Top 10 Affordable Walkable Cities (low income, best city, high crime)
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.
What's a "walkable city"? One with lots of recreational walking paths for the hoity-toity? Or one where the hoi-polloi can walk to the supermarket? Or where can go uptown once a year and walk from the parking garage to the dentists office?
How about one where average people can live in an affordable neighborhood and can live without a car? Ever think of that? There are cities and towns where people can, and do.
In the video, the first few minutes lay out the criteria used, which include things like using the Walkscore walkability index along with taking into account affordability and statistics on how many people actually use their 2 God-given feet to commute to work. The presenter also says that the criteria isn't perfect, and some judgment is used.
I live in one of the cities mentioned. The median income of my neighborhood's Census blocks ranges from 41k to 77k (not hoi-polloi), a mix of mainly homeowners but plenty of apartment rentals also, including senior rentals. I actually do walk to my dentist and eye doctor from home, and I do walk to multiple small grocers, barber, local cafes and restaurants, library, gym, etc. I also walk to nearby parks and recreational areas (though I usually bike in warm weather). I usually drive to big supermarkets and big box stores, several between 1/2 to 1-1/2 miles, although I have walked to them occasionally for small stuff. And my neighborhood isn't even considered the most walkable in the city (according to Walkscore it is the 10th most walkable neighborhood in Buffalo, still "very walkable").
Is the neighborhood always teeming with walkers? No, not usually, most people still use cars (this is still America after all), but there are always people out walking to places wherever I go, not just recreationally or for dog walking. I have some neighbors that walk or bike to work, other places, etc. I see "regular" walkers almost daily pass by, several coming to or from work or shopping (judging by attire, shopping bags, lunch boxes, etc). I absolutely can live here without a car if I choose to.
Eh City Nerd is like the Wallet Hub of content creators. He's got a very narrow and at times smug scope. He's very biased toward a select set of cliche cities, specifically those with HRT/LRT. That makes sense from an urbanist standpoint, but some of his videos are on subjects that should favor a wider variety of cities that he doesn't like. Though oddly he has a soft spot for Louisville which outside of a couple neighborhoods runs counter intuitive to his doctrine.
I kind of lost respect for him a couple weeks ago on his "Bridges" video. He included Chicago, (yes we have bridges, some of them architecturally significant, none of them really iconic), but didn't even give Jacksonville so much as an honorable mention. Love or hate Jacksonville the city is defined by its bridges. Many of them huge, architecturally significant, and create an awesome aesthetic while driving through the city. It's a top 10(maybe even top 5) bridge city. But it's a Florida sprawl burb, and it's massive land area dilutes things like walk scores, so he won't portray it in any kind of positive light. Even on something as innocuous as bridges.
I mention all this to say: Take this video for what it is, but i'd caution you to regard him as a source expert. He's good at clickbait, but he's more a purveyor of an ideology, than he is intellectually honest.
Wallet Hub indeed. He lost me about 30 seconds in when he capped his criteria at "cities over 200k". How many "city-nerds" don't have the discretion to know that their criteria includes cities like Fort Wayne, and Columbus GA, but excludes some anchors of larger metro areas like Birmingham, Hartford, and Providence? Any self respecting city nerd understands that city pop is worthless as a comparison metric.
Wallet Hub indeed. He lost me about 30 seconds in when he capped his criteria at "cities over 200k". How many "city-nerds" don't have the discretion to know that their criteria includes cities like Fort Wayne, and Columbus GA, but excludes some anchors of larger metro areas like Birmingham, Hartford, and Providence? Any self respecting city nerd understands that city pop is worthless as a comparison metric.
Yes, as a lot of cities that are that fit both criteria are actually below 200k in city population. A lot of mid sized and college town areas would fit.
Eh City Nerd is like the Wallet Hub of content creators. He's got a very narrow and at times smug scope. He's very biased toward a select set of cliche cities, specifically those with HRT/LRT. That makes sense from an urbanist standpoint, but some of his videos are on subjects that should favor a wider variety of cities that he doesn't like. Though oddly he has a soft spot for Louisville which outside of a couple neighborhoods runs counter intuitive to his doctrine.
I kind of lost respect for him a couple weeks ago on his "Bridges" video. He included Chicago, (yes we have bridges, some of them architecturally significant, none of them really iconic), but didn't even give Jacksonville so much as an honorable mention. Love or hate Jacksonville the city is defined by its bridges. Many of them huge, architecturally significant, and create an awesome aesthetic while driving through the city. It's a top 10(maybe even top 5) bridge city. But it's a Florida sprawl burb, and it's massive land area dilutes things like walk scores, so he won't portray it in any kind of positive light. Even on something as innocuous as bridges.
I mention all this to say: Take this video for what it is, but i'd caution you to regard him as a source expert. He's good at clickbait, but he's more a purveyor of an ideology, than he is intellectually honest.
He also does that white liberal thing where he pretends there are no such things as bad neighborhoods. Like part of the reason Downtown Baltimore (and more broadly the city generally) is so cheap is because it sucks. It’s run down, sketchy and a relatively small job center so you’re probably stuck reverse commuting to the suburbs
Video made by a self-confessed "modesly-hip white dude".
I will give him Pittsburg. After that, you had better like high crime.
Downtown St. Louis? Baltimore? Newark. Bad part of Philly. Bad part of Chicago. Yeah. Sure. I don't think so Tim.
Maybe I am just disappointed that I thought he had found a few undiscovered gems, not that I think any gems have gone undiscovered these days. All he came up with is what you would expect - lower end, higher crime areas of walkable cities. Tell us something we didn't know.
Maybe it is just that his title is wrong. It should be "Top 10 Affordable AREAS in Walkable Cities", because few these cities are considered particularly affordable. You can find affordable bad areas in any city.
Bonus round: How walkable is Buffalo 6 months out of the year?
Video made by a self-confessed "modesly-hip white dude".
I will give him Pittsburg. After that, you had better like high crime.
Downtown St. Louis? Baltimore? Bad Philly. Bad Chicago. Yeah. Sure. I don't think so Tim.
Maybe I am just disappointed that I thought he had found a few undiscovered gems, not that I think any gems have gone undiscovered these days. All he came up with is what you would expect - lower end, higher crime areas of walkable cities. Tell us something we didn't know.
Maybe it is just that his title is wrong. It should be "Top 10 Affordable AREAS in Walkable Cities", because few these cities are considered particularly affordable. You can find affordable bad areas in any city.
Chicago while has bad neighborhoods doesn’t belong in the discussion with St Louis or Baltimore.
First it’s rate is less than half those cities, and 2nd it’s so large you basically have a Seattle or Boston grafted on to a Baltimore and maybe like a Minneapolis.
You got a huge swath of very safe, very nice neighborhood you really never have to leave (which is one reason Chicago seems to lack the will to even try to clean up the city)
Philly leans more Chicago but is similar that it’s raw size means it has plenty of nice neighborhoods in a continuous area that you can live a pretty good life there.
Eh City Nerd is like the Wallet Hub of content creators. He's got a very narrow and at times smug scope. He's very biased toward a select set of cliche cities, specifically those with HRT/LRT. That makes sense from an urbanist standpoint, but some of his videos are on subjects that should favor a wider variety of cities that he doesn't like. Though oddly he has a soft spot for Louisville which outside of a couple neighborhoods runs counter intuitive to his doctrine.
I kind of lost respect for him a couple weeks ago on his "Bridges" video. He included Chicago, (yes we have bridges, some of them architecturally significant, none of them really iconic), but didn't even give Jacksonville so much as an honorable mention. Love or hate Jacksonville the city is defined by its bridges. Many of them huge, architecturally significant, and create an awesome aesthetic while driving through the city. It's a top 10(maybe even top 5) bridge city. But it's a Florida sprawl burb, and it's massive land area dilutes things like walk scores, so he won't portray it in any kind of positive light. Even on something as innocuous as bridges.
I mention all this to say: Take this video for what it is, but i'd caution you to regard him as a source expert. He's good at clickbait, but he's more a purveyor of an ideology, than he is intellectually honest.
Which goes to show he's blinded by his own agenda given the city has three neighborhoods with decent Walkscores. Downtown with an 89, Riverside with a 73 and San Marco with a 70. Also Cleveland features a decent heavy rail line so no excuse there.
Video made by a self-confessed "modesly-hip white dude".
I will give him Pittsburg. After that, you had better like high crime.
Downtown St. Louis? Baltimore? Newark. Bad part of Philly. Bad part of Chicago. Yeah. Sure. I don't think so Tim.
I think there's definitely a lot more nuance to the video than your review indicates. There's no perfect measure of something like "affordable walkability," but the results really do seem to at least get at the crux of it.
I'm not going to parse through and post real estate listings (which I believe is against C-D policy anyway), but you can absolutely find a number of sub-$400K very livable homes in very stable neighborhoods in Philadelphia (much of South Philly, parts of West Philly, and places like East Falls, Mt. Airy, or Brewerytown fit the bill--all very walkable).
Generally speaking, in any legacy city that has not been overtaken by a Big Tech-fueled flood of money or foreign real estate interests, you're bound to find a bargain for a home in a half-decent urban neighborhood.
Last edited by Duderino; 01-26-2023 at 11:18 AM..
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.
