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.
Nothing against walkscore, but IMHO an on the ground assessment of their scores often leaves a lot to be desired, especially as it relates to scale, design, and even quality of amenities. It certainly doesn't tell the whole story, though. The implication, for example, that Miami is a pedestrian friendly city is downright laughable, especially considering that it also ranks as the #4 deadliest pedestrian city in the deadliest state for pedestrians: The Four Most Dangerous Cities for Pedestrians*|*Kyle McCarthy. It's also nowhere near the top for commuter carpools, transit use, bike use, etc. etc.
Now I realize that Miami benefits from small city boundaries and a lot of packed highrises. But to paint an overall picture of a truly walking-friendly community- above places like Chicago or DC- is just misleading. In fact, transit advocates in Miami have a problem with the score, as it makes their job more difficult to encourage better urban design when local leaders can rest on their laurels! Walkscore Loses Credibility by Placing Miami in Top 10 | Transit Miami
Look at the raw numbers, Seattle has only 15,000 more people in neighborhoods with a walk score 70 and up despite having almost twice the amount of people!
You can try whatever you want to say about Miami but all the neighborhoods are filled with bodegas and shops. And there are some very walkable neighborhoods like Little Havana and Brickell. As someone who has been to both Seattle and Miami I'd say unequivocally Miami is the more walkable city.
Cities like Chicago suffer from huge swaths of ghettos that only contain liquor stores.
Nothing against walkscore, but IMHO an on the ground assessment of their scores often leaves a lot to be desired, especially as it relates to scale, design, and even quality of amenities. It certainly doesn't tell the whole story, though. The implication, for example, that Miami is a pedestrian friendly city is downright laughable, especially considering that it also ranks as the #4 deadliest pedestrian city in the deadliest state for pedestrians: The Four Most Dangerous Cities for Pedestrians*|*Kyle McCarthy. It's also nowhere near the top for commuter carpools, transit use, bike use, etc. etc.
Now I realize that Miami benefits from small city boundaries and a lot of packed highrises. But to paint an overall picture of a truly walking-friendly community- above places like Chicago or DC- is just misleading. In fact, transit advocates in Miami have a problem with the score, as it makes their job more difficult to encourage better urban design when local leaders can rest on their laurels! Walkscore Loses Credibility by Placing Miami in Top 10 | Transit Miami
True but there really isn't anyway to quantify urban design or whatever, it's definitely the biggest flaw with Walkscore.
I wonder what European cities would look like on walk score? Would most of the major cities be 80+ average? I can imagine cities like Paris or Rome above 90 average and would be number one in America since I considrr Paris and Rome far more walkable than NYC.
I wonder what European cities would look like on walk score? Would most of the major cities be 80+ average? I can imagine cities like Paris or Rome above 90 average and would be number one in America since I considrr Paris and Rome far more walkable than NYC.
They would be in the 80s and 90s. Paris and Rome far more walkable? Have you even been there, recently? NYC is just as walkable as any of those places.
Look at the raw numbers, Seattle has only 15,000 more people in neighborhoods with a walk score 70 and up despite having almost twice the amount of people!
You can try whatever you want to say about Miami but all the neighborhoods are filled with bodegas and shops. And there are some very walkable neighborhoods like Little Havana and Brickell. As someone who has been to both Seattle and Miami I'd say unequivocally Miami is the more walkable city.
Cities like Chicago suffer from huge swaths of ghettos that only contain liquor stores.
Ugh, you're homerism for Miami makes me wonder if you can honestly make any assessment other than "Miami is Winning!" Miami has plenty going for it, but the fact that you've been to other top 10 cities and find Miami's spot truly worthy is telling.
Walkscore does NOT factor in the following things into their criteria:
*Street design
*Safety- from both crime in areas and from crashes
*Pedestrian-friendly design
*Topography
*Weather
*Quality of amenities
Big limitations, in my opinion. For example, a friend of mine just sold his house in Denver, and the realtor touted the 80+ walkscore to all perspectives. In reality, he's able to accomplish MUCH more of his daily shopping and commuting on foot in Seattle, while the Walkscore where he lives is in the 60's.
I think maybe we should clarify that being in proximity to goods and services may make things walkable, but other intangibles make places pedestrian-friendly. Just because you're close to some things around doesn't mean much if you're likely to get run over walking to them. But, I'll give it credit for density. So maybe it should be considered potentially great city for walking, though I still have a tough time imagining many of the residents walking anywhere to get groceries, especially when the Cayenne is waiting in the garage.
In general, Miami is still notoriously car-dependent.
^ Good points. It's interesting because their bike score does calculate things like topography, road connectivity, etc. They should tweak the walkscore to use some of that.
Ugh, you're homerism for Miami makes me wonder if you can honestly make any assessment other than "Miami is Winning!" Miami has plenty going for it, but the fact that you've been to other top 10 cities and find Miami's spot truly worthy is telling.
I'm not a "homer" I perfectly acknowledge where Miami succeeds and where it fails. For example, it lacks Asian and good asian food offerings.
But walkability is something Miami does better than most US cities. Miami might not have the equivalent of the "loop" of Chicago, at the same time it doesn't have neighborhoods filled with either ghetto slums or residential houses devoid of any shops. And you can bet many people in Miami walk, especially the poor.
Seattle has never left the impression on me it had good street design. Brickell alone in Miami is about the equivalent of Seattle's downtown when it comes to walkability. Maybe even more walkable to Brickell. But outside a few neighborhoods, Seattle is a sleepy residential area whereas Miami always has things in all of her neighborhoods.
It's just you that has something against Miami. When is the last time you've been to Miami anyway? Miami isn't PBC.
Miami's 'ghettos' are not like Chicago ghettos. Dreary landscapes of rotting homes, boarded up shops, and liquor stores.
They are loaded with stores and strip malls. You might not consider that the epitome of walkable but at least Miami residents do have their choices unlike the blacks in the middle of your Chicago's southside.
Or that poor people in Chicago don't walk? Or that the Loop is the only walkable part of Chicago (despite what the data show)?? Or that a liquor store with convenience groceries rebranded as a bodega is anything different?
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.
