TOP 10 Walkable Cities

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by mensogi

It's a good idea in concept, but as others have hinted at, being close to "ammenities" is hardly the only factor for most people. I would think it'd be just as effective to rank population density. Come to think of it, I think that's all they are really approximating with the rankings.

It'll get really interesting when they take into account all the stuff they don't do today.

Boston is walkable because it's so, so small. Chicago downtown area say South Wacker to Michigan and Lake is a much longer haul than say Chinatown to Faneuil Hall in Boston.

I don't think "Downtown" Chicago is really the most walkable neighborhood. Chicago is high on the rankings because of walkable neighborhoods like the Gold Coast, Old Town, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Uptown, Ravenswood, Lincoln Square, North Center, Rogers Park, Edgewater, Hyde Park, Bridgeport, Pilsen, Bucktown, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Ukranian Village, Streeterville, River North, West Loop, South Loop, etc. etc. etc.

In general, the North Side is more walkable than the South Side. Most of the older South Side neighborhoods were great for pedestrians in the past, but many have been ravaged by demolition and business closures. And the North Side has greater population densities overall at this time in history. But this will change over time as gentrification and high oil prices make Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) the new standard in the city.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by mensogi

Boston is walkable because it's so, so small. Chicago downtown area say South Wacker to Michigan and Lake is a much longer haul than say Chinatown to Faneuil Hall in Boston.

Same for SF. Here are the Sq. miles of land in each city:

Boston - 48.4
SF - 46.7
Chicago - 227

If Boston also included areas like East Boston, Revere, Quincy, Milton, etc... it would be a more accurate comparison. Same for SF and Silicon Valley, Half Moon Bay, Mill Valley, etc... WalkScore is a very interesting tool, but it is pretty useless for comparing cities.

As others have noted, it is really great for looking at a specific neighborhood, but even at that level the scoring system is pretty flawed. My neighborhood gets a very good score, but takes a hit for not having many workplaces nearby - ignoring the fact that I can be in the loop within 15 minutes on the El.

[NYrules]

I think Chicago needs to be MUCH higher like maybe number 1 or 2 for walkability. NYC is higher than Chicago? How so? Manhattan yes, that is without a doubt, but Queens, Brooklyn, Statan Island, and The Bronx? There is NO way I'd want to be out walking around in most of those areas especially after dark! Not to mention that other than for Manhattan which is the smallest of burroughs, Queens and Brooklyn are each the size of about quarter to half the city of Chicago! Who wants to walk that?! LOL! Can it be done? Sure. Will you live? Maybe Will it tire you out? Un-doubtabley! Chicago is probably the perfect size to be honest. Not too big and not too small. Just right.

And how in the HELL does LA fit onto this list? What are you going to walk? The 5? The 605? The 405? lol! You have to drive EVERYWHERE OUT THERE!

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by NYrules

And how in the HELL does LA fit onto this list? What are you going to walk? The 5? The 605? The 405? lol! You have to drive EVERYWHERE OUT THERE!

And to think this doesn't include Santa Monica, Venice, etc.

But if you've ever been to cities like Phoenix, Denver, Houston, Atlanta, Orlando, Charlotte, Dallas, etc.--L.A. is probably more walkable than any of these! (As sad as that is).

[oakparkdude]

BTW, East Boston is part of the city of Boston. It was annexed sometime in 1836.

[mensogi]

LA is the kind of place where you would drive across the street to get from one strip mall to another.

[Matthew C. Sheffer]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

That's interesting. Why do you say that? In my limited Philadelphia experience I've found most of Philadelphia proper to be compact and walkable in that east coast city kind of way. But I'm not that familiar with the outlying neighborhoods. I assume the suburbs are largely post-war sprawl like everywhere else, but perhaps you can shed some light on this.

When you look at the majority of U.S. cities, most are so automobile-oriented and un-walkable that the bar is pretty low for this list! I'd say D.C. should be a little higher, though.

Well, that sprawl actually started in the late 1800's and those little "towns" were quickly annexed by the city of Philadelphia. SO you have a small part of downtown (what they call center city) and then south philadlephia, north philadelphia, northeast philadelphia, etc. that are spread out, not served well by public transit, and where many (most) people need to drive cars every day--besides, Philadelphia is a bit of a craphole place!

[EEstudent]

i live in houston.. i Wish it was remotely walkable

[hsw]

Walkability is a dubious aspect of any town...

Part of why I admire Chic is ability to drive from one's climate-controlled garage at home in GoldCoast/LincPk to an underground garage at office in Loop....and valet parking in front of one's favored dining spots....rather impervious to the weather...though the cold, ugly weather disallows ability to drive interesting cars some 5mos/yr (perf tires/brakes aren't compatible w/temps <45F, even if dry)

Driving around town can be achieved w/far more difficulty (and cost) in Manhattan from condo towers w/pkg garages on CentralParkWest to one's office in Midtown....but no valet parking in front of any relevant restaurants....walking around Manhattan is nasty....sweaty, humid or cold, slushy weather about 350d/yr; smell of garbage, etc etc

Would argue ultimate walkable town is BeverlyHills....everyone who matters lives on Westside; drive 10-15mins to their office garage in BevHills....at lunch, can often walk to a regular haunt in neighborhood.....w/near-perfect year-round weather, clean and secure streets....and many talented young women also walking around shopping/office/dining area of BH....appropriately dressed for the weather....