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.
Cincinnati is an odd one because it's extremely dense in some spots and not so dense in others. For least walkable dense city. Part of me wants to say San Francisco, just because the hills make walking a major chore in some spots.
Pittsburgh in a few parts of this city, does t have sidewalks. That said if you don't mind all the hills in this city, it is pretty walkable. I guess the hills at least will keep those in Pittsburgh and SF in good health, if you walk a lot?
Cincinnati is an odd one because it's extremely dense in some spots and not so dense in others. For least walkable dense city. Part of me wants to say San Francisco, just because the hills make walking a major chore in some spots.
Pittsburgh in a few parts of this city, doesn't have sidewalks. That said if you don't mind all the hills in this city, it is pretty walkable. I guess the hills at least will keep those in Pittsburgh and SF in good health and shape, if you walk a lot?
And at least the bus and light rail network in Pittsburgh, is good.
Pittsburgh in a few parts of this city, doesn't have sidewalks. That said if you don't mind all the hills in this city, it is pretty walkable. I guess the hills at least will keep those in Pittsburgh and SF in good health and shape, if you walk a lot?
And at least the bus and light rail network in Pittsburgh, is good.
Most of the core neighborhoods of Pittsburgh aren't really that hilly, and some are mostly flat (Downtown, North Side, Strip District, Uptown, South side flats, Shadyside, East Liberty) The slopes neighborhoods where the steep hills are, are mostly residential and not that dense. otherwise, Oakland and Lawrenceville are examples of dense neighborhoods that do have significant hills surrounding the flat commercial areas.
No they don’t. Those specific points you selected have above a 90 walkscore but the whole neighborhoods don’t. Only Downtown and West Campus score above a 90 as entire neighborhoods. You can scroll down on the link and it shows the walkscore of the whole neighborhood. I mean do you really think South Congress/Bouldin Creek/Travis Heights is more walkable than Midtown Atlanta? The sidewalks disappear as soon as you leave congress.
I mean, obviously Midtown Atlanta is much more built up than these residential neighborhoods. But I think the point is that the walkable core of Austin is decently sized for a New South city and I don't see it being substantially smaller than Atlanta's walkable core geographically. Austin is of course less urban and built up than Atlanta overall (it's a much smaller city...)
Midtown to Bouldin Creek is a strange comp as Midtown Atlanta functions more like downtown in Austin. Bouldin would be more equivalent to an Inman Park or something like that.
It's about 2850 per square mile and the city itself is just 115 square miles. "Downtown" Orlando is about 25 square miles and the Orlando MSA somehow is credited over 4000 square miles.
I mean, obviously Midtown Atlanta is much more built up than these residential neighborhoods. But I think the point is that the walkable core of Austin is decently sized for a New South city and I don't see it being substantially smaller than Atlanta's walkable core geographically. Austin is of course less urban and built up than Atlanta overall (it's a much smaller city...)
Midtown to Bouldin Creek is a strange comp as Midtown Atlanta functions more like downtown in Austin. Bouldin would be more equivalent to an Inman Park or something like that.
I disagree. I think Atlanta’s urban core is a decent bit bigger than Austin’s and the nodes are much stronger. Even comparing Bouldin Creek to Inman Park isn’t helping Austin imo. Inman Park is more compressed and walking friendly. Also it has much more widespread sidewalk infrastructure. The problem with Austin imo is outside the main nodes (downtown, west campus, E 5th) is that sidewalk just disappear randomly and are not nearly consistent enough to support walkability.
I disagree. I think Atlanta’s urban core is a decent bit bigger than Austin’s and the nodes are much stronger. Even comparing Bouldin Creek to Inman Park isn’t helping Austin imo. Inman Park is more compressed and walking friendly. Also it has much more widespread sidewalk infrastructure. The problem with Austin imo is outside the main nodes (downtown, west campus, E 5th) is that sidewalk just disappear randomly and are not nearly consistent enough to support walkability.
I mean this is South Congress/Bouldin Creek
I'm gonna forget your cherry picked streetviews because I don't care enough about this debate. The initial post I responded to said that "Atlanta has a good sized walkable core. Austin, on the other hand, doesn’t". That's implying a really sizable gap between the two and I'm just not seeing that. The e 6th-Rainey-Downtown-West Campus node is about the same size as Atlanta's downtown to midtown node. The walkscore map demonstrates that.
Yes, Atlanta is more intensely and consistently developed, but it also is quite a bit more dissected by freeways and has more impoverished, neglected areas in its core. Overall, I don't see the massive gap implied in your post, especially considering that Atlanta is 3x bigger as a metro.
In the South, Miami is the city with the biggest walkable core and New Orleans is #2. Atlanta and Austin are probably #3 and #4.
Last edited by whereiend; 07-19-2023 at 09:36 PM..
I'm gonna forget your cherry picked streetviews because I don't care enough about this debate. The initial post I responded to said that "Atlanta has a good sized walkable core. Austin, on the other hand, doesn’t". That's implying a really sizable gap between the two and I'm just not seeing that. The e 6th-Rainey-Downtown-West Campus node is about the same size as Atlanta's downtown to midtown node. The walkscore map demonstrates that.
Yes, Atlanta is more intensely and consistently developed, but it also is quite a bit more dissected by freeways and has more impoverished, neglected areas in its core. Overall, I don't see the massive gap implied in your post, especially considering that Atlanta is 3x bigger as a metro.
In the South, Miami is the city with the biggest walkable core and New Orleans is #2. Atlanta and Austin are probably #3 and #4.
Ok even if you think I cherry picked those views I would like to see if there’s anything in Bouldin Creek as urban as the Inman Park views I showed. The burden of proof is on you.
Also you’re wrong.
Austin Downtown + West Campus vs Atlanta Downtown + Midtown
Downtown Austin Land Area: 1.71 sq mi (includes Rainey St)
West Campus Land Area: 0.739 sq mi
UT Campus Land Area: 0.673 sq mi
Downtown Atlanta Land Area: 4 sq mi
Midtown Atlanta Land Area: 3.8 sq mi (includes West Midtown)
Not only that but there’s more to the core of Atlanta than Midtown + Downtown. Virginia Highland, Inman Park, Sweet Auburn, O4W, Reynoldstown/Glenwood Park, etc. are considerably more walkable than their Austin equivalents. Seems like the gap is as big as I implied before. Also Austin is not ahead of Dallas’ core when it comes to walkability either but I’m not going into that now. Austin has a good spine along Downtown/West Campus but it doesn’t build very urban around that spine. The original streetcar suburbs in Atlanta are far more walkable.
Last edited by DaBears02; 07-19-2023 at 10:26 PM..
I disagree. I think Atlanta’s urban core is a decent bit bigger than Austin’s and the nodes are much stronger. Even comparing Bouldin Creek to Inman Park isn’t helping Austin imo. Inman Park is more compressed and walking friendly. Also it has much more widespread sidewalk infrastructure. The problem with Austin imo is outside the main nodes (downtown, west campus, E 5th) is that sidewalk just disappear randomly and are not nearly consistent enough to support walkability.
It makes sense that Atlanta has a bigger walking core since it’s substantially bigger than Austin.
I AGREE WITH WHEREIEND In I do not see any sizable gap also. So much similar means little if one has a larger core by some measurement and still walk-score is on a whole city-proper.
Not agreeing or disagreeing just Atlanta is a beast of the guess where this street will end. But Austin city-proper is over 300 square-miles and Atlanta's is over 100 square miles. Sure metro Atlanta is bigger. Still both walk-score is similar for city-propers.
Both cities suffer (or a positive if more SFH and suburban) from going truly suburban even country-ish fast. If Austin's is faster so be it as its boom time was a bit later than Atlanta's started.
If Atlanta takes a bit longer to hit no sidewalks? So be it... still both are just with the same issues or good points of going suburban-like and pretty much most will stay that way also and enough close-to-core-areas to urbanize with small homes that will just get demolished.
Atlanta street-grid also goes array pretty quick from downtown/Midtown.
Atlanta has a 47 Walk Score as a smaller city-proper.
Austin has a 42 Walk Score as a larger city- proper over 2 1/2 times larger.
Really just more the same array of vast suburban stretches that give both a low walk-score.
Both will and can boast on c-d getting more walkable.
Below overall city views below of both cities. You MUST click on the Golden boy icon in the bottom right box for the streets to be highlighted to see better as 99% have a street-view of them so they get highlighted in green or teal.
I would say that Austin still has more of a grid overall vs Atlanta. Though Austin does that twisty turning too just a bit further out. IMO. It is just my assessment and opinion not hate on either one. Both are surprising to go to rural suburbs. Austin may or may not have more tiny older homes on blocks with a craw-space look. That surprises me as the assumption is all is just so new and shiny and well.... so much is not.
Did some street-views near Midtown Atlanta. I consider Midtown just a extension of the downtown core next door. Midtown is most boasted.
So I clicked on some Atlanta street-views NOT closest to downtown. You still hit a lot of the same kind of suburban rural setting that taints walk-score as with Austin. Still in the BOTH CITIES in the 40's is the same. Like if 2 cities were in the 70s walkscore.
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.
