Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LA looks like 1.34 million over 70, just did a quick calc, does that sound right?
Though judging from what neighborhoods I consider doable as far as walkable/car light in Chicago and other areas I know, I'd say the score needs to be closer to 75-80. I've never actually lived anywhere under 87 according to their site though, and some of those were certainly a bit more walkable than others. My personal cutoff of neighborhoods I'd consider in Chicago is right around 85 looking at their chart, includes most neighborhoods and areas I have considered or lived in. Below that is pushing it and I might consider having or using a car more to be honest.
I suppose 85 would be about my threshold to live and not really need to use my car much or have one at all. Other people will have their own tolerances.
LA looks to have 450k or so at over 85 walk score, not too shabby actually and not that far behind SF.
450k is not bad at all, and it doesn't take into account +85 cities like West Hollywood, and parts of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Glendale, etc--all which are more concentrated than the San Fernando Valley and more contiguous with L.A.'s urban core. Structurally, and because of how polished and urbane it is, I consider San Francisco's core region (the city itself) more walkable than L.A.'s, regardless of walkscore. Pleasant walkability is highly subjective though, and something no algorithm can ever properly gauge. Having said that, L.A. is hardly unwalkable as many claim. It just needs better transit to sorta bring all its vibrant areas together IMO. It'll come eventually.
Chicago has 679k residents living in 85+ walkscores. For a single city, that is bested only by New York.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 10-27-2012 at 02:40 PM..
Agreed, though still being a newer city Seattle does well, especially for its density. Dweebo's graphs were the best way, I think Seattle still did decently.
NYC is the largest of the cities and has the highest % of its metros population within city limit for larger cities (not in Texas or Arizona) yet manages to have a high walkscore anyway. But I think San Francisco scored higher than New York City until Walk Score redid its numbers for the size reason.
NYC is just a monster. 8.2 million people with an 85 walkscore--that's more people than all but two metro areas in the U.S., and it doesn't even include 85+ neighborhoods in Jersey, LI and the lower Hudson Valley. In terms of scale of walkability (among other areas), NYC is highly impressive.
New York City I can understand. But LA? Hell no. That place is a gigantic suburb. The reason LA is on people's radar is because Hollywood movies are made there. Anyone who doesn't believe this can ask someone who isn't into movies/glamor/pop culture what they think of LA.
I don't agree with this guy
But wtf ? Yes LA. Its not just a suburb . that word is sooooooooooooooooooo misused on CD. Anywhere there aren't skyscrapers are suburbs?? Lmao. LA is much note world class than Chicago but don't get me wrong I like Chicago. Its a big beautiful Midwestern city
But it ain't on NYC and LAs level. Not YET anyways.and no LA is not just famous for being the entertainment capital of the world. Its much more than that.
I don't agree with this guy
But wtf ? Yes LA. Its not just a suburb . that word is sooooooooooooooooooo misused on CD. Anywhere there aren't skyscrapers are suburbs?? Lmao. LA is much note world class than Chicago but don't get me wrong I like Chicago. Its a big beautiful Midwestern city
But it ain't on NYC and LAs level. Not YET anyways.and no LA is not just famous for being the entertainment capital of the world. Its much more than that.
hahaha LA is way below New York level, and below chicago for that matter. just look at this graph: Global city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NYC is listed as Alpha++, while Chicago and LA is in the alpha category, and Chicago is above int in that level too. LA is not even close to being as urban as NYC or Chi.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
