HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 4:13 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
American metros ranked by access to walkable communities

Per Smart Growth America, ranked from most to least accessible
  1. Cleveland
  2. New York
  3. Kansas City
  4. Detroit
  5. Philadelphia
  6. Pittsburgh
  7. Baltimore
  8. Washington, DC
  9. Cincinnati
  10. Minneapolis-St. Paul
  11. St. Louis
  12. Boston
  13. Indianapolis
  14. Chicago
  15. San Antonio
  16. Las Vegas
  17. Seattle
  18. Denver
  19. Phoenix
  20. Sacramento
  21. Houston
  22. San Francisco
  23. Charlotte
  24. Virginia Beach
  25. Columbus
  26. Portland
  27. Atlanta
  28. Austin
  29. Dallas-Fort Worth
  30. Orlando
  31. Nashville
  32. San Diego
  33. Miami
  34. Tampa
  35. Los Angeles

Quote:
we developed a Social Equity Index (SEI) based on three main concerns: 1) the rising cost of housing; 2) the rising cost of transportation and the need for quality transit access; and 3) proximity—who lives closest to walkable urbanism.

The SEI ranks metropolitan areas by the affordability of and access to well-located housing and services, including housing both within and close to walkable urban development. We believe affordability is essential for a thriving community and that the elements of walkable urbanism— which improve quality of life, reduce commuting time, and reduce emissions—should not be limited to those able to afford high-cost housing.

As discussed below, we find that many medium-sized regions, often with relatively affordable housing, rank closer to the top. Furthermore, some larger regions rank lower when considering proximity to walkability across socioeconomic groups, suggesting that while walkability in a place like Portland (for example) may be high, the people closest to it tend to be whiter, higher-educated, and have higher incomes.

Our results did not indicate a strong overlap between the most walkable regions and equitable development patterns as measured by the SEI. The general correlation is slightly positive, but not so obvious as to suggest that walkability automatically is associated with increased social equity or vice versa.

Some of the cities which rank highly on the SEI have more affordable housing stock and greater access to walkable urbanism for communities of color and disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. Others have high-quality transit that bolsters their rankings. Those that rank lower on the SEI Index have particularly high housing costs, ranking them significantly lower than their Foot Traffic Ahead walkability rank, even with high-quality transit or good proximity to walkability.
TLDR: Metros at the top have walkable areas accessible to people of all incomes, while in metros at the bottom walkable areas tend to be expensive.

Social Equity section starts on page 16: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/wp-co...Ahead-2023.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 4:19 PM
chimpskibot chimpskibot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Posts: 251
KC and Detroit shouldnt be anywhere near the top 10 lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 4:37 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Seems like this composite index overrates affordability and underrates urbanism if Vegas gets a higher rating than SF and LA. Does it matter how affordable a place is if there isn’t much urbanism to access in the first place?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 4:40 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
The lowest ranked city, LA, clearly has more access to walkable communities than the highest ranked city, Cleveland. LA is very much walkable, it just isn't particularly walker-friendly. Cleveland isn't notably walkable or walker-friendly.

Oh, and clearly KC and Detroit are much more walkable than Philly, DC, Boston, Chicago and SF. No question...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 4:50 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Seems like this composite index overrates affordability and underrates urbanism if Vegas gets a higher rating than SF and LA. Does it matter how affordable a place is if there isn’t much urbanism to access in the first place?
I think the index is inadvertently measuring the political value that different metros place on urbanity. The old Rust Belt metros have combination of large prewar cores and policies that emphasize sprawl, so the most walkable areas served by transit tend to be among the least valued places in the metro. New York is unique in being so transit rich that the poor and affluent have fairly even access. The cities that are lower might place a premium on walkability, but they may not have enough of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 7:39 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,036
This is basically just a defacto cost of living vs income ranking. Basically it shows that in places like Miami and LA, walkable places are expensive. In older declining cities, there are more opportunities for the less affluent to afford urban lifestyles as there is less demand on the housing. NYC is the exception due to the vast amount of walkable area so that even the poor in places like the Bronx have walkable neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 8:12 PM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Future God
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 19,495
Chicago is ranked below Indianapolis.

__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 8:28 PM
digitallagasse digitallagasse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 104
Very little of the Vegas metro is really walkable. It is a really easy test to see how walkable a place is. See lots of people walking around the streets likely walkable area. See only a handful of people at best to no one at all highly likely not a walkable area. Outside of areas like the core of the Strip or or parts of downtown like around Freemont street walkability and hence people walking around drops off a cliff.

The only thing I can think of that is helping Vegas out is the very large number of people in these two spots. Those two spots are very much tourist zones instead of communities so by that metric Vegas metro should be ranked very low.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 9:12 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by BnaBreaker View Post
Chicago is ranked below Indianapolis.

Tha bar for "walkability' is clearly being set egregiously low here.


As has been brought up about 8 million times on this forum, if you're looking to purchase a home in a US city with top tiet urbanism, and you don't have a ton of money, Chicago and Philly are the best places to start your search.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Mar 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 9:25 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by BnaBreaker View Post
Chicago is ranked below Indianapolis.

This is a ranking of how economically accessible walkable areas are. This has nothing to do with how walkable a city is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 10:03 PM
digitallagasse digitallagasse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave8721 View Post
This is a ranking of how economically accessible walkable areas are. This has nothing to do with how walkable a city is.
I can't speak for all metros on this list but based on the weighting of walkable areas that are affordable Vegas doesn't do well with that. The more affordable areas of the metro have poor walkability. The areas that are walkable are mostly expensive to buy or rent in. Yes someone can get a condo or rental on the strip but the costs are the opposite of affordable. maybe some housing downtown could pass muster for affordable but a great deal of it would be premium pricing at best.

I think something important is what this ranking considers walkable. Using something like Walkscore is starting point but checking out the area in street view reveals if it really is.

For example going by Walkscore and using the heat map where they show were is more walkable here are two examples. I picked locations for each that based on the Walkscore heat map should be more walkable.

https://www.walkscore.com/NV/Las_Vegas

Downtown Las Vegas - Walkscore 75

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1694...192?authuser=0

Meadows Neighborhood - Walkscore 72

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1612...192?authuser=0

Cruise around the streets in both and also zone out and see the map for each. The score puts them close to the same. The reality is far from it. Yes I can walk around my own neighborhood and do so daily. To reach anything other than other house in said neighbor I would also needs to cross major stroads and a moon scape of surface parking to reach any meaningful destination. People on the sidewalks or lack thereof in both examples shows how the people in these areas view them as walkable or not.

Last edited by digitallagasse; Mar 17, 2023 at 10:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 10:29 PM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Future God
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 19,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave8721 View Post
This is a ranking of how economically accessible walkable areas are. This has nothing to do with how walkable a city is.
Yeah, and it's still laughable. Most of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods are more walkable than the trendiest Indy neighborhood.
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 10:41 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by BnaBreaker View Post
Yeah, and it's still laughable. Most of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods are more walkable than the trendiest Indy neighborhood.
It's not measuring walkability of each city against each other. It's measuring the cost disparity of between a region's walkable and less walkable areas against each other. If expensive areas and (relatively) inexpensive have similar walkability then there a region scores higher for "access". If a region's more affluent areas are less walkable than the poorer areas then it also scores higher for "access". If a regions walkable areas are generally more expensive than the less walkable areas, it scores lower for "access".

Chicago's poorer south side neighborhoods are absolutely less walkable than the richer north side. So it validates what the study is measuring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2023, 10:59 PM
R1070 R1070 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave8721 View Post
This is a ranking of how economically accessible walkable areas are. This has nothing to do with how walkable a city is.
I would expect SF to be way lower due to how expensive it it there. Surprised to see where it's ranked.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2023, 4:08 AM
Segun's Avatar
Segun Segun is offline
<-- Chicago's roots.
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,929
Is there a universal affordability measuring stick for the study, or is it relative to each city?

Surprised to see NYC so high on this list, but then again, I suppose you can get a 1 bedroom in NYC for a market rate in some other city. Of course it will be the size of a dishwasher, but the study is not measuring that.
__________________
Songs of the minute - Flavour - Ijele (Feat. Zoro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEFGpnkL38

Common - Resurrection (Video Mix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmOd0GKuztE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2023, 4:09 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Segun View Post
Is there a universal affordability measuring stick for the study, or is it relative to each city?
It has to be relative to each city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.