America's Most Walkable Cities

The great economic reset we are in the midst of extends even to Americans' choices of places to live. The popularity of sprawling auto-dependent suburbs is waning. A majority of Americans--six in 10--say they would prefer to live in walkable neighborhoods, in both cities and suburbs, if they could. Writing in The Wall Street Journal a few months ago, I noted how changes in our economy and demography are altering "the texture of suburban life in favor of denser, more walkable, mixed-use communities." Christopher Leinberger has shown the positive effects of walkability in cities, towns, and suburbs; the architects Ellen Dunham Jones and June Williamson have detailed ways that older car-oriented suburbs can be retrofitted into more people-friendly, mixed-use, walkable communities. And walkability pays. According to research by Joe Cortright, housing prices have held up better in more walkable communities.

Walkscore.com, the online group that rates walkable neighborhoods, provides detailed data on walkability for 2,500 cities and 6,000 neighborhoods across the United States. Nate Berg of planetizen used their data to come up with a new way to rate and rank America's most walkable cities and metros. The chart below shows his results. The first column shows how metros stack up on walkscore.com's overall walkability index. The second lists Berg's calculation based on the number of neighborhoods in these metros that have above-average walk scores. (Details on Berg's methodology are here.)

Most Walkable Metros

By Walkscore	By % of above avg neighborhoods
San Francisco	San Francisco
New York	Boston
Boston	Philadelphia
Philadelphia	New York
Chicago	Washington, D.C.
Seattle	Chicago
Washington, D.C.	Denver
Portland	Seattle
Los Angeles	Portland
Long Beach	Long Beach
Baltimore	Los Angeles
Denver	Fresno*
Milwaukee	Austin
San Diego	Baltimore
San Jose	Atlanta
Las Vegas	Tucson
Sacramento	San Diego
Atlanta	Houston
Fresno	San Jose
Omaha	Omaha^
Albuquerque	Columbus
Austin	Milwaukee
Houston	Louisville
Columbus	Las Vegas
Detroit	Albuquerque
Tucson	Sacramento
Dallas	Dallas
Phoenix	Detroit
Mesa	Mesa*
San Antonio	Nashville
Louisville	Kansas City
Fort Worth	Phoenix
Kansas City	El Paso
El Paso	Charlotte
Oklahoma City	Oklahoma City^
Indianapolis	San Antonio
Memphis	Jacksonville
Nashville	Fort Worth
Charlotte	Indianapolis^
Jacksonville	Memphis*

Source: Nate Berg of planetizen, based on walkscore.com data.

Either way you slice it, San Francisco tops the list, followed by the East Coast communities of the Bos-Wash corridor: NYC, Boston, Philly, and D.C. Seattle and Portland do well, as does Chicago. Somewhat surprisingly, L.A. scores reasonably highly on both metrics.

With the steady statistical hand of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, we examined the correlations between this new walkability data and key economics and demographics of metro areas.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census, American Community Survey, and Nate Berg of planetizen, based on walkscore.com data.

As before, we found significant associations. Walkable metros had higher levels of highly educated people (.44) and of the creative class (.46). Perhaps more significantly, they also had higher incomes (.64) and higher housing values (.55), more high-tech companies (.58), and greater levels of innovation (.4).

Walkability is more than an attractive amenity--it's a magnet for attracting and retaining the highly innovative businesses and highly skilled people that drive economic growth, raising housing values and generating higher incomes.

About the Author

Richard Florida is a co-founder and editor at large of CityLab and a senior editor at The Atlantic. He is a University Professor and Director of Cities at the University of Toronto’s Martin Prosperity Institute, and a Distinguished Fellow at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”