Walkable Urbanism: The most walkable metros ranked (US)

[edluva]

Surprised it hasn't been posted yet. I came across this on curbed. It's a ranking of US metros by walkability. We all know the fallability of ranking these highly incongruous and indefinable phenomena we call cities, but since this was not another forbes ranking I thought it would be worth posting. And I don't recall seeing one done before so here it is.

The exerpt below is from the LA Times article about the study, and the link to the actual study conducted by George Washington University and Smartgrowth America is below that (large pdf). There are so many ways this can be picked apart. I personally disagree with a lot of it. Notable for me: Atlanta, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Houston, and, wait for it....Kansas City, all ranked higher in walkability than Los Angeles. I'm going to let you guys have all the fun with it..

Despite its long love affair with the car, Los Angeles is on the cusp of becoming a “major” walkable urban area. And doing so could do wonders for its real estate market, at least in spots.

That’s the gist of a new report released Tuesday by SmartGrowth America and George Washington University, which measured the number of walkable urban neighborhoods in 30 big metro areas and looked at the potential to develop more.

Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, respectively, topped the rankings. The L.A. area tied for 16th with the Columbus, Ohio, and Kansas City metro areas. Orlando, Fla., ranked last.

source: smartgrowthamerica

[atlantaguy]

I have a feeling this won't go well...

[mhays]

That's not the table of current conditions, or even future conditions. It's the table showing how much change is expected.

Despite Seattle showing pretty well (ranking #6 on all the important tables), the study looks sloppy. Academic method has the standard problem of not knowing it's comparing apples to oranges much of the time, much like the "CSA" debates on SSP. Plus they screwed up some details on our local stuff.

[memph]

Well first of all, that table is not the one that ranks their definition of walkability, which is having a lot of retail and office in "walkable urban places". There's another table in the report that has the top tier as

1. DC
2. NY
3. Boston
4. San Francisco
5. Chicago
6. Seattle
7. Portland
8. Atlanta
9. Pittsburgh
10. Cleveland

The table in the OP is about which cities are seeing the greatest increases in demand/supply in walkable urban places, so basically describing where things are headed, rather than the present situation.

Also, I'd like to see more examples of what they call walkable urban places.

Examples include

Easton Town Centre in Columbus (umm... NO-ONE is going to walk to that)

[pdxtex]

hmmm lesse, lets make a list.
great!
how do you want to do it?
you know that carnival game, where the cow shits in a square and you win a prize?
yeah...
well lets write all the cities down the pavement and give it a whirl.
where do we get the cow?

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by memph

Well first of all, that table is not the one that ranks their definition of walkability, which is having a lot of retail and office in "walkable urban places". There's another table in the report that has the top tier as

1. DC
2. NY
3. Boston
4. San Francisco
5. Chicago
6. Seattle
7. Portland
8. Atlanta
9. Pittsburgh
10. Cleveland

The table in the OP is about which cities are seeing the greatest increases in demand/supply in walkable urban places, so basically describing where things are headed, rather than the present situation.

Also, I'd like to see more examples of what they call walkable urban places.

Examples include

Easton Town Centre in Columbus (umm... NO-ONE is going to walk to that)

In regards to Atlanta memph, check out the two recent threads in the My Photos room for a few examples of what's going on here.

[Capsule F]

Why ever rank walkable metros? Sounds like a metric that means nothing. Walkable cities, yes.

http://blog.walkscore.com/2013/11/20...neighborhoods/

I'd rather look at things like this, thanks.

[MolsonExport]

How about walkable blocks? walkable rivers? walkable states?

[Tuckerman]

It is almost certain that this study will raise hackles because it doesn't confirm what everybody seems to know on S-page. The reality is that things change, cities evolve and definitions of what is "walkability" also evolve. As with any study, the authors have taken the time and effort to draw up some clear distinctions of the term. And, as with any definitional exercise there are strengths and shortcomings. Reading the whole report shows a very careful analysis, IMO. Two things stand out, older cities that are already well built out and dense are generally highly walkable and will probably remain so. Newer, more sprawled cities are getting more dense and some are making strides and efforts to increase the number and pattern of walkable areas. There are success stories and they are recognized in this substantive report.

[simms3_redux]

The lists:







Source


Source


Very apples to oranges study and confused definitions of what is a "WalkUp".

Take note of the study's population numbers. They are more confused than ever. I get using only MSA numbers or only CSA numbers when available. I get using Boston MSA and SF CSA. I get using only urbanized areas. I don't know where any of these population numbers come from...

The rankings seem to be based heavily on population, which is the source of the denominator, per se. That said, Boston's population isn't even using its urbanized area, let alone MSA or CSA, same with Atlanta, same with Chicago, same with a few others. DC is using more than urbanized area, but less than MSA.

LA is using more than its CSA, somehow. NYC is somewhere between MSA and CSA, same with SF, same with Pittsburgh, same with Denver, and a few others.

Basically, can't take this study seriously. Lol

They also place equal weights on all WalkUps, when we all know a WalkUp is subjective. A WalkUp in LA, SF, or NYC is going to be far far far far superior to a WalkUp in Atlanta, Cleveland, Houston, etc. Yet sheer # of WalkUps by their definition is what is used. Not the fact that a WalkUp in LA might be huge/dense and surrounded by high density residential, and a WalkUp in suburban Atlanta at best is the town of Roswell, which you need to drive to really and is surrounded by hills and very low density single family residential.

[jcchii]

seems easily refuted by "going to the cities" on the list and "trying to walk to stuff"

[Crawford]

This is one of those rankings that one can summarily dismiss because it doesn't even pass the most basic "smell test" of reasonableness.

Atlanta and Tampa and Phoenix more walkable than Philly and Chicago?

[memph]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

Why ever rank walkable metros? Sounds like a metric that means nothing. Walkable cities, yes.

http://blog.walkscore.com/2013/11/20...neighborhoods/

I'd rather look at things like this, thanks.

A lot of people limit their job and housing search to a metro area, but not so much cities. So a ranking like this (if done properly) should give an idea of how likely you will be to find a job, and a home near that job (or vice versa) in a walkable place.

Main thing is, was this ranking of metro areas done properly?

I think population should have been a factor as well. How many people live in these walkUPs? I also disagree with having just the walk score at the centre of the walkUP count. If one address has a walk score of 70*, and then it drops off so that much of the "walkUP" has a walkscore of 40-50, that's not a walkable area imo. And the office and retail in the 40-50 walkscore section should not count as walkable.

As for why population should count, or at least some alternate measure of accessibility by transit or by foot by the metro population... Basically all you need to get a high walkscore is a sufficient clustering of retail. That's a pretty common feature of suburbia. The difference compared to true walkable neighbourhoods is that in auto-suburbia, the retail clusters are often not very well accessible to the surrounding neighbourhoods by transit or by foot. Whether that's because of distance, being surrounded by highways/parking lots/mega arterials, no transit, whatever...

*already not that high, there are places in suburban (416) Toronto with 70+ walkscore at the neighbourhood level (so the neighbourhood centres would be even higher)

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is one of those rankings that one can summarily dismiss because it doesn't even pass the most basic "smell test" of reasonableness.

Atlanta and Tampa and Phoenix more walkable than Philly and Chicago?

Actually those 4 cities are currently ranked as

Chicago
Atlanta
Philadelphia
Phoenix

Still not sure I'd put Atlanta ahead of Philadelphia. My guess as to why is that Downtown+Midtown+Buckhead+Perimeter Centre contain a good chunk of the total office space. Center City Philadelphia has a fair bit, but maybe much of the rest of retail and office space in the MSA is in suburban centres?

However, even if you consider those places in Atlanta walkable, the walkable parts of Atlanta have maybe 5% of the metro population. Philadelphia on the other hand might have 30-40% living in walkable areas. Although maybe much of Philadelphia proper doesn't count because they don't have major office/retail nodes, just neighbourhood scale retail, even if they did count as walkUPs, they probably aren't going to add that much to the total office/retail count, mostly they will add to the population count, which is not a factor in this ranking (it should be).

[Tuckerman]

Clearly our skyscraper page friends are a lot more knowledgeable than those who worked on the methodology for this studY:
The methodology was developed at The Brookings Institution, working with Dr. Mariela Alfonzo, Alice Rivlin, Martha Ross, Alec Stewart and Nicole Svajlenka. The Rockefeller Foundation, Summit Foundation, Forest City Foundation, and The Prince Trust
provided funding for the Brookings methodology. Special thanks to Al Ratner, chair emeritus of Forest City,
and Darryl Young of the Summit Foundation for their insightful ideas, encouragement, and assistance

[KevinFromTexas]

It seems some cities are missing from the list. That can't just be because of population either.

[memph]

Here's the walkscores of Toronto's major shopping malls (500,000+ sf)

Eaton Centre: 100 (only one that you have to agree is walkable)
Pickering Town Centre: 98
The Promenade: 97
Square One: 93
Dufferin Mall: 93
Scarborough Town Centre: 90
Shops at Don Mills: 90
Yorkdale: 87
Centerpoint: 87
Burlington Mall: 83
Fairview: 82
Mapleview Shopping Centre: 82
Sherway Gardens: 80
Bramalea: 80
Erin Mills Town Centre: 78
Shoppers World: 78
Oshawa Centre: 75
Cedarbrae Mall: 75
Hillcrest Mall: 73
Vaughan Mills: 72
Markville: 72
Woodbine Centre: 70
Sheridan Centre: 68
Upper Canada Mall: 68

So 22/24 are above the 70 walkscore threshold. Many of them are not the worst kind of shopping mall, they might have a bus terminal, and some condos and offices next to them... Although Vaughan Mills is pretty close to the stereotype highly autocentric mall. And the vast majority have the typical mall layout with parking lots surrounding them, blank walls and bounded by large auto centric arterial roads.


Even power centre type places, where unlike enclosed malls (where the shops are clustered together), much the shops are separated by large parking lots, can still achieve >70 walk scores or close. These are 3 near where I grew up. Dundas/Ridgeway and Heartland are like the epitome of auto-oriented retail.

Dundas & Ridgeway: 80
Dundas & Trafalgar: 75
Heartland, Mississauga: 68

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

Here's the walkscores of Toronto's major shopping malls (500,000+ sf)

Eaton Centre: 100 (only one that you have to agree is walkable)
Pickering Town Centre: 98
The Promenade: 97
Square One: 93
Dufferin Mall: 93
Scarborough Town Centre: 90
Shops at Don Mills: 90
Yorkdale: 87
Centerpoint: 87
Burlington Mall: 83
Fairview: 82
Mapleview Shopping Centre: 82
Sherway Gardens: 80
Bramalea: 80
Erin Mills Town Centre: 78
Shoppers World: 78
Oshawa Centre: 75
Cedarbrae Mall: 75
Hillcrest Mall: 73
Vaughan Mills: 72
Markville: 72
Woodbine Centre: 70
Sheridan Centre: 68
Upper Canada Mall: 68

So 22/24 are above the 70 walkscore threshold. Many of them are not the worst kind of shopping mall, they might have a bus terminal, and some condos and offices next to them... Although Vaughan Mills is pretty close to the stereotype highly autocentric mall. And the vast majority have the typical mall layout with parking lots surrounding them, blank walls and bounded by large auto centric arterial roads.


Even power centre type places, where unlike enclosed malls (where the shops are clustered together), much the shops are separated by large parking lots, can still achieve >70 walk scores or close. These are 3 near where I grew up. Dundas/Ridgeway and Heartland are like the epitome of auto-oriented retail.

Dundas & Ridgeway: 80
Dundas & Trafalgar: 75
Heartland, Mississauga: 68

This is a good illustration of why I've never been comfortable with Walkscore. it seems to favor proximity to stuff over actual walkability.

Outside of Eaton Cente, the only mall I'm familiar with is Yorkdale, and that is definitely not a walker-friendly area, at all, yet it gets at 87. No one with options is going to be strolling around the parking lots and big boxes and highways of Yorkdale, yet I bet you it's higher ranked than some very dense, urban locales.

I've also noticed this in Orange County, CA. Places I'm familiar with in the county have walkscores of 70+ and even 80+, yet there are almost no pedestrians, minimal pedestrian accomodations, and massive, auto-choked roads. Something's intuitively off with their weights.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Clearly our skyscraper page friends are a lot more knowledgeable than those who worked on the methodology for this studY:
The methodology was developed at The Brookings Institution, working with Dr. Mariela Alfonzo, Alice Rivlin, Martha Ross, Alec Stewart and Nicole Svajlenka. The Rockefeller Foundation, Summit Foundation, Forest City Foundation, and The Prince Trust
provided funding for the Brookings methodology. Special thanks to Al Ratner, chair emeritus of Forest City,
and Darryl Young of the Summit Foundation for their insightful ideas, encouragement, and assistance

This is a basic misconception.

For starters, skepticism is a 100% necessity of any scholarly paper, and scientific method.

Second, any study based on a narrow range of statistics should be looked at only in that context, and to the extent it goes beyond we can disagree with it...including the lack of deeper statistics, like population density.

Third, some of us actually do work in related fields. In fact, I'd put a lot of industry type people (like successful developers, not myself) above most academics in terms of understanding urban dynamics.

[niwell]

Dufferin Mall is the only one besides the Eaton Centre that is walkable. Only because it was built on what used to be a racetrack in a part of the city that dates from the late 1890s / early 1900s.

Pickering is one of the worst malls out there from a walkability standpoint. And I have actually had to walk there before - crossing the 401 isn't fun!

This: http://goo.gl/maps/PWQSM is considered more walkable than this: http://goo.gl/maps/EDOOn

I'm skeptical of any statistical method of measuring walkability really. It does work (for the most part) in traditional urban areas, but any suburban retail / office cluster can skew rankings.