09:46 AM
2,164 posts, read 1,458,168 times
Reputation: 2166
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet but Portland is an excellent city for pedestrians. The NW and SW quadrants in particular really feel like they were built for people over cars. And there are pedestrian-oriented corridors throughout the city. My main problem with Portland is that it can feel a bit one-dimensional, but that’s really besides the point in this discussion. In terms of being good for pedestrians, I think Portland is underrated on this board. Same goes for Pittsburgh.
The neighborhoods without steep hills in Pittsburgh are generally very good for pedestrians - this is most of the east end neighborhoods, the South Side flats, Downtown, Strip District, parts of Lawrenceville and the North Side. Maybe Uptown but there's not much to walk to there. The Allegheny and Monogahela river bridges are really not too bad to cross on foot. There are many bridges, and almost all of them have pedestrian walkways on both sides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-05-2018, 07:32 PM
4,477 posts, read 2,659,202 times
Reputation: 4083
Hills can be an advantage too, if they have trails and stairs. Seattle is full of hillside greenbelts, usually with long stairways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-05-2018, 09:11 PM
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
4,448 posts, read 7,515,654 times
Reputation: 4334
Originally Posted by missionhill View Post
There may be a causal relationship in one way or the other. Some legacy cities remain very walkable because their economies have proven to be resilient. Many others have become less walkable as there’s less to walk to and from after decades of hollowing-out. If the core of a legacy city grows again with more of everything being built there then of course it becomes more walkable.
That's true, it's basically self-reinforcing if you have a city that's both dense and also has a good economic foundation.

Originally Posted by missionhill View Post
It’s the ‘high-road’ economies that demonstrate a demand for central locations which in turns begets a more walkable environment. There may be some causality in the other direction too. Why do some cities develop or attract high-road investment? Lots of reasons but one could be the the built environment itself that people find attractive. San Francisco seems a prime example to me, where the built environment created decades ago plus beautiful setting and favorable climate make the city and region an overwhelming favorite for high road firms. Part of the housing cost dilemma now in SF, as well as in Boston and maybe other places is caused by so many people wanting to preserve the aesthetic quality of the historic environment which leads to building and height restrictions.
Certainly part of the appeal of a city like SF for many people is the climate/natural environment, as well as a extraordinarily dense built environment that's particularly unique for the West Coast. And that's clearly helped to make SF/the Bay Area very economically successful.

But I think my overall point is that a city being walkable/historic, in and of itself, is simply not enough to make it economically successful. Heck, there are seemingly countless cities--large and small--that were as vibrant and pedestrian-oriented back in the early-to-mid twentieth century as the few big, dense cities that we tend to obsess over in the US today (something which you alluded to in your first paragraph).

These historically-walkable-but-now-moribund cities just were not able to survive major realignments in the modern economy, often for reasons beyond their control, but that's a topic for a whole other thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top