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.
Least walkable dense cities: The first two that come to mind for me are Miami (12,139 ppsm) and LA (8,225 ppsm). Both are dense by US standards (especially Miami) but not as walkable as you'd expect given that density (not saying they're not walkable at all, just not as walkable as you'd think given their densities.)
Most walkable not-so-dense cities: Portland (4,375 ppsm) and Cincinnati (3,809 ppsm) are two that come to mind here. Portland mostly due to good planning and zoning and Cincinnati because it has very good bones.
Problem is that when I think about walkability of a city I think about and judge certain parts and not the city as a whole. If you are generalizing density numbers for the entire city then of course it might not jive with the walkability of the most desirable sections of that city.
Both Miami and LA have very walkable areas. And as I mentioned in another thread, Miami is actually far more walkable than people give it credit for. This is largely because many of its undesirable areas (poor neighborhoods) are very walkable...but obviously tourists and visitors aren't typically forming impressions from these areas.
But anyway, to play your game on walkable but not very dense cities:
Atlanta (in the 3 thousands/sq mile)
Charlotte, Austin and Indianapolis (in the 2 thousands)
Charleston, Savannah, Chattanooga, Nashville (all in the low 1000s)
I'd say Atlanta has many, large pockets of walkability.
Charlotte and Austin have very walkable small pockets. Indy has a very walkable downtown which is one factor in having secured the NFL combine for many many years.
Charleston, Savannah and Chattanooga have very walkable downtowns. Just wanted to include Nashville because it's notorious for having extremely low density sprawl which obviously offsets the handful of decent walkable neighborhoods.
Miami and LA are the obvious answers for dense yet not very walkable.
New Orleans would be a candidate for not dense yet very walkable.
In 1960, New Orleans had a population of 627,525, double the population it is today. It it weren't for the massive drop in population, it would be denser than it is today.
The difference between Miami/LA, and NO, is that, the core of NO is more walkable and classically urban than Miami and LA's core. But, Miami and LA have more pockets of walkability and urban structure spread about their counties and metro, than NO does.
A lot of cities that haven’t annexed in several decades and have had steady population loss may fit the second part.
Yeah, I’d say Rust Belt cities are the best candidates for lower density but walkable. Milwaukee comes to mind as one.
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.
