March 12, 2007
We Like Lists: District Snubbed in Walkability Ranking
Last week Prevention magazine put out its list of the Best Walking Cities of 2007. We were a little bit surprised by the results:
- 1. Madison, Wisconsin
- 2. Austin, Texas
- 3. San Francisco, California
- 4. Charlotte, North Carolina
- 5. Seattle, Washington
- 6. Henderson, Nevada
- 7. San Diego, California
- 8. San Jose, California
- 9. Chandler, Arizona
- 10. Virginia Beach, Virginia
OK, so the top five cities are all plausible, even if we have a hard time believing it's ever really warm enough in Madison, Wisconsin to make walking at all pleasurable. But some of the cities on the bottom half of the top 10 seem ever so slightly insane. For example, the last time we checked, San Diego was situated entirely in Southern California, perhaps the only part of the world where it feels as though owning a car is actually mandated by law. And sure, maybe some people do walk in San Jose, but does anyone really believe the percentage of the population of that city that walks to work is higher than New York or Washington, D.C.? And don't even get me started on including Chandler, AZ. For those less familiar with the Phoenix suburbs, Chandler is situated just south of Mesa, and while it does contain the popular Paseo Trail, the notion of a car-free lifestyle in that desert community is even more absurd than in temperate San Diego.
Washington came in at number 33 -- ahead of New York City (39) but behind Boston (31), which also feels backwards. Granted, being able to live car-free wasn't actually the main criterion used by Prevention to compile this list. From the introduction to the list:
Here are some of the specific criteria we used to create the list. Each criteria was weighted as heavy, medium or light in terms of importance.
• % of pop that walks for exercise
• Use of mass transit
• Parks per square mile
• Points of interest per squre mile
• Avg winter/summer temperatures
• % of athletic shoe buyers
So, not so much a list of cities that one is able to live in and walk as a main mode of transportation, and more so a list of cities where people choose to walk for fun and exercise. Fine, though we'd be a lot more interested to see a list of places where living car-free is easy. We think D.C. would have to be pretty high up on that list. Just don't tell Mayor Fenty that we didn't stack up in a poll that compares athletic shoe sales. His father would be mighty sad to hear it.
|
I walked to the Capital Crescent Trail for the first time yesterday. Walking the Dalecarla Parkway was stupid. I demand parkway sidewalks!
No one actually walks in Austin, but it's a perfect walkable city, having the crucial neighborhood grocers and co-ops that DC lacks. Madison has snow and is clearly disqualified.
I call BS on this. Three of their top cities - VA Beach, Henderson and Charlotte, NC - are cancerous affronts to halfway sane urban planning.
I spent four years going to school in Charlotte and can count all the times I walked somewhere on both hands. I doubt much has changed. This survey is crap and these people should be keelhauled.
I agree, have lived in Charlotte and my G-friend has too before. Nobody walks there, the entire place is suburbs without many trails really. Car is a necessity.
We both don't even own cars here in D.C. and no, we aren't hipsters.
Why waste your energy on this list? Any list of "Walkable U.S. Cities" that doesn't have NYC at #1 is automatically disqualified, end of story.
(sorry if this duped. DCist's flaky servers, blah blah blah...)
I think a city should be disqualified if its main tourist attraction is an *auto* race. This means you, Charlotte!
I'm from Henderson, NV and unless you count walking from my car to the front door of the grocery store, neither I, nor anybody I knew ever walked anywhere. That city pales in comparison to the walkability of DC. The "walk for exercise" and "points of interest per square mile" criteria only reflect recreational use. What about daily commuting, which is a much greater portion of our lives? They clearly forgot to run their matrix by through the "rational" filter. What a joke.
"They clearly forgot to run their matrix by through the "rational" filter. What a joke."
You assume they wanted a rational list.
I posit that these lists are purposefully backwards. That way, people talk about them. We wouldn't be discussing a list that, for example, was NYC, SF, DC, etc.
Yeah, I am from Henderson as well. Went to Green Valley High School and I can tell you that you do not walk much there. Its too hot in the summer and, even if it wasn't, things are not that close together.
i lived in mesa for two years. i wouldnt consider walking anywhere during the day. even in february. it's just too. damn. hot. to be pleasurable in any way.
I find some humor in this poll. Why does anybody care?
Flabbergasted beat me to it, but one of my boys lives in Henderson, NV and the only walking I've ever seen anyone do there was to or from their car.
Well, it's Prevention magazine. By nature and inclination, their polls are gonna skew towards retirees.
I predict we lose out on the athletic shoe buyers metric. You ever been to the upper Midwest? People wear running sneakers and cross trainers everywhere. You can go to the airport and you'll even see businessman in them. In contrast, practically the only people wearing athletic sneakers are athletes and tourists.
Couple that with the fact that in DC, you can't just own a pair of running sneakers. You have to own the highest tech, most overpriced running sneakers to keep down the plebians. After all, no one wants to be confused with the fanny-packed masses on the metro. If you're not hardcore enough (or wealthy and foolish enough) to pony up for the requisite self-reaffirming gear, it's best not even to bother.
There's just no room for Joe America or his running shoes in this town.
This list is pretty laughable, but NYC at 39 is the biggest joke of all. Who cares if one is specifically "walking for exercise" versus walking just to get places. Are the two mutually exclusive? New Yorkers are on average a whole lot less doughier than 1/3 of this top ten. And while it may lack for green space per square mile, I doubt Henderson NV has more points of interest than any of the 5 Burroughs, Staten Island and it's garbage dump included.
DC got hosed too
Prevention's list makes my Top Ten Clueless Lists list. A much better list would be the cities where ZipCar has locations. Their business model is based on areas where the residents have "voted with their feet"--they feel car ownership is optional. Also, look at the success and expansion of Comfort Shoes in the DC area. DC is a great place to walk by my standards--high density architecture, availability of food/restrooms/retail/parks, easy access to public transportation, sunlight, and iconic outdoor spaces.
Virginia Beach? Are they on crack? I lived in Virginia Beach. Believe me, it ain't walkable. Its mile after mile of suburban sprawl, huge highways without pedestrian crossing areas, etc.
Norfok, VA, on the other hand, is more walkable, downtown. It's really got a great little compact urban core these days.
But Norfolk is a different city.
Virginia Beach is stunningly unwalkable.
Agree with other posters that any "walkable city" list that doesn't begin with NYC is worthless. An easier, and probably more believable, list would be to look at which metro areas have the highest rates of car-less adults in their central cities. DC would rank high on that. Charlotte, not so much. (Charlotte is walkable?!?!)
Maybe another, unpublished, factor is what percentage of the population is white? For cities, those are some pretty white towns.
Oh, you witty warm-climate inhabitants! Of course, Madison, Wisconsin is very close to the polar ice caps, but those are rapidly melting. What, with global warming, we might even hit 35 degrees on a balmy August day. Boy! I tell you, there's nothing like the fabulous August Ice Fishing Festival on Lake Mendota. People walk from as far away as Wausau for that one! Plus, the benefits of walking across all that ice and snow are amazing: thick heavy snow makes your footsteps about 30% as efficient as on dry ground, and you don't have your "ice legs" until your inner thighs are nice and toned to keep you upright on the worst zero-friction surfaces. Plus, all that below-zero summer weather really sharpens the sarcasm...
As a Wisconsin grad, I can testify that it is a fabulous walking city. Lots of paths, trails, and (egad!) dedicated bike lanes (for bikes, not walking).
There is a good bus and emerging rapid transit system, obviating the need for a car, other than city to city travel.
The great thing about the lakes freezing in the wintertime is that they too become commuter routes for pedestrains. The better part of my last two years was spent walking or skating over a portion of the lake to get to class, or better, the Union.
I guess I had to watch out for Kurt's ice fishing hole, though.
DC should be on this list, but not at the expense of Madison.
Why is everyone (DCist included) calling this a Walkability ranking? It's a "fitness walker friendly " ranking- not an urban design ranking. They're telling their old readers where the best recreational places for exercising are.
Yes, we've become so lazy as a country that even walking is considered a purposeful form of "exercise," rather than simply something you do to go about your day. We drive our SUVs everywhere, so "walking" is a purely recreational enterprise for health purposes.
Charlotte, NC!??! Nobody walks there unless it's from the overdraft/customer service department at BofA to the parking garage on the same block!
MAYYYYYYYBE Prevention Magazine measures how much walking is done in food courts and local malls?
Why is everyone (DCist included) calling this a Walkability ranking? It's a "fitness walker friendly " ranking- not an urban design ranking. They're telling their old readers where the best recreational places for exercising are.
That is correct. They make it plain as day on the first page of their rankings.
"Walking is the most popular type of exercise so this year we focused our Best Walking Cities list on ideal locations to head out for a heart-pumping walking workout"
I am from Virginia Beach, and I have to tell you, I agree with the previous poster. THERE IS NO WAY that Virginia Beach would make a top ten list of walkable cities. Unless you count the boardwalk and Atlantic Avenue (the resort strip), you can't walk anywhere without the risk of being run over. And mass transit? HAHAHAHA! Their pathetic bus system is a joke. I wonder who in Virginia Beach paid them?
"Walking is the most popular type of exercise so this year we focused our Best Walking Cities list on ideal locations to head out for a heart-pumping walking workout"
Well, this explains how SF got in there. Sure, it's a top-notch 9x9 walkable city but, with it's famous topography, most youngsters take public transport or drive, and most oldsters are still ducking after watching all the dirty harry movies and starsky and hutch episodes (both of which feature lots of cars getting airborne on said hills).
I suppose the inclusion of Charlotte reflects the Mecklenburg County Greenway, which is a perfectly fine walking path if your goals don't include actually getting anywhere. Given the poll's announced bias toward people who are presumably driving to and from a walking path, that makes sense.
"Why is everyone (DCist included) calling this a Walkability ranking? It's a "fitness walker friendly " ranking- not an urban design ranking. They're telling their old readers where the best recreational places for exercising are."
Maybe it's me, but I consider my 40 minute walk to work every morning and the 40 minute return walk home to be fitness walking.
San Francisco? Yes, it's a beautiful city, but the average American would not be able to walk a few blocks in that town. You'll either be walking uphill or downhill. Absolutely absurd.
Yet another Charlotte alumni here, the inclusion of Charlotte as "walkable" is a joke.
I was just there in the summer of 2006 and they have improved their downtown somewhat (no longer quite so much just office buildings and parking lots with no stores or housing) but you still need a car to do anything. Even when new condos are finished on the edge of downtown, those people will have nowhere to buy groceries.
"Mass transit" still consists of a few buses that run their routes two or three times an hour.
The greenways run out on the edge of the suburban sprawl, they are fine for exercise once you drive to them, but they don't connect anything - you won't see anyone biking to work.
If they build all the planned downtown (ooh, excuse me - "uptown") condos and actually build shopping near them eventually, the downtown area may become a "walkable" home for a few thousand of the 500,000 or so people in the area.