Jacksonville: Sixth Least Walkable City in North America

[simms3]

I'm waiting for everyone's list.  That's all I'm saying.  I've asked this now 2-3x and have yet to hear a response with everyone's opinion.  We go through this every year.

What major cities is Jacksonville passing if we only include its inner 50-100 sq miles?  If you're going to discount that whole part of Jacksonville, can I lop off the Sunset in San Francisco?  LoL

Let's suppose we look at 1950 Jax city limits to 1950 Nashville limits to 1950 Charlotte limits to Birmingham to 1950 Louisville limits to 1950 Austin limits, etc etc.  Is Jacksonville passing any of these cities?  If all of these cities are "cut down to size" so to speak, are they collectively climbing up and passing the next tier above them?  That tier would include Milwaukee, Columbus, Sacramento, Dallas, Atlanta, San Diego, etc etc.

In 1950, Jacksonville's density was 6,772 ppsm.  That's less (considerably) than Atlanta's at the time (and far less population at that), less than Nashville's, way less population and density than Louisville's, way less population but greater density than Birmingham (which from my experience has a very nice core), about the same population and density as Richmond (though I think few would argue that today Richmond is a more walkable city...and Walkscore agrees!), and greater density and population than Charlotte, though since 1950 Charlotte has become a city twice as large as Jacksonville with a core that has densified and now includes rail transit...so in 2015 that might be a tough call.  Heck, Denver was a little less dense than Jax in 1950 (but 2x the size), but that's a FAR more urban city today and once again, Walkscore agrees!

In fact, I just looked at four cities I am familiar with:

Portland - 62.8
Denver - 55.7
San Diego - 48.5
Sacramento - 43.4

If Walkscore's algorithm is all wrong, why do I feel like these numbers make perfect sense?

Detroit is an example of a city with a density that approached 15,000 ppsm at one point, but was always fairly autocentric and thus even today with its bones falls quite short of cities with similar 1950 size/density (St. Louis for one, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee other examples).  Another thing that seems to make a lot of sense to me.

Point being, you can't complain about the list and call it all wrong and faulty without some sort of legitimate alternative or explanation as to how and why things would be different under a different calculation.  There are way more things that make a lot of sense with this list than things that don't make as much sense.  And the things that don't make sense are usually cities ranked too high (like Tampa), not too low.

[thelakelander]

^It you only evaluated pre-consolidated Jax, it's score would probably go up to the mid 50s or so, but it would fall off this list. The cut off mark is 200k.  Old Jax barely has 100k now, due to its Detroit-like fall from grace, after we went sprawl crazy. Btw, if we did that for Jax, we'd have to apply the same standards to a lot of other cities on this list. In that case, a city like New Orleans would probably crack into the top 10.

[simms3]

Pre-consolidated Jacksonville was 30 sq mi and included only the most urban of Jacksonville's neighborhoods.  If we were to size Jacksonville down from what is essentially the 95 loop plus additional parts of the SS (what is that - ~400 sq mi that contains nearly all of Jax's population?) to just the inner 30 sq mi, then as you say and to be fair, one would have to apply the same methodology to NYC, SF, Chicago, Philly, Boston, Seattle, Baltimore, etc etc.

NYC's 300 sq mi contains Staten Island and very unwalkable parts of the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn, as well as industrial wastelands with lower density and no amenities, 2 airports that break up neighborhoods, tons of highways cutting through the city, etc etc.  And yet it still lands at #1.  SF is the same way on a much smaller scale.  There's not as much the problem of highways and there are no airports, but there are geographical features and vast sections of lower density post-war housing that break up the level of walkability that most are familiar with when they think of SF.  Taking SF down to 30 sq mi is less of a chop off than Jax and would only be fair   Taking NYC down to the 23 sq mi that is Manhattan would only be fair   We could take NOLA down to the French Quarter by itself!  Or Richmond purely to the Fan District

The only cities smaller than a Jax at 30 sq mi would be Providence and Hartford.  Then you get to Miami and Rochester, NY at 36 sq mi, then Buffalo at 40, then Grand Rapids at 44, SF at 47, and Boston at 48.

[peestandingup]

Aside from people in Jax looking eagerly to see where Jax stacks up against Charlotte and Birmingham, rest assured most people aren't looking way down the list to see walkability rank of a bunch of cities that aren't walkable.

Aside from a handful of major urban centers, most cities in the US aren't truly walkable as a whole, but have a lot of pockets that are. Besides, what would be the point then of ranking any city at all outside of NYC, Boston, etc if that's your defense for their shoddy data? Believe it or not, tons of people who aren't moving to the handful of major urban hubs still want walkability. So thats a snobbish way of looking at things honestly.

NYC is larger than Boston or SF.  Much larger.  But it isn't on a whole other level of walkability.  In fact, the density of businesses in SF is actually almost to the same density of businesses in New York (restaurants, bars, laundromats per capita, etc etc).  But SF and Boston are < 50 sq mi and New York is > 300.

Don't confuse "different scale" with level of walkability.

I'm not an idiot & understand scale. NYC has so much density, high rises, a 24 hour world class subway that literally goes anywhere in the city thats open 24/7. Come talk to me when SF can claim nearly 60% of their residents don't own a car (like NYC has).

Finally - you nitted against Lexington/Louisville/Corpus Christi.  You call those medium to large cities?  I call those small cities.  I have not heard anyone debate "large" cities except for perhaps Miami (one that I have disputed, as well as one of the FEW "incorrect" rankings).

Lexington's population is somewhere around 310k residents condensed into an area with a built in urban growth boundary (much higher in the Metropolitan area where a lot of people live outside the boundary). So yeah, urban elitist attitude aside, thats a medium sized city. Louisville's population is much higher & teeters between large-medium & large, comparable to Cincinnati to its north. A small city is something like St. Augustine. Don't know what else to say about this, but your "small city" reference just isn't correct on any technical level at all.

It's sad to say, but Jacksonville is just not a walkable city.  Whether or not the list is flawed, in your opinion or any other opinion of anyone else out there who feels their favorite cities didn't rank as highly, Jacksonville would likely not make anyone's list of most walkable cities.

It surely isn't & no one is claiming it is. But 6th least walkable in the country? I'm not buying it, esp compared to a lot of what's on that list. But you can live in places in Jax that are extremely walkable/bikeable & have access to most things you need without total car reliance, in a pretty large urban footprint. You can't do that in many of those cities that ranked higher overall in that list. Thats all I'm saying.

And I doubt if many people are debating in their minds which is more walkable, Jacksonville or Corpus Christi, or Lexington vs Louisville.

I was merely using them as examples. If they're flawed, how many others are? I'd say a lot, which is why this list is mostly trash, outside of the major urban areas of course. But like I said, anyone could figure those out. It sounds like you're trying to dismiss the lower populated cities because "who cares anyway?". Some people might, so lets not get all snobby about it. I too could personally give a rat's ass about them & don't have a dog in this fight, just giving you examples from personal experience.

[Lunican]

I think Walkscore's heatmaps are generally correct. Maybe they shouldn't try to be so precise. What is the practical difference between 46.9 and 48.2? They could just use A through F.

[simms3]

Aside from people in Jax looking eagerly to see where Jax stacks up against Charlotte and Birmingham, rest assured most people aren't looking way down the list to see walkability rank of a bunch of cities that aren't walkable.

Aside from a handful of major urban centers, most cities in the US aren't truly walkable as a whole, but have a lot of pockets that are. Besides, what would be the point then of ranking any city at all outside of NYC, Boston, etc if that's your defense for their shoddy data? Believe it or not, tons of people who aren't moving to the handful of major urban hubs still want walkability. So thats a snobbish way of looking at things honestly.

And?  You're the one who apparently really dislikes Walkscore.  If someone wanted to look up the parts of Jax or Charlotte that are actually walkable, they can do so.  I'm sure more people are using that part of the service than looking at the complete ranking list, especially to see which is more walkable "overall".  That's not being snobbish, and who cares if that's snobbish or not?

NYC is larger than Boston or SF.  Much larger.  But it isn't on a whole other level of walkability.  In fact, the density of businesses in SF is actually almost to the same density of businesses in New York (restaurants, bars, laundromats per capita, etc etc).  But SF and Boston are < 50 sq mi and New York is > 300.

Don't confuse "different scale" with level of walkability.

I'm not an idiot & understand scale. NYC has so much density, high rises, a 24 hour world class subway that literally goes anywhere in the city thats open 24/7. Come talk to me when SF can claim nearly 60% of their residents don't own a car (like NYC has).

There's a difference between car ownership rates and walkability.  About the same percentage of people in either city walk to work (around 10% +/-, actually up to 13% for Boston and 12% for DC).  Besides, most people who own cars in either city, at whatever percentage that is, are not using their cars for daily use/commuting.  Now I can understand you having a problem with the "Transit Score", and that's a different thing, but rest assured NYC, Boston, SF, and maybe a couple other cities are all just about the same level of walkability.

Finally - you nitted against Lexington/Louisville/Corpus Christi.  You call those medium to large cities?  I call those small cities.  I have not heard anyone debate "large" cities except for perhaps Miami (one that I have disputed, as well as one of the FEW "incorrect" rankings).

Lexington's population is somewhere around 310k residents condensed into an area with a built in urban growth boundary (much higher in the Metropolitan area where a lot of people live outside the boundary). So yeah, urban elitist attitude aside, thats a medium sized city. Louisville's population is much higher & teeters between large-medium & large, comparable to Cincinnati to its north. A small city is something like St. Augustine. Don't know what else to say about this, but your "small city" reference just isn't correct on any technical level at all.

Louisville and Jacksonville are small cities.  I'd call Lexington and Corpus Christi "towns".  Who's to say who is correct?  Denver is a medium sized city to me and Boston is a large city.  New York is an immense city.  In my mind, my descriptors make more sense and probably more average people would agree, but I'm not going to criticize you for going with some apparently official definition that anything ~1 million and up is a large city.  If San Francisco and Jacksonville are both "large cities", they sure feel like a night and day difference of size to me, one feeling more like a small city.

It's sad to say, but Jacksonville is just not a walkable city.  Whether or not the list is flawed, in your opinion or any other opinion of anyone else out there who feels their favorite cities didn't rank as highly, Jacksonville would likely not make anyone's list of most walkable cities.

It surely isn't & no one is claiming it is. But 6th least walkable in the country? I'm not buying it, esp compared to a lot of what's on that list. But you can live in places in Jax that are extremely walkable/bikeable & have access to most things you need without total car reliance, in a pretty large urban footprint. You can't do that in many of those cities that ranked higher overall in that list. Thats all I'm saying.

And I doubt if many people are debating in their minds which is more walkable, Jacksonville or Corpus Christi, or Lexington vs Louisville.

I was merely using them as examples. If they're flawed, how many others are? I'd say a lot, which is why this list is mostly trash, outside of the major urban areas of course. But like I said, anyone could figure those out. It sounds like you're trying to dismiss the lower populated cities because "who cares anyway?". Some people might, so lets not get all snobby about it. I too could personally give a rat's ass about them & don't have a dog in this fight, just giving you examples from personal experience.

Right, you have to get what I would call "towns" out of there, and all the suburbs out of there.  Leave it to the cities that helm Top 50 or Top 60 MSAs.  Then where are we having problems with the ranking?  I have YET to hear anyone's opinions here on a new list.  LoL

[peestandingup]

Getting the suburbs/sprawl data out of the ranking & focusing on actual serviceable walking/biking area per city would be a good start since those outer areas likely aren't walkable anywhere in the US anyway. It doesn't have to only be the top 50 MSAs either because A. The data used for the tally would still be flawed since those areas still have a ton of it. And B. America is a big place, so no need to only include the biggest of the biggest. A lot of people outside those 50 would be curious to see where their town (or a town they're moving to) might stack up to somewhere similarly sized. Every time these lists come out, newspapers, blogs, news stations, etc are doing a story about it.

Anyways, Jax's land mass killed its score in this regard & the "6th least walkable" is quite unfair IMO. I know its not great (no one is under that illusion trust me), and the size of the sprawl is shamefully bad. But like I said before, I can literally bike from the edge of Avondale, through Riverside, to downtown & either up to Springfield or down to San Marco in a matter of minutes & have all kinds of restaurants, parks, shopping, places to drink & tons of other random businesses along the way, all in an urban setting & footprint. Many of the cities that ranked higher either have very little of that or none at all. But oh, they're smaller land mass so lets shoot them up the "walkability" list even though they really aren't walkable at all anywhere in them. 

Anyone would think thats a bit screwed up. Thats all.