Jacksonville: Sixth Least Walkable City in North America

[JFman00]

WalkScore's 2015 Rankings

Cities with over 200,000 population.

Doing better than Charlotte at least?

[peestandingup]

Lexington-Fayette 33.9
Louisville-Jefferson 31.2
Corpus Christi 35.7

Jacksonville 25.5

Bull...shit. Where to start with this. First, Lexington is more walkable than Louisville? Not EVEN close. Lived in both. Way more walkable districts in Louisville than Lex. Not to mention bike paths.

I have livable experience with Corpus as well. That city has basically zero walkability. The walkable urban districts it does have are so small & so crappy it shouldn't even be a discussion. But, yeah. More walkable than Jax I guess with its entire Riverside district, San Marco & basically everything downtown & to the north. K.

Walkscore's metrics has always been crap to me. I've never trusted them after they told me an address I was visiting was "very walkable" because it was near a suburban mall. The address had no sidewalks, no bike lanes, hell, not even a shoulder to walk on. Garbage site.

[thelakelander]

With walkscore, cities that had annexed sparsely developed suburban/rural areas or those that have consolidated with their core counties are largely penalized. I love Miami, but it's not the 5th most walkable city in the country. It's certainly not more walkable than Chicago, DC, Seattle, etc.  It just happens to only be 35 square miles in total land area.

[simms3]

With walkscore, cities that had annexed sparsely developed suburban/rural areas or those that have consolidated with their core counties are largely penalized. I love Miami, but it's not the 5th most walkable city in the country. It's certainly not more walkable than Chicago, DC, Seattle, etc.  It just happens to only be 35 square miles in total land area.

This, however, in my experience Walkscore does get its top cities right.  Miami is an exception, like you said.  They have to have a mathematical methodology/algorithm - they can't just say in their "collective opinion" this is how it is.  And that algorithm does have its faults, though for most cities those faults are pretty few and far between.  I have few disagreements with the list.

[peestandingup]

With walkscore, cities that had annexed sparsely developed suburban/rural areas or those that have consolidated with their core counties are largely penalized. I love Miami, but it's not the 5th most walkable city in the country. It's certainly not more walkable than Chicago, DC, Seattle, etc.  It just happens to only be 35 square miles in total land area.

This, however, in my experience Walkscore does get its top cities right.  Miami is an exception, like you said.  They have to have a mathematical methodology/algorithm - they can't just say in their "collective opinion" this is how it is.  And that algorithm does have its faults, though for most cities those faults are pretty few and far between.  I have few disagreements with the list.

Its nothing about opinion, those algorithms are seriously flawed. Most times they deem a location "walkable" because of what might be around it (like a mall close by that has lots of stores/places to eat). They sometimes don't take important things into account like road infrastructure, paths, bike lanes, etc. Which you know, is kinda important if we're talking about a "walk score".

They may get the big urban areas right, but anyone could do that. DC, NYC, etc are walkable? Shocker. Its when you drill down into the other medium to large cities that have sporadic walkability that things fall apart fast, which is basically most of the country. They fail at this almost every single time, give a city as a whole a bad score (because it might be sprawling, like Jax) & give other ones a better score overall because they're more condensed, even though they're terrible for getting around without a car & have actual walkable urban areas that are the size of a postage stamp.

[simms3]

^^^Well and isn't it true that on a relative basis all the "unwalkable" cities like Jax and Charlotte are all pretty much equally unwalkable in the grand scheme of things?  And cities like NYC, SF, and Boston are all pretty much more or less equally walkable?

"Shocker" yes, but everyone gets all butt hurt over Walkscore when it's probably just more accurate than people care to like, whether or not the "alogrithm is flawed" or not.

Personally, there are few things about the list I find disagreement with (though candidly just going off of previous years as I haven't looked past 1-10 on this list).  I've never spent time in Corpus Cristi.  I've never spent time in Lexington, KY (never been to either of the previous two).  I actually find the core of Charlotte to be more walkable than Jacksonville's, but the list ranks Jacksonville ahead of Charlotte.  So minor disagreement but it's like saying which is uglier, a troll or an oger.

I can totally agree with #1, #2, and #3 on this list, based on my experience.  I'd give the edge to NYC, then to SF, then to Boston.  So somehow, looking at purely urban cities, the algorithm does get something right and is able to tell which urban city is more walkable, all else equal.

I think it gets confused by two things:

1) Very sprawly cities that have low density (most American cities, like Jax and Charlotte)

2) Dense cities that actually aren't really all that walkable (Miami and LA)

It gets dense, urban cities pretty much correct, in my book, and it gets mid-tier urban cities like Milwaukee, Providence, and Denver pretty much correct, going off of memory and my own experience in those cities.

How about this?  How about cities like Jax get their act together so that mathematical algorithms don't have such a hard time computing what is basically incomputable?

[Tacachale]

WalkScore is okay for finding walkable areas within whatever city you're in, especially if you're not familiar with the area, but yeah, it's pretty worthless for comparing cities to one another. It more or less doesn't work for a place like Jacksonville, as it includes all of suburban Duval County within the "score".

[simms3]

I just have to ask - all the tiny cities aside, what is wrong with this list and how would you have it changed?  It seems to me any city scoring below a 40 is pretty unwalkable.  Is it really that easy to tell if one city in the <40 category is considerably more or less walkable than another?  Looking at this list, of the cities I *have* been to, it seems Walkscore does get it pretty much right, even with these cities.

Albuquerque 39.6
Orlando 39.3
Tucson 38.9
Riverside-San Bernardino 38.9
El Paso 38.7
Las Vegas 38.6
Phoenix 38.3
Baton Rouge 37.3 (smaller city limits)
Tulsa 36.0
Austin 35.4
San Antonio 33.7
Memphis 33.0
Birmingham 33.0 (smaller city limits)
Kansas City 32.1
Fort Worth 31.6
Oklahoma City 31.6
Louisville 31.2
Raleigh 28.8
Indianapolis 28.7
Nashville 26.5
Jacksonville 25.5
Charlotte 24.4

How should this list change?  I mean, really, who's been to most of these places to even say?  These cities for the most part are autocentric, sunbelty cities with very little walkability.  Ranking them subjectively is literally impossible, so what's a better mathematical way to rank them?

[ProjectMaximus]

From the beginning walkscore was intended to be help provide simple analytics and not give an all-encompassing breakdown of an area's walkability. I remember in its infancy the founder, or lead-engineer, or someone, was warning people that they do not consider safety/security/lighting/weather/transit/accessibility etc in their algorithm. So, don't expect it to tell you everything.

I use it to get a basic idea of what amenities are nearby. It's just a starting point in my research.

Walkscore's metrics has always been crap to me. I've never trusted them after they told me an address I was visiting was "very walkable" because it was near a suburban mall. The address had no sidewalks, no bike lanes, hell, not even a shoulder to walk on. Garbage site.

Being walking distance to a suburban mall is better than not. It certainly makes some things possible, though obviously if you don't look beyond the numbers I can see how you'd be irked. I find it helpful to click on the map and see what's really what.

[thelakelander]

Walkscore doesn't really irk me, but I do take these lists with a grain of salt. As a few have stated, the walkscore maps are good if you're not familiar with a place and you want to know what areas are the most walkable.

I've been to the cities in bold on this list below:

Looking at this list, of the cities I *have* been to, it seems Walkscore does get it pretty much right, even with these cities.

Albuquerque 39.6
Orlando 39.3
Tucson 38.9
Riverside-San Bernardino 38.9
El Paso 38.7
Las Vegas 38.6
Phoenix 38.3
Baton Rouge 37.3 (smaller city limits)
Tulsa 36.0
Austin 35.4
San Antonio 33.7
Memphis 33.0
Birmingham 33.0 (smaller city limits)
Kansas City 32.1
Fort Worth 31.6
Oklahoma City 31.6
Louisville 31.2
Raleigh 28.8
Indianapolis 28.7
Nashville 26.5
Jacksonville 25.5
Charlotte 24.4

For the most part, these places are really interchangeable. Autocentric mid-sized cities with downtowns of varying vibrancy. Those that have struggling downtowns tend to have a few walkable districts outside DT that are larger than what you'll find in some of their autocentric counterparts.  Orlando and Jax are good examples.  DT Orlando is more vibrant than DT Jax, even though DT Jax covers more land area.  However, Riverside/Avondale is significantly larger and lively than Thornton Park.

How should this list change?  I mean, really, who's been to most of these places to even say?  These cities for the most part are autocentric, sunbelty cities with very little walkability.  Ranking them subjectively is literally impossible, so what's a better mathematical way to rank them?

IMO, from my experience, Jax's core is more walkable (although still deserving to be at the bottom half of walkscore's rankings) than what you'll find outside of a few main streets in Raleigh, Charlotte, Orlando, etc.  However, when I'm talking about core, I'm also including inner city neighborhoods like Durkeeville. Imo, a neighborhood full of corner stores, beauty salons, parks, a mix of uses, etc. can still be walkable, even if it isn't trendy or gentrified with new development. As far as ranking these places, with little exception (ex. rapid growing cities like Austin or those who went urban renewal crazy...like Jax can be an exception), old pre-WWII population density data can give you a pretty good idea of if a community has a decent sized built urban environment.

For example, click on this link and look at the population density of all the cities on this 1950 Census (last census before sprawl started taking over our urban areas) list:

https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab18.txt

65 years later, nearly every city that had more than 10k residents/square mile in 1950 is still denser in their core than "comparable sized" cities today. With little exception (ex. Detroit due to decline, etc. or LA/Miami due to growth in density, etc.), they are still "walkable" in a large sense today. In fact, you can come close to nailing walkscore's top 10 if you ranked the cities by 1950 density, while excluding the communities in the 1950 list that are below walkscore's population cut off number.

[simms3]

- I've been to the cities in bold on this list below:

- For the most part, these places are really interchangeable.

- In fact, you can come close to nailing walkscore's top 10 if you ranked the cities by 1950 density, while excluding the communities in the 1950 list that are below walkscore's population cut off number.

- You have far more travel experience than most, with ALL cities, not just the ones worth visiting ;-)

- My point exactly.  Once you get "south of" Providence or Milwaukee or Denver in terms of walkability, does it really matter at that point?  Is Charlotte really "behind" Jacksonville or Oklahoma City really "above" Jacksonville in this regard?  If there's a difference, it isn't perceptively noticeable to anyone not as nerdy about these things as we are.

- I totally agree and see the same thing with pre-1950 density.  They knew how to build/design cities back then.  We just don't, nowadays, no matter how progressively we try.  For instance, even in uber-dense and progressive cities such as New York and San Francisco, there is a huge leap and bound in difference of walkability/urbanity between more newly built areas and areas that were already built up pre-1950 (fortunately the vast bulk of either city in this case).  It's actually pretty sad when newer, less progressive cities try so hard to be walkable in this day and age.  I can still appreciate the attempt, though.  Also, why I prefer a setup like Oakland to the recently heralded Arlington, VA, which to me is a death trap of New Urbanist chains and blase architecture/design (same density for each).

[thelakelander]

Lexington-Fayette 33.9
Louisville-Jefferson 31.2
Corpus Christi 35.7

Jacksonville 25.5

Bull...shit. Where to start with this. First, Lexington is more walkable than Louisville? Not EVEN close. Lived in both. Way more walkable districts in Louisville than Lex. Not to mention bike paths.

I've visited both on multiple occasions. Without digging in too deep, this probably has something to do with Lexington having less low density sprawl than Louisville. Like Jax, both cities have merged with their core county but Lexington has had an urban growth boundary in place since 1958....so it's been largely spared in the amount of low density sprawl built across the country since the mid-20th century.  Even today, it feels like a small older city/college town, immediately surrounded by country.  Nevertheless, yes.....in reality, pre-consolidated Louisville is much more walkable and dense than anything in Lexington.  That reality may not show up on walkscore, but it does show up in pre-1950 census data:

https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/twps0027.html

Louisville Population and density between 1910 - 1950:

1910   223,928       20.7 sq mi      10,818/sq mi
1920   234,891       22.4 sq mi      10,486/sq mi
1930   307,745       36.0 sq mi      8,548/sq mi
1940   319,077       37.9 sq mi      8,419/sq mi
1950   369,129       39.9 sq mi      9,251/sq mi

Prior to the era of sprawl and freeway construction, Louisville was one of the south's largest cities. Find that core 20.7 to 39.9 square miles  of pre 1950 Louisville today (minus the parts removed for freeways and projects) and you'll find yourself in some decent walkable areas (Ex. Old Louisville, Germantown, Highlands, etc.) that nothing in Lexington, which was the size of present day Daytona before consolidating with Fayette County in the 60s, can compete with. Btw, if one wants to get a good idea of what old Jacksonville's working class Northside/urban core neighborhoods used to look like, several parts of Louisville (another "river" city) have the same type of feel and density.





With that said, Old Louisville is probably one of the best looking historic districts in the south!

[peestandingup]

^^^Well and isn't it true that on a relative basis all the "unwalkable" cities like Jax and Charlotte are all pretty much equally unwalkable in the grand scheme of things?

Sure, if you're looking at the entire county/city. This is where their data falls apart in these ranked city lists because its taking into account sprawl. We know we're sprawled, like every other city in the US (it's America not Europe after all). Some more than others, but still. Like I mentioned, if I went by their lists, then I'd assume that Lex & Corpus are way more walkable than Jax, and that just isn't true at all. Its not even the same ballpark, but there they are much higher ranked. I'm just saying, someone moving to those higher ranked cities expecting somewhat walkability would be pretty pissed. Hopefully no one's that stupid to just go by one site's data, but you get the point.

And cities like NYC, SF, and Boston are all pretty much more or less equally walkable?

No. NYC is on a whole nother level than Boston & SF.

"Shocker" yes, but everyone gets all butt hurt over Walkscore when it's probably just more accurate than people care to like, whether or not the "alogrithm is flawed" or not.

No one's butthurt, but clearly their shit isn't accurate. I, and Lake, have given several examples why it isn't in lots of cases. And that's only the medium to larger sized cities we've been to & have personal experience with.

How about this?  How about cities like Jax get their act together so that mathematical algorithms don't have such a hard time computing what is basically incomputable?

Granted, but if its incomputable, then don't come out with flawed lists to begin with.

[simms3]

^^^Well and isn't it true that on a relative basis all the "unwalkable" cities like Jax and Charlotte are all pretty much equally unwalkable in the grand scheme of things?

Sure, if you're looking at the entire county/city. This is where their data falls apart in these ranked city lists because its taking into account sprawl. We know we're sprawled, like every other city in the US (it's America not Europe after all). Some more than others, but still. Like I mentioned, if I went by their lists, then I'd assume that Lex & Corpus are way more walkable than Jax, and that just isn't true at all. Its not even the same ballpark, but there they are much higher ranked. I'm just saying, someone moving to those higher ranked cities expecting somewhat walkability would be pretty pissed. Hopefully no one's that stupid to just go by one site's data, but you get the point.

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.

And cities like NYC, SF, and Boston are all pretty much more or less equally walkable?

No. NYC is on a whole nother level than Boston & SF.

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.

"Shocker" yes, but everyone gets all butt hurt over Walkscore when it's probably just more accurate than people care to like, whether or not the "alogrithm is flawed" or not.

No one's butthurt, but clearly their shit isn't accurate. I, and Lake, have given several examples why it isn't in lots of cases. And that's only the medium to larger sized cities we've been to & have personal experience with.

Lake hasn't disputed the list at all (at least from what I can gather).  Everyone, myself included, has pointed out there are flaws.  But few cities can ever be compared apples to apples (see your example above where NYC is geographically much larger than nearly any other city on the list AND yet more walkable).

Also, every year all sorts of people have all sorts of problems with this list.  Internet nerds (like us and countless others) DO get super butthurt over these things (just look at your posting history in this thread!).

Anyway, let's suppose Jax were a core of 50-100 sq mi.  Do you honestly think it would still dramatically shoot up that list?  Let's compare Jacksonville's core 50-100 sq mi (or even less) to Charlotte's, Austin's, Nashville's, Birmingham's, or Louisville's.  First relative to each other do you think there are mega differences?  Perhaps.  I would guess Jax still falls towards bottom of pack.  All of these cities relative to others?  They're all still bottom of the pack, and to most, wherever they fall within that bottom of the pack...who cares?

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).

How about this?  How about cities like Jax get their act together so that mathematical algorithms don't have such a hard time computing what is basically incomputable?

Granted, but if its incomputable, then don't come out with flawed lists to begin with.

It is computable.  Walkscore uses addresses only.  90++% of Jacksonville addresses are in developed areas of 1500-3000 ppsm (which is absurdly low density for a city...the spread in density between Riverside and the SS is actually quite small as Riverside is really not even that dense).  Jacksonville doesn't get discounted for forest land, swamp, park space, etc if there are no addresses there.  In fact, I'd bet they are looking at residential addresses, in which case having office parks and industrial parks doesn't discount a place either.

And even so, do you not realize that cities like SF, Philly, and a few other cities are about 30+% undeveloped land and would get similarly penalized if this were the case?  For instance, as dense as SF is, a huge percentage of it (close to 20%) is official parkland (only 14% for Jacksonville) and another huge percentage is either undeveloped hilltop or industrial wastelands.

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

[Tacachale]

^^^Well and isn't it true that on a relative basis all the "unwalkable" cities like Jax and Charlotte are all pretty much equally unwalkable in the grand scheme of things?

Sure, if you're looking at the entire county/city. This is where their data falls apart in these ranked city lists because its taking into account sprawl. We know we're sprawled, like every other city in the US (it's America not Europe after all). Some more than others, but still. Like I mentioned, if I went by their lists, then I'd assume that Lex & Corpus are way more walkable than Jax, and that just isn't true at all. Its not even the same ballpark, but there they are much higher ranked. I'm just saying, someone moving to those higher ranked cities expecting somewhat walkability would be pretty pissed. Hopefully no one's that stupid to just go by one site's data, but you get the point.

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.

Perhaps, but then most people aren't looking at the list at all. And if they're not using it to check the "walkscores" of different cities, what's the point of it at all? Except, of course, to find the walkable parts of a new city.

And cities like NYC, SF, and Boston are all pretty much more or less equally walkable?

No. NYC is on a whole nother level than Boston & SF.

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.

Again, this seems like more evidence that the scores aren't very accurate.

"Shocker" yes, but everyone gets all butt hurt over Walkscore when it's probably just more accurate than people care to like, whether or not the "alogrithm is flawed" or not.

No one's butthurt, but clearly their shit isn't accurate. I, and Lake, have given several examples why it isn't in lots of cases. And that's only the medium to larger sized cities we've been to & have personal experience with.

Lake hasn't disputed the list at all (at least from what I can gather).  Everyone, myself included, has pointed out there are flaws.  But few cities can ever be compared apples to apples (see your example above where NYC is geographically much larger than nearly any other city on the list AND yet more walkable).

Also, every year all sorts of people have all sorts of problems with this list.  Internet nerds (like us and countless others) DO get super butthurt over these things (just look at your posting history in this thread!).

Anyway, let's suppose Jax were a core of 50-100 sq mi.  Do you honestly think it would still dramatically shoot up that list?  Let's compare Jacksonville's core 50-100 sq mi (or even less) to Charlotte's, Austin's, Nashville's, Birmingham's, or Louisville's.  First relative to each other do you think there are mega differences?  Perhaps.  I would guess Jax still falls towards bottom of pack.  All of these cities relative to others?  They're all still bottom of the pack, and to most, wherever they fall within that bottom of the pack...who cares?

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).

Yes, Jax would get a higher score if they only considered the 50 (or even 100) square miles around Downtown. It's simple logic - you'd be looking at the vast majority of the city's most walkable areas while excluding roughly 800 square miles of suburbs. Nashville and Indianapolis would also do better; they're both consolidated as well. And again, if the scores can't be used for this, what good are they?

How about this?  How about cities like Jax get their act together so that mathematical algorithms don't have such a hard time computing what is basically incomputable?

Granted, but if its incomputable, then don't come out with flawed lists to begin with.

It is computable.  Walkscore uses addresses only.  90++% of Jacksonville addresses are in developed areas of 1500-3000 ppsm (which is absurdly low density for a city...the spread in density between Riverside and the SS is actually quite small as Riverside is really not even that dense).  Jacksonville doesn't get discounted for forest land, swamp, park space, etc if there are no addresses there.  In fact, I'd bet they are looking at residential addresses, in which case having office parks and industrial parks doesn't discount a place either.

And even so, do you not realize that cities like SF, Philly, and a few other cities are about 30+% undeveloped land and would get similarly penalized if this were the case?  For instance, as dense as SF is, a huge percentage of it (close to 20%) is official parkland (only 14% for Jacksonville) and another huge percentage is either undeveloped hilltop or industrial wastelands.

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

It doesn't take an algorithm to tell you that. Again, more evidence that the site isn't very accurate or useful.