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.
Okay. Which ones do you think are pretty far off the mark? So It should take population and land size as factors, and make it out of a 1000?
Then it would like NYC 900/1000, Chi/Phi 200/1000, Bos/SF 150/1000 even though if you move to any of these places chances are they are somewhat walkable, bikeable, and transit friendly.
Light rail shouldn't be weighted the same as heavy rail as it can be much slower. SF has great transit coverage but it's mostly buses and that along with the light rail is very slow.
However others can be just as fast. Like LA's Green Line and the majority of its Gold Line. Same with Boston's D Line.
The problem also is that they only use 2010 data when many neighborhoods have went under vast changes in 5 years. These really won't update a lot until 2020 census. I saw no change in any of the rankings from the 2014 one.
Okay. Which ones do you think are pretty far off the mark? So It should take population and land size as factors, and make it out of a 1000?
Then it would like NYC 900/1000, Chi/Phi 200/1000, Bos/SF 150/1000 even though if you move to any of these places chances are they are somewhat walkable, bikeable, and transit friendly.
Miami is pretty far off, because the metro is fairly large and not very walkable overall, but the actual city limits clock in at about 36 square miles which makes it by far the smallest city on this list (for comparison's sake, Chicago is 227 square miles and SF is 47 square miles). NYC should be obviously far and away higher than any of them as it has expansive city limits and a large majority of NYC is far more walkable than the entire of most city cores.
Chicago and Philadelphia are about as walkable as SF and Boston when you're taking city cores of the former that are the same size as the entirety of the latter two. Los Angeles, which doesn't rank at all here since much of its massive physical boundaries are in the mountains bisecting the city as well as the sprawled out San Fernando Valley, has a dense, walkable core area with transit that if stripped down to as small a physical land area as cities such as Boston/SF/Miami, etc. would have a fairly good showing (below Chi/SF/Philly/Boston/DC, but not by too much and above Miami).
When you have cities of such massive size and with that much disparity, I think it probably makes sense to just go after the total area in the metro that are above a score of 90, then 80, then 70, etc. and then factor in globules somehow for how contiguous they are and/or linked by transit to other globules. Anyone who's really seeking out a walkable area to live in isn't really going for a percentage--they're going for a total.
Seattle only being like 3 points below the Chicagos and Philadephias is a joke, but because of it's small city limits, it benefits ALOT more plus I think the Walkscore people are from Seattle so of course, they are going to boost in their cities' favor.
And I'm not sure if Boston is more walkable than Philly. They're probably about the same.
1. Portland - 70
2. San Francisco - 70
3. Denver - 70
4. Philadelphia - 68
5. Boston - 67
6. Washington DC - 65
7. Seattle - 64
8. Tuscon - 64
9. New York City - 62
10. Chicago - 62
Basically what the prior poster said, this measurement counts city proper only, and Miami is only 35 sq mi of land.
It's still laughable. No way is Miami above DC, Baltimore, and Chicago. My family from Miami visited me a couple years ago here in DC and noticed that everyone walks up here. He said all y'all do is walk up here.
Because there is a city size (population) cut off for those rankings.
lol I originally thought it was top 50 but Arlington is #50 and Minneapolis is #46 so it must be top #45 for some strange reason because Miami is #44 and Oakland is #45.. That is by 2013 estimates though so maybe they are using something else (2010 census Minneapolis is #48 and Arlington is still #50, so that's not it).
On second thought, Sacramento is the 35th largest city so not sure why it is excluded.. Maybe the list is comprised by metro size (Edit: Nope not that, Minneapolis is #16 and Baltimore is #20, Denver is #21, Portland is #27 etc).
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.
