Walkscore released their 2011 Ten Most  Walkable Cities rankings and the Great Lakes made a showing with Chicago at #4 (typical) and Minneapolis at #9 (I knew they made some serious improvements, but wow). No city in the region has the density of Chicago at their disposal, but they do have under-utilized, walkable urban business districts whose potential has unfortunately largely been left ignored. No Ohio city made enough improvements to squeeze their way in to #10.

Walkscore released their 2011 Ten Most  Walkable Cities rankings and the Great Lakes made a showing with Chicago at #4 (typical) and Minneapolis at #9 (I knew they made some serious improvements, but wow). No city in the region has the density of Chicago at their disposal, but they do have under-utilized, walkable urban business districts whose potential has unfortunately largely been left ignored. No Ohio city made enough improvements to squeeze their way in to #10.

 

The top 7 I agree with sans Seattl.  But Miami, San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach before Cleveland?  WTF!  Seattle and Oakland are suspect!

I think what's really shocking is that Cleveland Heights has an overall walkscore higher than Cleveland. Lakewood, I can see, but Cleveland Heights was kind of a shocker. Also, Athens beat the Three C's:

 

http://www.walkscore.com/OH

 

Sandusky beat Columbus, Toledo, Akron, and Dayton!  :-o

Not shocking at all.  As a whole, both CH and Lakewood are much more walkable than Cleveland.

 

Why was Cincy not listed in the ranking?  It should have been right above Cleveland, no?

It's not as shocking considering Cleveland Hts. doesn't have any rivers, factories, or thousands of acres of vacant lots.

^^That list only shows the 50 largest cities.

I think what's really shocking is that Cleveland Heights has an overall walkscore higher than Cleveland. Also, Athens beat the Three C's:

 

http://www.walkscore.com/OH

 

Not really as Cleveland Heights is a city with several walking districts and neighborhoods.

Most popular being:

• Coventry
  
• Cedar-Fairmount
  
• Cedar-Lee
  

Not to mention

• Mayfield-Lee
  
• Taylor Road between Superior/Washington and Cedarbrook
  
• Noble Road
  
• Mayfield-Warrensville
  
• Taylor-Fairmount
  

It's not as shocking considering Cleveland Hts. doesn't have any rivers, factories, or thousands of acres of vacant lots.

 

I just assumed it was more in line with the city of Cleveland's population density than Lakewood was (Lakewood is famous for being one of the densest suburbs in the Midwest). I guess population losses in Cleveland have done some damage. I always knew Cleveland Heights was an urban suburb, but just wasn't expecting this.

 

Looking at the list, Norwood is another shocker. It beat Cincinnati.

It's not as shocking considering Cleveland Hts. doesn't have any rivers, factories, or thousands of acres of vacant lots.

 

I just assumed it was more in line with the city of Cleveland's population density than Lakewood was (Lakewood is famous for being one of the densest suburbs in the Midwest). I guess population losses in Cleveland have done some damage.

 

CH (on the Eastside) and Lakewood (on the Westside) Mirror (to a degree) one another.

It's not as shocking considering Cleveland Hts. doesn't have any rivers, factories, or thousands of acres of vacant lots.

 

I just assumed it was more in line with the city of Cleveland's population density than Lakewood was (Lakewood is famous for being one of the densest suburbs in the Midwest). I guess population losses in Cleveland have done some damage. I always knew Cleveland Heights was an urban suburb, but just wasn't expecting this.

 

Looking at the list, Norwood is another shocker. It beat Cincinnati.

 

It's not just about the population density, it's also about the amenities that are in walking distance.  Neighborhood retail is really, really lacking in the City of Cleveland and is increasingly dominated by car-oriented shopping centers carved out of traditional retail strips.

Lakewood is right at 10,000 per square mile.  Cleveland Hts. is right at 6,000 per square mile.

In a nutshell, I think this is what's wrong with Ohio (and also Detroit which showed a similar trend in urban suburbs like Hamtramck, Ferndale, Birmingham, Royal Oak, and Dearborn). Our big cities have lost so many people and businesses that they've gotten to the point where the older suburbs are now overall more walkable than the central city. While I think it's great that Cleveland has urban suburbs like Lakewood and Cleveland Heights, that also means stiff competition for the central city. Do a lot of college grads/yuppies/hipsters end up in Lakewood and Cleveland Heights? What are the demographics like?

 

I have to imagine there's some real competition for Cleveland's urban market in Lakewood and Cleveland Heights.

^You are correct.  Just read the stock answers to the people who post about relocation advice.  It always turns into a competition between a few Cleveland neighborhoods, Lakewood and a couple Cleveland Heights neighborhoods.

 

The fact that greater Clevelanders even consider Lakewood and Cleveland Heights (or Shaker Heights, for that matter) "urban," or as being very close to downtown pretty much sums up how sprawled out the region has become.

^I understand the sentiment, but 10,000 per square mile and the second-densest city in the midwest counts as urban no matter what the situation.

And in most cities, those two suburbs would be within city limits.

 

For CH, the high walk score is a direct result of the city's ability to resist the urge to surbanize its streetcar neighborhoods

^ and ^^ Which only highlights how misleading municipal population densities are.

 

EDIT: the last thing I meant to do was start a semantic discussion about what "urban" means.

The walkscore for my suburban area is about as good as downtown Dayton, and I live in a true sprawl suburb.  But since I live in the middle of of shopping centers and stuff like that I actually can walk to as much (and to more of) as I could in downtown Dayton. 

 

I figure if one lived "out in the neighborhoods" in Dayton you'd have a weaker walkscore than in my suburban area.

 

 

Conversely it never ceases to amaze me how people constantly think/refer to the edgewater clifton area of Cleveland as Lakewood. Also, CH and Lakewood are closer to downtown than several areas inside the city limits of Cleveland. Id have to take a closer look at criteria,  but if amenities are located on a street that splits two cities, does that effect a walk score for that city? Also it seems wide expanses of industrial park or nature park in the city would hurt walk scores because they lack people living in them. For example, if lakewood were to maintain all its residents and walking amenities,  but annex a 3 square mile industrial park would the score drop?

^I don't think municipal boundaries matter for computing the walk score for an address or block; it's really based off how many amenities and amenity categories are within walking distance, weighted by how close they are.

http://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml

 

Industrial areas, parks, rivers, etc. do matter but only in the sense that take up space without offering amenities to adjacent residential areas.

Looking at some of the places Ive lived....

 

Cragin neighborhood in Chicago...72 (today..maybe moreso in the 1960s)

Sacramento Old City....82

Suburban Louisville...40 (ugh

 

725 corridor in suburban Dayton...62

 

 

The site also provides "heat" maps of entire metro areas and rankings by neighborhood, which is much more useful than municipal averages (which I'm not sure are even weighted properly): http://www.walkscore.com/OH/Cleveland

^I don't think municipal boundaries matter for computing the walk score for an address or block; it's really based off how many amenities and amenity categories are within walking distance, weighted by how close they are.

http://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml

 

Industrial areas, parks, rivers, etc. do matter but only in the sense that take up space without offering amenities to adjacent residential areas.

 

Ahh. Makes sense. It's also strictly walking. Living across the street from a rapid or bus line does nothing for the score despite making it much easier for a car free lifestyle. I wonder if it accounts for highway barriers and rivers that make walking to something a quarter mile away impossible?

 

I bet those in suburbia who live on a residential street adjacent to a sprawling 8 lane road with big box stores and no sidewalks have much better scores than my pleasant urban neighborhood.

The problem with Walkscore is the reliance on amenities versus true walkability.  For example, there should be no way in hell Washington Township (where Jeffrey lives) should get a score of 62 as it isn't remotely walkable except for some sidewalks and "decent" transit service. 

 

Amenities within .25 miles receive maximum points and no points are awarded for amenities further than one mile.

 

Well any shopping center in America is going to get good points by that standard.

 

Miami isn't remotely walkable and it's in the Top 10.  There are sections of Miami that lack sidewalks and half the downtown is full of Chicago-esque parking boots except that Chicago actually puts retail on the first floor.  Miami does not.  What helps Miami is the structural density due to the swamp schtick that forces it to cram everything together.  That, of course, has nothing to do with walkablility.  As MTS stated, the majority of Seattle isn't 'walkable' by any stretch for it to be Top 10 but I suppose being on an isthmus would force commercial density.  Again, that has nothing to do with being 'walkable.'  There are legit 'walkable' places on that Ohio list (Norwood, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights) but the fact that Sandusky, a smaller city with little commercial retail overlay, sits at a higher position than Columbus, Dayton, Akron, or Toledo is laughable.  Not to say the ghetto areas of Dayton and Toledo are more walkable than the trailer park sections of Sandusky but they were at least built for it.

 

And by most measures, Boston is more walkable than New York.  Oakland is (for the most part) walkable though I wouldn't place it in the Top 10.  I'd put Baltimore and New Orleans over Oakland and Minneapolis.

 

/rant over

as it isn't remotely walkable except for some sidewalks and "decent" transit service.

 

...actually it is rather walkable for sundries (things like light bulbs, birthday cards, household items, band aids, etc), specialty stuff like art supplies,  and quick groceries (milk,  sour cream, some fresh vegtables...and a lot of frozen or canned....as well as cereal, rice, etc) and dry cleaning.  Sure, everything is designed around the car, which means the actual experience of walking is boring and scale-less... but for some reason there are sidewalks on all the streets so you are not walking on the emergency lane to get to places.

 

Yet the distances in some cases are a bit far.  I would say this place is probably more bikable than walkable (say to the post office).

 

I could see how this place could actually be made even more walkable and denser if they plug in more apt/condo buildings at the back end of underutilized parking lots and put in just a few more midblock sidewalks.  "Repairing suburbia" I think they call this concept?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I bet those in suburbia who live on a residential street adjacent to a sprawling 8 lane road with big box stores and no sidewalks have much better scores than my pleasant urban neighborhood

 

Hello!  (its a six lane and there are sidewalks, but yeah, spot on!)

 

 

I generally agree with CDM about the semantics of "walkability", and the site is pretty explicit that it doesn't capture how nice the walk is, but goes off proximity alone.  The other problem is that the data is often kind of screwy.  There are a bunch of establishments mis-classified on googlemaps, etc.  Even though it's rough, I still think the heat maps and neighborhood-level measures are kind of useful, as amenity-density measures if nothing else.

^I don't think municipal boundaries matter for computing the walk score for an address or block; it's really based off how many amenities and amenity categories are within walking distance, weighted by how close they are.

http://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml

 

Industrial areas, parks, rivers, etc. do matter but only in the sense that take up space without offering amenities to adjacent residential areas.

 

Ahh. Makes sense. It's also strictly walking. Living across the street from a rapid or bus line does nothing for the score despite making it much easier for a car free lifestyle. I wonder if it accounts for highway barriers and rivers that make walking to something a quarter mile away impossible?

 

I bet those in suburbia who live on a residential street adjacent to a sprawling 8 lane road with big box stores and no sidewalks have much better scores than my pleasant urban neighborhood.

 

I wonder as I looked up my address and the score for my block is high compared to the rest of the area.

The top 7 I agree with sans Seattl.  But Miami, San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach before Cleveland?  WTF!  Seattle and Oakland are suspect!

 

San Diego and San Jose were not ranked above Cleveland, although San Diego actually has some pretty walkable districts that I would put over any city in Ohio.

 

I would have expected Oakland and Seattle to rated pretty high. What is surprising about those two cities being ranked high?

 

Miami and Long Beach are examples of having a high density of amenities and people within cities which are not actually structured for pedestrians. Basically what ColDayMan pointed out.

 

While I think it's great that Cleveland has urban suburbs like Lakewood and Cleveland Heights, that also means stiff competition for the central city. Do a lot of college grads/yuppies/hipsters end up in Lakewood and Cleveland Heights? What are the demographics like?

 

I have to imagine there's some real competition for Cleveland's urban market in Lakewood and Cleveland Heights.

 

Yeah, there are a lot of young professionals in those neighborhoods as well as dining and nightlife options to serve them. If you live anywhere in Lakewood you're going to be able to walk to a couple of bars at least, that is for sure.

 

Although most of the trendy new bars & restaurants seem to be opening up in the city these days, and I would have to say that Cleveland's most walkable individual neighborhoods are indeed within the city. Not everyone is ready to live in Tremont, Gordan Square, or Ohio city yet due to concerns (real or perceived) with safety.

 

In Cleveland's case that walk score would have increased if Lakewood and Cleveland Hts were added. That is probably not the case with very many cities.

Don't forget that that this is really isn't about "walkability" per se as it is about economic strength of a neighborhood. Many of Cleveland's neighborhoods are very walkable, but they appear so low because they are blighted. The infrastructure and people are there, but the storefronts are empty as grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, clothing stores, and other business have long abandoned their locations for suburban locales or more affluent neighborhoods. Thus, these neighborhoods are no longer walkable by this methodology. But strip mall sprawl with no pedestrian crosswalks, sidewalks, or other walkable features are much more "walkable" by their methodology because, well they are economically more viable by having businesses open.

 

So it should be no surprise at all that Lakewood and Cleveland Heights would do so well, compared to the Cleveland. These are dense inner ring suburbs that have a fair share of affluent and middle class people and will have a corresponding fair share of open businesses to serve them.

 

So when you think about it, the cities listed aren't a surprise. More money and more people spending things in concentration = walkable to the walkscore folks.

 

 

At the same time, doesn't that speak to some serious defects in city policy when you're not attracting those businesses, but urban suburbs right next door have gained them in droves? It's like they don't want these neighborhoods to be walkable/desirable when there's an ideal example right in front of their faces of what to do.. Yes, more work has to be done at this point to get small businesses wiling to move in so, OK, do it already: make it worth their while and they will bring life to certain locations.

Still rocking it at 85/100 in Ohio City.

 

Edit: E 4th Street is now a 98/100! I don't think it's that much better than OC, but ok.

At the same time, doesn't that speak to some serious defects in city policy when you're not attracting those businesses, but urban suburbs right next door have gained them in droves? It's like they don't want these neighborhoods to be walkable/desirable when there's an ideal example right in front of their faces of what to do.. Yes, more work has to be done at this point to get small businesses wiling to move in so, OK, do it already: make it worth their while and they will bring life to certain locations.

 

I see what you're saying, but its not quite that easy. Relocating and creating new businesses in these long abandoned strips has to be viable on many levels for the shop owners. First safety. A lot of these neighborhoods have safety problems real or perceived and you aren't going to have many owners set up here if they or they're customers or they themselves don't feel safe.

 

So let's say the city agrees to permanently station a police officer in front of a new store or block of new stores, your next problem is economics. Many of these blighted neighborhoods are filled with poor people, people who may not be willing or able to spend the type of money these store owners are asking. there simply is not a large enough middle class to support these theoretical shops.

 

In Cleveland I think the West side does a good job, or atleast better job than the East with Main throughfares having a good amount of stores, shops and restaurants that are open, Lorain, and West 25th come to mind, but the East side has an abundance of Avenues (Superior, St Clair, Chester, Carnegie, Buckeye etc. ) that are devoid of any type of stores, though the empty shell of former businesses do still exist.

Conversely it never ceases to amaze me how people constantly think/refer to the edgewater clifton area of Cleveland as Lakewood. Also, CH and Lakewood are closer to downtown than several areas inside the city limits of Cleveland.

 

I just checked on Google Earth: The distance from Jacobs Field (yes, I still call it that) to University Circle, as the crow flies, is 3.9 miles; the distance from the Jake to W. 117th is 4.3 miles. Lakewood is closer to downtown than many parts of the city.

I just checked on Google Earth: The distance from Jacobs Field (yes, I still call it that) to University Circle, as the crow flies, is 3.9 miles; the distance from the Jake to W. 117th is 4.3 miles. Lakewood is closer to downtown than many parts of the city.

 

So is Cleveland Heights (which is just past UC).  In fact, a large portion of Cleveland is both directly north (even northeast) and south of Cleveland Heights, just as there is a large portion of Cleveland directly south of Lakewood.

When I said "certain" locations I should have added "favorable". Investing a lot into one of your worst areas probably isn't the best idea. It would make for a great comeback story (see the Short North), but it usually doesn't quite work out that way since the right pieces of the puzzle aren't there. The walkscore maps hint at what places could be improved and better connected. From the map, you can see that Columbus is unique by being very walkable pretty much non-stop from German Village to Clintonville, but needs to expand this walkability elsewhere, whereas Cleveland and Cincinnati have islands of walkability even where they could be connected. Regardless of which large Ohio city, not many offer a rating of 80 or higher where very high walkability can translate to population gains. While safety can be a tougher sell in some of our urban neighborhoods the same could be said of neighborhoods in other cities that had a bad image when it came to that, yet after a enough businesses clustered together they helped drive improvements that led to better safety and walkability.

 

So not only are urban suburbs offering better quality/walkability than quite a few established urban neighborhoods, but other cities are offering neighborhoods with better walkability and are working on adding more. There are neighborhoods in our cities that we consider "great" which aren't quite there yet, despite what proud residents may say. Cincinnati and Cleveland in particular see a wide gap between the high walkability of downtown vs. urban neighborhoods. Columbus has numbers that are comparable between Downtown and a handful of urban neighborhoods, which saw serious gains in population when you match up these maps to the 2010 census population maps. In any case, these maps make clear that moving on beyond these areas is overdue: we need to take a an east/west coast perspective and invest in our bad neighborhoods to make them the great places they could be, where, unlike really bad neighborhoods like those in top ten Oakland, safety issues today means your customers and their children would need to wear white shirts to avoid being shot.

I am going to agree with the above that San Diego is very walkable. My neighborhood is a 92, and there are several near me similar or better. You can walk to the airport even.  Forgive me for this but there are factors that make it in many ways more walkable (but not measured on this scale) than my beloved Cleve. As a female, there is less harassment- looking back I had become immune from all the  tactics I needed to use in order to fend this off-yes in broad daylight.  While S.Cal is very autocentric, drivers are more courteous to pedestrians-they actually yield to me in the cross walk...and totally unfair, so I feel stupid for mentioning it…but a reality-the weather is more walk friendly year around. 

I agree with the points above and like I've said before Ohio got in on the large scale gentrifying thing late or at an inopportune time (Late 200s recession), but is starting to come around.

 

In ten years I expect Cincinnati from the rive, up vine to UC to be walkable and some may argue it is already, though safety is a concern in some parts of OTR.

 

In Columbus they already have a great head start with High Street, and parts of Grandview

 

In Cleveland I believe Downtown, University Circle and a few other neighborhoods will be multiple times more walkable than they are today.

 

People are realizing that we can do safe, vibrant urban neighborhoods in Ohio and luckily people are investing in them.

The inclusion of Norwood, Oh. (an old-line Cincinnati neighborhood almost directly in the center of the larger city) as one of the three top walkable Ohio communities was no surprise to many.  The center of Norwood is filled with a variety of safe residential streets, a resurrected, mostly service-oriented business district, and great character.  It was a delight to see it recognized as such!

I agree with the points above and like I've said before Ohio got in on the large scale gentrifying thing late or at an inopportune time (Late 200s recession), but is starting to come around.

 

In ten years I expect Cincinnati from the rive, up vine to UC to be walkable and some may argue it is already, though safety is a concern in some parts of OTR.

 

In Columbus they already have a great head start with High Street, and parts of Grandview

 

In Cleveland I believe Downtown, University Circle and a few other neighborhoods will be multiple times more walkable than they are today.

 

People are realizing that we can do safe, vibrant urban neighborhoods in Ohio and luckily people are investing in them.

 

I'm sure areas will become more walkable, but the current approach is missing the mark and unfortunately I see little interest in changing the current approach. Cleveland and Cincinnati were able to multiply downtown populations greatly, but it came at the expense of increasing populations and infrastructure for more walkability even in some urban neighborhoods that had seen some decent gentrification, at least enough that they're favorably used in everyday conversation. Columbus basically followed in their footsteps with over-the-top, diminished returns investments in downtown, but enough residents had congregated to a handful of High St neighborhoods to create a high enough critical mass of businesses and residents to see large gains in population.

 

The problem ends up being the same in each city, especially Columbus; they all expect another Short North or Clifton or Ohio City to just pop up with virtually no assistance, mainly in the financial form, from the city government. This kind of approach will just continue to unnecessarily ensure that improvements continue at a snail's pace outside of downtown and by the time a good number of neighborhoods are walkable, we'll be too old to walk in them. Other cities already programs in place to direct sufficient sums of money to revitalization projects in up-and-coming neighborhoods with compelling results for residents and visitors to enjoy with new-found walkable neighborhoods, with programs for renovations of worn-down commercial buildings being one reason for these areas turning around. We've sadly taken our cue from Indianapolis and as such I don't see enough neighborhoods getting the necessary investments to make them 75+ walkable areas.

I agree with the points above and like I've said before Ohio got in on the large scale gentrifying thing late or at an inopportune time (Late 200s recession), but is starting to come around.

 

In ten years I expect Cincinnati from the rive, up vine to UC to be walkable and some may argue it is already, though safety is a concern in some parts of OTR.

 

In Columbus they already have a great head start with High Street, and parts of Grandview

 

In Cleveland I believe Downtown, University Circle and a few other neighborhoods will be multiple times more walkable than they are today.

 

People are realizing that we can do safe, vibrant urban neighborhoods in Ohio and luckily people are investing in them.

 

I'm sure areas will become more walkable, but the current approach is missing the mark and unfortunately I see little interest in changing the current approach. Cleveland and Cincinnati were able to multiply downtown populations greatly, but it came at the expense of increasing populations and infrastructure for more walkability even in some urban neighborhoods that had seen some decent gentrification, at least enough that they're favorably used in everyday conversation. Columbus basically followed in their footsteps with over-the-top, diminished returns investments in downtown, but enough residents had congregated to a handful of High St neighborhoods to create a high enough critical mass of businesses and residents to see large gains in population.

 

The problem ends up being the same in each city, especially Columbus; they all expect another Short North or Clifton or Ohio City to just pop up with virtually no assistance, mainly in the financial form, from the city government. This kind of approach will just continue to unnecessarily ensure that improvements continue at a snail's pace outside of downtown and by the time a good number of neighborhoods are walkable, we'll be too old to walk in them. Other cities already programs in place to direct sufficient sums of money to revitalization projects in up-and-coming neighborhoods with compelling results for residents and visitors to enjoy with new-found walkable neighborhoods, with programs for renovations of worn-down commercial buildings being one reason for these areas turning around. We've sadly taken our cue from Indianapolis and as such I don't see enough neighborhoods getting the necessary investments to make them 75+ walkable areas.

 

Well, luckily you are going to move to the utopia that is Minneapolis and will be able to leave all this frustration behind.  Seriously, though, you've already made up your mind, so why bother being involved in the discussion?  You clearly don't believe anything's gotten better, you don't believe things will change further, and you certainly don't believe in the people, whether it be city government, businesses... hell, you don't even like the gays.  Either you have given up or you haven't, but you can't continue to be a serious part of the discussion when you already have your mind set on running away. 

I think sometimes native Columbusites (no pun intended) such as myself and Keith M. tend to think about places like Hamilton, Morse, Hillard-Rome, the South Side, Reynoldsburg and 161 a little too much. Those are the places where we were dragged around as kids since there wasn't much going on in other parts of town in those days. What I had to learn to do is basically ignore parts of town that I don't like. When I lived in Cincinnati, I never went to West Chester or Mason (though I wound up working in Florence for a while, I put the foot to the floor when I got off work). So I thought Cincinnati overall was way cooler since my brain had only focused on the interesting parts of town. I still like Cincinnati a whole lot, but I'm not down on Columbus like I used to be since I discovered that it's usually not necessary to spend time in the parts of town you find depressing. If you watch TV or listen to the radio too much, they'll make it sound like all the action is in Lewis Center or something. It's not.

I'm sure areas will become more walkable, but the current approach is missing the mark and unfortunately I see little interest in changing the current approach. Cleveland and Cincinnati were able to multiply downtown populations greatly, but it came at the expense of increasing populations and infrastructure for more walkability even in some urban neighborhoods that had seen some decent gentrification, at least enough that they're favorably used in everyday conversation. Columbus basically followed in their footsteps with over-the-top, diminished returns investments in downtown, but enough residents had congregated to a handful of High St neighborhoods to create a high enough critical mass of businesses and residents to see large gains in population.

 

The problem ends up being the same in each city, especially Columbus; they all expect another Short North or Clifton or Ohio City to just pop up with virtually no assistance, mainly in the financial form, from the city government. This kind of approach will just continue to unnecessarily ensure that improvements continue at a snail's pace outside of downtown and by the time a good number of neighborhoods are walkable, we'll be too old to walk in them. Other cities already programs in place to direct sufficient sums of money to revitalization projects in up-and-coming neighborhoods with compelling results for residents and visitors to enjoy with new-found walkable neighborhoods, with programs for renovations of worn-down commercial buildings being one reason for these areas turning around. We've sadly taken our cue from Indianapolis and as such I don't see enough neighborhoods getting the necessary investments to make them 75+ walkable areas.

 

In Cincinnati's case, I think the city is absolutely doing the right thing in targeting the majority of its redevelopment efforts on the urban core of downtown and OTR.  There areas have been neglected for a long time (OTR especially), and they are the areas that are totally the most walkable in the region.  Cincinnati will never be a city where you can walk from neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood like you can do along the High St corridor in Columbus.  Topography and to a lesser extent, freeways make that not really an option.  Rather, the city is set up in a way where you can usually walk to one or two other NBD's from your neighborhood, and have to take the bus or drive to other parts of the city.  For example, if you live in Hyde Park, you can pretty easily walk to Oakley Square, Obrionville, and Mt. Lookout Sq, in addition to HP Square.  If you live in Clifton you can walk to Clifton Heights and Corryville (short vine), in addition to the Ludlow business district.

 

With focusing on downtown and OTR, Cincinnati is essentially adding another zone that creates a large, safe, extremely pedestrian friendly core.  With the streetcar (assuming it gets going, and gets expanded to uptown), one can see how the two "zones" would be linked, helping to create a larger more cohesive area of pedestrian friendliness.  Most people still won't walk from OTR to Clifton simply because of the huge hill, but linking two walkable areas with fixed rail transit is really about all Cincinnati can do in this regard. 

 

For Cincinnati to ignore its best under performing asset (OTR) in favor of bringing pedestrian friendly developments to outlying neighborhoods such as College Hill, Madisonville, and Roselawn would be unwise.  These must get attention, but right now people are lining up to live in OTR, and that is just not the case in those neighborhoods.  If we create a strong core that people want to go to and spend time in, then you start to see the ripple effect of interest in other city neighborhoods that provide easy access to the core, while still offering the opportunity to live in a house or a less dense environment than OTR.

I think sometimes native Columbusites (no pun intended) such as myself and Keith M. tend to think about places like Hamilton, Morse, Hillard-Rome, the South Side, Reynoldsburg and 161 a little too much. Those are the places where we were dragged around as kids since there wasn't much going on in other parts of town in those days. What I had to learn to do is basically ignore parts of town that I don't like. When I lived in Cincinnati, I never went to West Chester or Mason (though I wound up working in Florence for a while, I put the foot to the floor when I got off work). So I thought Cincinnati overall was way cooler since my brain had only focused on the interesting parts of town. I still like Cincinnati a whole lot, but I'm not down on Columbus like I used to be since I discovered that it's usually not necessary to spend time in the parts of town you find depressing. If you watch TV or listen to the radio too much, they'll make it sound like all the action is in Lewis Center or something. It's not.

 

The problem is that things change.  Some neighborhoods that were thriving 50, 40, 30, 20 years ago may not be doing so now, and neighborhoods that were blighted have now become the new hotspots.  This is how it works everywhere, and there isn't a city anywhere that doesn't have neighborhoods that are ignored more than others.  The economic reality is that not every area of a city can be rebuilt all at once, and like it or not, the focus tends to go to areas that have momentum already going for them.  In Columbus, High Street is still largely the place for that momentum, though it is moving further north and south of the Short North.  Within 10 years, I can see a completely revitalized corridor from Merion Village all the way up through Clintonville, a very long stretch that few cities in the region can match.  However, I also see signs pointing to development away from High.  I think West Broad from Downtown out to 270 is going to be the next corridor.  I live in Hilltop, and something I have noticed within the last 6 months is that more houses seem to be getting fixed up and there is more general attention to infrastructure.  I suspect it's mostly related to the casino, and with Franklinton seeing a bit more attention as well, I hope that these small steps will build upon each other the way that they did over time on High.  The point is that neighborhood rebirth and decline comes in cycles, and there will always be areas that are not particularly desirable.   

I certainly had a different perception of Columbus living way out east near 270 until I started going to OSU and traveled abroad where those experiences made me an urban convert. Even so, my main gripe for the annexed areas isn't so much on how suburban (and subpar) those parts of the city are, but how much more investment they receive in lieu of urban neighborhoods which continue to be ignored aside from the occasional token gesture from the city government. For the urban core, my main gripe is that we still only have one main street: High St. Twenty years ago High St had less going on and was more disjointed yet but was still quite walkable for large stretches. As of today, there is no major urban street in Columbus that is anywhere near where High St was twenty years ago and that scenario likely won't change much since the city hasn't hasn't invested in programs to get these areas up and running, hence why they're stagnant yellowish blurs on the walkscore map.  I don't buy the excuse that Ohio got in too late to the urban revitalization scene in the 2000s for the simple reason that neighborhoods had been seeing efforts since the 80s, but the results aren't what they could be.

 

Just don't tell that to Mr. Walkscore 55 who lives in a world where neighborhoods just magically become better and where it's acceptable for the majority of the city to offer little to nothing. I suggest looking at the walkscore maps of Ohio's cities side by side the 6-10 most walkable. Yes, every city does have neglected areas, but for the objective observer the striking difference is how much larger our ratio of undesirable to desirable areas is and we really should be asking ourselves why we're a good deal behind Oakland of all places. I don't know why people here like to pretend there's a bubble around Ohio that only includes a few more cities outside of the state in the region, save Portland and that nothing that happens out there could ever be compared or applied to cities here.

 

Just what exactly is happening in the Hilltop that would result in a walkable, more desirable W Broad St and Sullivant Ave in ten years? Five years? One year? Your answer of, "well, more homes are being fixed up here" is not going to translate to a new little (less gentrified) Short North. I've seen what you're likely seeing since I posted up fliers for the Spring/Fall Hilltop bike rides that highlight these very changes (didn't see you on any of those either, btw) so before you assume that I'm overreaching in my judgements you should understand where I'm coming from as someone who knows this city better than anyone else in this city save maybe five individuals not including yourself and I don't mean that in a condescending tone for once, just merely factual. Take Olde Towne East which had seen new residents moving in and fixing up homes and compare their residential focus to the commercial focus that Victorian Village/Italian Village/Short North had taken over the past 20+ years. The latter has much more to offer visitors and residents and while the former does have lots of pretty homes there is only a cluster of small businesses in the northwest corner of the neighborhood while the main drag is riddled with boarded up buildings and carryouts over twenty years later. Other cities have designated a few choice blocks of commercial buildings on a rundown strip as being eligible for financial assistance programs through the city to match funds for renovations with the signing of a lease for X year(s). That is what was and still is needed for OTE's E Main corridor and the city has not lifted a finger. The same situation applies to the Hilltop except the Hilltop even had running start with Westgate and mainly saw significant improvements move out southeast of there (such as Wilshire Heights): solely on residential streets. The result of the past twenty years of maintaining the stability and desirability of Westgate while improving the neighborhood streets across Sullivant hasn't even yielded a mere handful of retail like OTE has. Again: 20 years. Factor in commercial building owners not willing to do anything about the huge renovation costs that offset any interest in their low rent and a city government that is not interested in helping out would be small businesses with renovations and you have an impasse. With no discussion even being had this year about this you should ask yourself the implications of what tone that sets for the next five or ten years in the Hilltop: it's the same as the last year, the last five years, and the last ten years.

 

Yes, I am eagerly awaiting my arrival to one of the most walkable cities in the nation that is thankfully right here in the Great Lakes region, but it should be noted that it is the citywide momentum that is the reason for making it in that ranking where even on their worst commercial street you'll now find a business incubator to encourage new restauranteurs to open up shop in the last neglected corner of the city which is worse without question than the Hilltop with no Westgate-like neighborhoods propping it up, yet aside from that tangible changes are there such as a new coffeeshop in a nicely restored brick building, a non-profit bakery, just to list a few additions in the last couple of years, not to mention the hipster bars beginning to spillover from the other side of the river (although I'm sure the highway acts as a barrier to future expansion to a decent degree). Point to examples where that is happening or going to happen in a year on W Broad or Sullivant.

 

The walkscore maps, as pointed out before, show where there are people spending money, investing in X neighborhood. New green spots have popped up mainly in other cities outside of Ohio in the past ten years. Look at any great urban neighborhood and it's virtually always the concentration of small, unique businesses that make these places worth visiting. In Ohio it's the Short North, portions of OTR (yes, this should highly prioritized, even more so if possible) and Ohio City, but where would any of these places be without their small businesses? Other cities have found ways to direct city dollars to much more than downtown to attract entrepreneurs to districts that would otherwise sit mostly empty and unwalkable and more often than not they have moved in to places that had a bad rap elsewhere, but now ten years later have a lot to offer.

I suggest looking at the walkscore maps of Ohio's cities side by side the 6-10 most walkable. Yes, every city does have neglected areas, but for the objective observer the striking difference is how much larger our ratio of undesirable to desirable areas is and we really should be asking ourselves why we're a good deal behind Oakland of all places.

 

Oakland is just more intact and keep in mind it boomed in the pre-WW2 era (it was the same size as Toledo and Columbus in 1930). It's not much younger than San Francisco. It was a major urban center a long, long time ago. The difference is the lack of devastation and or course having real mass transit.

 

Oakland wasn't built more urban than Toledo and Columbus, but more urbanity survived there. Few downtowns saw as much devastation as Columbus. A picture is worth a thousands words. If this is offensive, I'm sorry:

 

Columbus

 

Oakland

 

I don't know why people here like to pretend there's a bubble around Ohio that only includes a few more cities outside of the state in the region, save Portland and that nothing that happens out there could ever be compared or applied to cities here.

 

Agreed. It's way more than just a few cities that are more walkable/functionally urban than Ohio's. I've traveled a good deal around this country, and I've found that most other large cities that boomed in the pre-WW2 era are more intact and walkable than ours.

I suggest looking at the walkscore maps of Ohio's cities side by side the 6-10 most walkable. Yes, every city does have neglected areas, but for the objective observer the striking difference is how much larger our ratio of undesirable to desirable areas is and we really should be asking ourselves why we're a good deal behind Oakland of all places.

 

Oakland is just more intact and keep in mind it boomed in the pre-WW2 era (it was the same size as Toledo and Columbus in 1930). It's not much younger than San Francisco. It was a major urban center a long, long time ago. The difference is the lack of devastation and or course having real mass transit.

 

Oakland wasn't built more urban than Toledo and Columbus, but more urbanity survived there. Few downtowns saw as much devastation as Columbus. A picture is worth a thousands words. If this is offensive, I'm sorry:

 

Columbus

 

Oakland

 

I don't know why people here like to pretend there's a bubble around Ohio that only includes a few more cities outside of the state in the region, save Portland and that nothing that happens out there could ever be compared or applied to cities here.

 

Agreed. It's way more than just a few cities that are more walkable/functionally urban than Ohio's. I've traveled a good deal around this country, and I've found that most other large cities that boomed in the pre-WW2 era are more intact and walkable than ours.

 

Cleveland and Cincinnati both boomed prior to WWII, and seem to also be more intact than Columbus, but I don't think it's just about the when.  If you look at the two pictures, there is a glaring difference: highways.  The highway system devastated Downtown Columbus like few other cities.  In that one photo alone I can see 70, 71, 315, and 670 all cutting swaths near the central core of Columbus, while Oakland seems to just have one or two that don't really cut close, leaving the density intact.  I believe Columbus is still the only major city to have a national highway running through its downtown.  I've seen aerial maps of the city from the 1930s and 1950s and then again in the 1970s and they are just horrific.  So much was destroyed.  And city leadership at the time apparently fully bought into the "urban renewal" concept of bulldozing everything in sight that was in any way, shape of form less than brand new.  What happened to the old Union Station is a classic example.  Only within the last 10-15 years has that way of thinking seemingly been put largely to rest, but not entirely.     

I certainly had a different perception of Columbus living way out east near 270 until I started going to OSU and traveled abroad where those experiences made me an urban convert. Even so, my main gripe for the annexed areas isn't so much on how suburban (and subpar) those parts of the city are, but how much more investment they receive in lieu of urban neighborhoods which continue to be ignored aside from the occasional token gesture from the city government. For the urban core, my main gripe is that we still only have one main street: High St. Twenty years ago High St had less going on and was more disjointed yet but was still quite walkable for large stretches. As of today, there is no major urban street in Columbus that is anywhere near where High St was twenty years ago and that scenario likely won't change much since the city hasn't hasn't invested in programs to get these areas up and running, hence why they're stagnant yellowish blurs on the walkscore map.  I don't buy the excuse that Ohio got in too late to the urban revitalization scene in the 2000s for the simple reason that neighborhoods had been seeing efforts since the 80s, but the results aren't what they could be.

 

Sorry, but no matter how many times you make this argument, it still doesn't match up to reality.  20 years ago, we didn't have High Street.  Oh sure, it existed, but beyond a few pockets around OSU/Clintonville, there was NOTHING.  You should watch the video about the Short North history on Youtube.  It's pretty fascinating, and provides several videos on how the area looked 20-25 years ago.  It looked pretty much EXACTLY like Hilltop or Franklinton or Cleveland Avenue.  The truth is that at the time you're talking about, we had not a single destination street.  Now we have nearly a continuous, city-wide street of revitalized urban success.  That is a huge accomplishment that has been recognized nationally.  You may be the only person anywhere who looks at High and thinks, "Yeah, but what about...?"  These types of successes can and do take many years.  I can guarantee you that in 20 years, Broad through Franklinton and Hilltop will look very different from today.  And I can also guarantee you that other streets around the city will as well.  

 

Just don't tell that to Mr. Walkscore 55 who lives in a world where neighborhoods just magically become better and where it's acceptable for the majority of the city to offer little to nothing. I suggest looking at the walkscore maps of Ohio's cities side by side the 6-10 most walkable. Yes, every city does have neglected areas, but for the objective observer the striking difference is how much larger our ratio of undesirable to desirable areas is and we really should be asking ourselves why we're a good deal behind Oakland of all places. I don't know why people here like to pretend there's a bubble around Ohio that only includes a few more cities outside of the state in the region, save Portland and that nothing that happens out there could ever be compared or applied to cities here.

 

I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks that neighborhoods are magically supposed to become better considering how much you complain that areas get ignored and that the city should spend money it doesn't have trying to save every street in the city.  Simply put, not every street in Columbus or Cincinnati or Cleveland is worth putting a ton of money into, as you are going to be faced with diminishing returns.  One of the reasons that some roads/areas get attention out in the suburbs is because of the population there and the demand.  It's hard for a city to justify spending tons of money where people don't live.

 

Just what exactly is happening in the Hilltop that would result in a walkable, more desirable W Broad St and Sullivant Ave in ten years? Five years? One year? Your answer of, "well, more homes are being fixed up here" is not going to translate to a new little (less gentrified) Short North. I've seen what you're likely seeing since I posted up fliers for the Spring/Fall Hilltop bike rides that highlight these very changes (didn't see you on any of those either, btw) so before you assume that I'm overreaching in my judgements you should understand where I'm coming from as someone who knows this city better than anyone else in this city save maybe five individuals not including yourself and I don't mean that in a condescending tone for once, just merely factual.

 

Wow, you're seriously suggesting you know more than everyone else in the city?  Yeah, how could that ever be considered condescending, let alone pompous.  You are the one who is always saying that it takes just a few brave people to invest in an area to help improve it.  Isn't the act of fixing up homes and infrastructure in an area part of that process?  I'm not saying that what we're seeing is some kind of revitalization boom, but it's a hell of lot more than I have seen since moving to this neighborhood.  The last 6 months have probably been the most active I have seen in all those years combined.  It may not be much, but it's a start.  Every great neighborhood starts this way.  I'm not sure why the Hilltop should be any different.  And tell me, why are you still involved in stuff like this if you are just going to run away to what you consider greener pastures?  For someone who knows everything and has done everything and invested so much time into this city, it seems a little strange to just abandon it.  Why did you bother at all?  I think what annoys me most about you is that you huff and puff about everything you do, and then congratulate yourself about leaving.  You seem to be as much a part of the problem as those you rail against. 

 

Take Olde Towne East which had seen new residents moving in and fixing up homes and compare their residential focus to the commercial focus that Victorian Village/Italian Village/Short North had taken over the past 20+ years. The latter has much more to offer visitors and residents and while the former does have lots of pretty homes there is only a cluster of small businesses in the northwest corner of the neighborhood while the main drag is riddled with boarded up buildings and carryouts over twenty years later. Other cities have designated a few choice blocks of commercial buildings on a rundown strip as being eligible for financial assistance programs through the city to match funds for renovations with the signing of a lease for X year(s). That is what was and still is needed for OTE's E Main corridor and the city has not lifted a finger. The same situation applies to the Hilltop except the Hilltop even had running start with Westgate and mainly saw significant improvements move out southeast of there (such as Wilshire Heights): solely on residential streets. The result of the past twenty years of maintaining the stability and desirability of Westgate while improving the neighborhood streets across Sullivant hasn't even yielded a mere handful of retail like OTE has. Again: 20 years. Factor in commercial building owners not willing to do anything about the huge renovation costs that offset any interest in their low rent and a city government that is not interested in helping out would be small businesses with renovations and you have an impasse. With no discussion even being had this year about this you should ask yourself the implications of what tone that sets for the next five or ten years in the Hilltop: it's the same as the last year, the last five years, and the last ten years.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is here.  Is the argument that things will never change or that change isn't happening fast enough for you?  Also, it seems funny to me that just when the Hilltop and the West Side see real signs of change for the first time in decades, that is when you decide to give up.  It's a real wtf.  You can make snide comments about where I've been in all your many activities, but yeah, I'm not the one who has given up on the city.  Which is worse?

 

Yes, I am eagerly awaiting my arrival to one of the most walkable cities in the nation that is thankfully right here in the Great Lakes region, but it should be noted that it is the citywide momentum that is the reason for making it in that ranking where even on their worst commercial street you'll now find a business incubator to encourage new restauranteurs to open up shop in the last neglected corner of the city which is worse without question than the Hilltop with no Westgate-like neighborhoods propping it up, yet aside from that tangible changes are there such as a new coffeeshop in a nicely restored brick building, a non-profit bakery, just to list a few additions in the last couple of years, not to mention the hipster bars beginning to spillover from the other side of the river (although I'm sure the highway acts as a barrier to future expansion to a decent degree). Point to examples where that is happening or going to happen in a year on W Broad or Sullivant.

 

You really are in for a nasty surprise.  I've been to Minneapolis.  I'm pretty sure there were plenty of streets just like Sullivant.  Minneapolis has plenty of ghettos and streets with absolutely no real commercial presence.  The one thing Minneapolis does have going for it is a relatively tiny urban core.   

 

The walkscore maps, as pointed out before, show where there are people spending money, investing in X neighborhood. New green spots have popped up mainly in other cities outside of Ohio in the past ten years. Look at any great urban neighborhood and it's virtually always the concentration of small, unique businesses that make these places worth visiting. In Ohio it's the Short North, portions of OTR (yes, this should highly prioritized, even more so if possible) and Ohio City, but where would any of these places be without their small businesses? Other cities have found ways to direct city dollars to much more than downtown to attract entrepreneurs to districts that would otherwise sit mostly empty and unwalkable and more often than not they have moved in to places that had a bad rap elsewhere, but now ten years later have a lot to offer.

 

I'm in agreement that small businesses do make a big difference in the development of neighborhoods.  But you miss a vital point in comparing city to city.  Not every city has a revitalized urban center/downtown so that it can focus on other areas.  Columbus put the focus on where it was needed first: Downtown.  Now that it's well on its way, we are, by your own admittance, starting to see signs in other areas of the city.  Maybe it's too late for you, but for myself I can understand the timeline.

Wow, so much text yet so much silence on addressing my points. Yes, High St 20 years ago only had a few stretches and again no other major street has anything close to those today, which was my point. How you guarantee W Broad to catch up while no new desirable businesses open up is beyond me.

 

Once again, look at the walkscore maps side by side and look at how disproportionate the red-yellow vs green areas are. No one lives in those neighborhoods? I thought you did. You mean like the Hilltop and other neglected neighborhoods that have thousands of residents? I've already provided concrete examples that the city has money, but chooses to spend it frivolously: see the new bike lanes and sidewalks on sprawling Morse which barely get used and only cost over $10 million or so, which depending on the stretch included ranks 51-59 on walkscore. That $10 million could have been spent on W Broad which could actually be walkable if there was stuff to walk to. Another falsehood addressed and buried.

 

I didn't say I know the city better than everyone else here, just almost all of them and I have the pictures to prove it.

 

I don't know how much more clear the OTE example could be: fixed up homes does not = revitalized neighborhood. For that you need an emergence of good small businesses, which has only recently in 20+ years of progress begun to show signs of expanding. Take a walk down E Main in OTE between Downtown and Wilson to see how much new stuff is there after over 20 years of residential improvements with no focus on E Main. the densest commercial street in the neighborhood. Other cities, in half that time, have neighborhoods that went from offering very little to a lot: much more than just a few blocks of Parsons and an intersection of Oak. The Short North, again, serves to prove that ignoring the crucial role of small businesses will ensure a very slow revitalization process. Some houses being fixed up doesn't mean much if there is nothing going on in the commercial department. How many new businesses have opened on W Broad in the past year or two? How many are slated to open this year or the next?

 

When you answer that question and apply it to other major streets it's no wonder that I'd prefer to support someplace where the wheels are in motion *now* for more walkability/more new places to go in up and coming areas on all sides of the city, rather than just sitting around waiting for who knows how many years more for streets like W Broad to have at least one handful of new places I want to go to on a regular/semi-regular basis. They're attracting small businesses to locate in urban neighborhoods on an impressive scale in Mpls. Columbus by comparison is content to do what it's been doing the past few years for the next few years, rinse and repeat. Go ahead and take a streetview tour of the green spots in Minneapolis and check out their W Broad in Phillips on E Lake. Yes, it could use further improvement on some of the pawn shops and car shops that dot it, but the storefronts actually have more than carryouts: they even have Mexican restaurants and markets that are located in urban buildings along this stretch where as similar buildings on W Broad, despite better aesthetics, sit mostly empty and as a result are not so walkable.

 

You couldn't even answer direct questions posed to you such as what new businesses are poised to move into your own neighborhood this year or the next: I take it that is because the answer is very close to 0. Next time you enter a lot of text make sure to address my statements instead of going off on tangents.

 

Pittsburgh, btw, ranked a full five points higher on walkscore than Cincinnati (64 to 59), Ohio's most walkable big city, despite the industrial collapse that hit their economy and didn't exactly leave them with bundles of money for urban revitalization. If that doesn't prove that we're not doing as much as we could in this state, I don't know what would. Sitting around and saying everything is just fine as other cities in our own region surpass us in desirable walkable environments is not going to make them less walkable and less attractive alternatives.

 

What I find interesting about Columbus is that, while its downtown is one of the most devastated of large American cities (in terms of lost fabric and preponderance of parking lots), its old, close-in neighborhoods are more intact than those of so many cities that did a better job of preserving their downtowns. Granted, a lot of those old homes are in bad shape, but the streetscapes are intact, the housing stock remains, and, in most directions, residential redevelopment is taking place. The commercial corridors, however, are much slower to be redeveloped.

 

As for the decimation of downtown Columbus, probably the single biggest reason is the zoning code. Columbus adopted a suburban-style code for the whole dang city, including downtown, which had all sorts of stupid parking requirements. So developers, by law, had to provide lots of parking spaces, and they bought and demolished hundreds upon hundreds of buildings and demolished them for surface lots in order to meet code. Until about a dozen years ago, you could have put a 7-Eleven with parking out front at Broad & High, but to build a mixed-use tower there you'd have had to get a variance.

 

You couldn't even answer direct questions posed to you such as what new businesses are poised to move into your own neighborhood this year or the next: I take it that is because the answer is very close to 0. Next time you enter a lot of text make sure to address my statements instead of going off on tangents.

 

 

Er, a lot of businesses aren't going to announce what they're doing until they're ready to promote their opening so that somebody doesn't steal their idea.