OKC's Low Ranking on Walkability Makes New York Times List
From the New York Times:
(Lowest rankings for walkability)
31. El Paso
32. San Antonio
33. Fort Worth
34. Kansas City
35. Memphis
36. Oklahoma City
37. Indianapolis
38. Charlotte
39. Nashville
40. Jacksonville
Read the whole story here.
(Thanks to Grant Humphreys for bringing this to my attention)
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
The suburban phenomenon wasn’t a result of flight from urban density, but rather because of cheap land becoming accessible by cheap motorized transportation. Being a child of the suburbs (who like most didn’t have a clue of what we were missing) I too was of the opinion that pedestrianism only occurred in parking lots. And back then I would have agreed with Steve… so what? America works on cars!
Cities like OKC that developed mostly after the establishment of car culture, were designed to accommodate the cars, not the people on the street. Pedestrianism happens organically in successful urban environments not because the people want exercise or to reduce pollution, but because that’s the best mode of transportation!
Steve is correct in saying that better walkability won’t improve life for the majority of city dwellers. But is that a valid reason to abandon improving it for the minority? No. Urban OKC is in the midst of a transformation that deserves better walkability.
Ironically I actually like all of the cities on that list except El Paso and Jaxville. All of them are also more urban than OKC..
Dennis ~ And pedestrianism is the “best mode of transportation” why?! Be at least a little quantitative.
Also, city planning is usually around benefitting the most people for as little dollars as possible. Which minority are you referring to?
Steve,
People won’t drive a car when it’s easier to walk. THAT’S when pedestrianism becomes the best mode of transportation.
The planning that created Rose Creek didn’t benefit people living in downtown. Only an egalitarian thinks that every plan has to benefit every citizen. If downtown shouldn’t be improved because you suburbanites don’t understand the plan, then the converse should also be true, shouldn’t it? That thinking just doesn’t work…
I’m referring to the growing minority of Oklahoma City urbanites.
And to this comment, I’d reply … so?! I realize that walkability is good because it promotes exercise and reduces pollution. But many people, especially families, don’t live in the city, hence the rise of the suburb long, long ago. Making a city “more walkable” by the articles definition, won’t raise the quality of life for most people.