Yet another walkability city rank - do you agree?

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by Crawford

DC has a huge area of medium-high density but doesn't have a lots of small scale, pedestrian-oriented urbanism as in Philly or Boston. There are some great blocks around Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan, but not much else. And it has a ton of monumental arterials and wide streets in general, and really big blocks. It's built as a monumental capital city, which isn't the pedestrian ideal.

DC is certainly a rowhouse city, but doesn't have a huge geography of rows like Philly, or even Baltimore.

Is it just that you are not familiar with DC? "Some great blocks around Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan, but not much else" would suggest that you are not.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme

Is it just that you are not familiar with DC? "Some great blocks around Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan, but not much else" would suggest that you are not.

I've lived in DC in two separate occasions, and stand by my statement.

Dupont and Adams Morgan have the best urbanity in DC, and there isn't much else at the level of Philly or Boston. DC doesn't have a lot of small-block urbanism, and doesn't have a large geography of rowhomes, at least not compared to the other big NE corridor cities.

DC has a ton of monumental neighborhoods, which have their own advantages, but not for textured, nuanced urbanity. K Street isn't a particularly pleasant pedestrian corridor.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I've lived in DC in two separate occasions, and stand by my statement.

Dupont and Adams Morgan have the best urbanity in DC, and there isn't much else at the level of Philly or Boston. DC doesn't have a lot of small-block urbanism, and doesn't have a large geography of rowhomes, at least not compared to the other big NE corridor cities.

DC has a ton of monumental neighborhoods, which have their own advantages, but not for textured, nuanced urbanity. K Street isn't a particularly pleasant pedestrian corridor.

I disagree with your assertions. Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan certainly have their qualities, however the best in DC? I'd give that distinction to Logan Circle / 14th Street / U Street Corridor, or Capitol Hill / Eastern Market / Barracks Row. Perhaps Shaw?

If you are referencing Colonial era urbanism when comparing to Philly or Boston, you can always look to Georgetown or Alexandria.

Also, K Street serves its purpose just fine as a major East / West corridor through the central business district.

[Doady]

Washington is mostly post-war, so I wouldn't expect it to have as much of the traditional urban neighbourhoods as Boston or Philadelphia. It's like comparing Toronto to Montreal, similar walkability, but there's no hiding the fact that one was mostly built in the automobile era and the other was mostly built before that.

That's why I argue that walkability is mostly about density. Washington DC was built in the automobile era, but it is less car-dependent than historic urban areas like Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Doady

That's why I argue that walkability is mostly about density.

I think Miami and Los Angeles would contradict that. Two relatively dense places on paper that I don't think feel like very walkable places.

Originally Posted by Doady

Washington DC was built in the automobile era, but it is less car-dependent than historic urban areas like Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia.

Washington is probably less car dependent than Philadelphia, but not sure I'd make that claim about the other cities you mentioned. Is there some metric you're basing this on?

[TempleGuy1000]

Philadelphia has the worst job sprawl of the traditional northeast cities so any study factoring in that heavily, is going to have it lower. But if you're just talking about walking like in a straight line for miles of straight urban terrain, Philly has a much larger 'walkable' inner city than somewhere like DC.

[citywatch]

I recall someone saying yrs ago that while LA isn't a walkable or typical tourist friendly city, that unlike a variety of other major cities out there....in the US & world....that a person in the LA area can find things to do & see beyond what's considered the urban core of a typical metro area. However, you do get nice burbs & at least a few scenic sights & attractions outside the center of most cities, but I don't know if they quite add up in the same way they do in metro LA....or SoCa.

this is a British guy, originally from london...one of the most walkable cities in the world....transplanted to the LA area. He describes LA as a lot of smaller cities all put together.

https://www.youtube.com/@TheBritishBlokeRealtor/videos

If a person goes beyond manhattan or the loop of chicago, or past the Charles or Mystic rivers of Boston, etc, is there as much variety outside those locations? I know the SF area has napa valley...wine country...silicon valley & things like that. Seattle has a center with sights like its space needle, but beyond that? Miami bch has built up more of its center, but to get to, for example, theme parks, a visitor has to travel miles north to orlando, etc.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I recall someone saying yrs ago that while LA isn't a walkable or typical tourist friendly city, that unlike a variety of other major cities out there....in the US & world....that a person in the LA area can find things to do & see beyond what's considered the urban core of a typical metro area. However, you do get nice burbs & at least a few scenic sights & attractions outside the center of most cities, but I don't know if they quite add up in the same way they do in metro LA....or SoCa.

this is a British guy, originally from london...one of the most walkable cities in the world....transplanted to the LA area. He describes LA as a lot of smaller cities all put together.

https://www.youtube.com/@TheBritishBlokeRealtor/videos

If a person goes beyond manhattan or the loop of chicago, or past the Charles or Mystic rivers of Boston, etc, is there as much variety outside those locations? I know the SF area has napa valley...wine country...silicon valley & things like that. Seattle has a center with sights like its space needle, but beyond that? Miami bch has built up more of its center, but to get to, for example, theme parks, a visitor has to travel miles north to orlando, etc.

Boston, in particular, is the hub of New England — a region with endless options.

[Doady]

The percentage of commutes by public transit, cycling or walking in urban areas 2+ million people in US, UK, Canada and Australia in 2011:

London 49.12
New York 39.42
Montreal 29.33
Toronto 29.01
Sydney 28.44
Manchester 28.08
Vancouver 27.79
Leeds 27.58
Liverpool 25.58
Birmingham 25.56
San Francisco 22.13
Melbourne 20.92
Brisbane 19.69
Washington 19.47
Boston 18.60
Perth 16.36
Chicago 16.11
Philadelphia 14.11
Seattle 13.43
Portland 12.78
Los Angeles 10.34
Pittsburgh 9.53
Baltimore 9.34
Minneapolis 7.92
Denver 7.30
Sacramento 7.14
San Diego 6.93
Miami 6.28
Cleveland 5.84
Phoenix 5.12
Atlanta 5.11
St. Louis 4.57
San Antonio 4.50
Orlando 4.48
Cincinnati 4.42
Houston 4.10
Tampa 3.68
Riverside 3.54
Detroit 3.27
Dallas 2.83
Kansas City 2.72

Note these stats are only for trips to work which comprise around 20% of trips. Mostly postwar urban areas like Washington, Los Angeles and Toronto might be less car dependent for work trips but more car dependent for non-work trips like shopping.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Doady

Washington is mostly post-war, so I wouldn't expect it to have as much of the traditional urban neighbourhoods as Boston or Philadelphia. It's like comparing Toronto to Montreal, similar walkability, but there's no hiding the fact that one was mostly built in the automobile era and the other was mostly built before that.

That's why I argue that walkability is mostly about density. Washington DC was built in the automobile era, but it is less car-dependent than historic urban areas like Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia.

Where are you getting your information from that DC is mostly post-war? Redeveloped areas notwithstanding, DC's neighborhoods are fairly old. This map shows that there is a lot of newer construction in the downtown and waterfront areas of DC, but much of the city is from the 1940s and earlier. DC was not mostly built in the automobile era, and its core neighborhoods reflect that. It feels very different than LA or Toronto in the city. The suburbs are certainly auto-oriented, though that's the case most places.

Also, I wouldn't group Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston together as historic cities. Philly and Boston are much older than Chicago.

[Doady]

Washington MSA was 1.3 million in 1950, Boston and Philadelphia were over 3 million, Chicago over 5 million.

[mhays]

Time to update those 2011 stats! Some cities have moved up a decent amount.

[Quixote]

Boston feels less "granular" than Philly, DC, and SF IMO, but at its best (North End, Beacon Hill) is a clear-cut notch above anything in DC, SF, and Philly outside Center City. Boston's urbanism is also choppy (i.e. not contiguous) and is mostly detached triple-deckers and multi-family bungalows, many with side driveways. Boston levels the playing field by having narrower and winding streets that make car travel less convenient/efficient. It feels more "enclosed" than SF and DC, and more livable than Philly.

Philly has the best scale (by far), but is the least polished looking and well-maintained.

DC is the most polished looking across the greatest expanse of geography (abutting row houses, tree-lined streets, no power lines, freshly painted streets and crosswalks), but it does feel a bit "diluted."

SF has the density and contiguity, but it loses points over wider streets and curb cuts.

Chicago has DC's big buildings/blocks and polish with Boston's mishmash of housing. Commercial corridors tend to be spotty and every block has an alleyway. Factor in the size disparity, and it's hard to categorize. I would say the city that it's least like is SF.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

SF has the density and contiguity, but it loses points over wider streets and curb cuts.

Chicago has DC's big buildings/blocks and polish with Boston's mishmash of housing. Commercial corridors tend to be spotty and every block has an alleyway. Factor in the size disparity, and it's hard to categorize. I would say the city that it's least like is SF.

Chicago feels much more like SF than it does to DC, IMO. Chicago and SF have pretty much the same grid. No one else has DC's grid, although Detroit started to replicated a similar pattern that was quickly abandoned.

[Crawford]

Chicago and SF look and feel pretty different, though. The general gestalt is pretty different.

I'd say DC, Boston and SF, very broadly, attract similar types of people (though DC way more buttoned-up). Public policy, tech, sciences. Pretty outdoorsy and stereotypical liberal elites. And they're all at about the same tier of relative urbanity, more or less.

And I generally agree with all of Quixote's sentiments re. comparing the cities (and Philly). Philly has the most high quality urbanity, but in the crappiest shape, Boston may have the best peak urbanity, but there's very little of it, DC has a huge area of well-kept urbanity but not to the same intensity, SF has the density and breadth but too much auto orientation. Chicago feels a bit different from the other four, IMO. Doesn't exactly fit.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Chicago feels much more like SF than it does to DC, IMO. Chicago and SF have pretty much the same grid. No one else has DC's grid, although Detroit started to replicated a similar pattern that was quickly abandoned.

Chicago has mid-block alleys while SF doesn’t. At the neighborhood level, SF’s buildings come right to the sidewalk (like Philly) and the sidewalks don’t have parkways that allow for the wonderful tree canopies of Chicago.

SF is easily most like Philly where the CBD flows seamlessly into the adjacent urban core neighborhoods. DC is like this as well.

[iheartthed]

I think SF and Chicago can look shockingly similar.

This is a pretty typical SF commercial corridor: https://goo.gl/maps/TP2oZFzfqMi9Mqfx7

This is a pretty typical Chicago commercial corridor: https://goo.gl/maps/6B1bsJY5TgdiMwxT7

[Crawford]

DC is almost too well-kept. Some of the streetscapes, in Georgetown, Upper Connecticut Ave., Capitol Hill, could use a bit of grit. Needs some struggling writers or artists or something.

Philly has the other extreme, where there's a wealth of more intense urbanity, but a lot needs to be cleaned up.

[Quixote]

Neighborhoods with struggling artists aren’t something you’ll find in any of these cities (although you were probably being tongue in cheek), at least not DC/Boston/SF that are pretty much all educated professionals and working class.

Between the three cities, DC has the biggest (office space and geographic area) and most important CBD. You also have Union Station, Capital One Arena, the convention center, over a dozen high-quality museums, and great heavy rail coverage. A high-end shopping district has begun to form around New York Avenue and 10th Street.

I also think DC has the best-looking residential streets pound-for-pound among the “Big Six.” What it needs is more commercial corridors with mixed-use buildings anchoring the neighborhoods.

[summersm343]

What?! Hahahaha. I'm just getting to this thread now.

This list a heap load of garbage and just proves you can twist "metrics" to really suit whatever narrative you want. There's no reality in this world where people would consider Pittsburgh, Seattle and Portland to be more walkable cities or metropolitan areas than Philadelphia.

I would say pound for pound, Philadelphia would probably rank 3rd behind NYC and Chicago IF the city was more gentrified, redeveloped and cleaned up. Taking into account that while Philadelphia has a TON of walkable areas in the city, there are still plenty of neighborhoods that need cleaned up. Even in the suburbs, there are a ton of walkable areas, but some areas need further redevelopment like Camden, Chester and Norristown.

With that said, a more realistic ranking, taking into account every area someone would consider walkable (a central commercial core or main street with shops, restaurants, cafes, bars, groceries, amenities, etc.) would probably look something like this:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Los Angeles (on sheer size alone)
4. Boston
5. San Francisco
6. Washington DC
7. Philadelphia
8. Miami

...the rest. It's pretty hard after there. While I want to say Seattle, the sheer size of the Metropolitan Areas of Atlanta, Houston and Dallas alone are easily enough to put them up there pretty highly. They're going to have walkable neighborhoods and towns by default.

Still, the rankings by this Smart Growth America study is pretty much garbage.