Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Walkability Factor
Let’s lighten it up just a bit – for those who value living in a neighborhood where most services are within walking distance, here’s a link to a website that not only ranks the ‘walkability’ factor of a specific home address, but also lists the closest shops and restaurants, and their distance.
Posted on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 1:51 PM in Thinking of Buying? | 17 Comments » | 
Print
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I got a 77, seems like mine should be higher!
kbeachguy | February 10th, 2010 at 2:27 pmhttp://www.walkscore.com/get-score.php?street=1320+ocean+ave+del+mar+california+92014&go=Go
I’ve done this before. I still score a solid 0. # miles as the crow flies to the nearest commercial spot. 5+ miles to that node. A bit less than 4 road miles to the nearest services. Am I a bad person?
Rob Dawg | February 10th, 2010 at 3:01 pmRob,
You aren’t a bad person, but when Gas hits $5/Gal
again, you will be a hurting puppy.
Pat
PS You’ve stopped writing on Casey “Snowflake” Serin. Has he just become boring?
pat b | February 10th, 2010 at 3:09 pmI have a 14! Can’t beat walking from where I’m at for peace and quiet! My dog would rank it atleast 90 out of 100!
doughboy | February 10th, 2010 at 3:46 pmWalkscore.com was a factor in my home shopping. I used it as motivation for some of my HomeVal home evaluation form ( http://homeval.kwaping.com/ ). My home’s score is 72.
Note that a higher walk score not only means you can walk to stuff instead of drive, but when you do drive your trips are often much shorter. I love my home’s location for that!
Kwaping | February 10th, 2010 at 4:08 pmHow about a bikeability factor. Would have to include the existance of hills, but otherwise the radius is at least 5 to 6 times that of walking and with panniers you can actually carry a good bit of stuff. (People go camping self contained on bikes).
Lyle | February 10th, 2010 at 6:04 pmWalkability factor in my neighborhood means how many liquor stores are in a one mile radius from your house.
Art Eclectic | February 10th, 2010 at 6:30 pmWalkability is a valid and up and coming consideration. But walkscore is horrible. My walkscore is “somewhat walkable”, and completely ignores the fact that I am two blocks from by far the biggest employer in my town, a university, which virtually everyone in my neighborhood works for. We have one car and put about 6K miles per year on it.
If you look at the nitty gritty, you will find all sorts of errors. For example, an old school in my neighborhood has been converted to a book depository by the district. According to walkscore, it’s a library!
Pay attention to walkability, but ignore walkscores!
Blissful Ignoramus | February 10th, 2010 at 8:14 pmSounds like zillow.
Jim the Realtor | February 10th, 2010 at 8:39 pmIt’s so funny to come across a post like this. I was a coordinator on a similar project for a San Diego County city back in the early 2000′s. We performed a quantitative engineering analysis of their desirable destinations, demographics, roadway speed limits, sidewalk presence, sidewalk widths, curb ramps, ADA crosswalk buttons, etc. Also on our project team was a noted national walkability expert who performed a qualitative analysis of other factors such as business types, sidewalk widths, landscape architecture, street lighting, etc.
I recall sitting in on a meeting of department heads and mentioning that we were working with a nationally-recognized walkability expert on this project, and the senior engineers in the conference room, many of whom are current public works directors or their equivalent, laughed it off. Oh, how times have changed.
Greekfire | February 10th, 2010 at 10:15 pmI have to agree that the scores are a bit off. I lived at 8th and Beech, downtown, during college. Downtown had stuff down on the “flats” but not up on cortez hill. And the hill was a factor. Yet that scores a 94.
My house in Glenside PA was truly a walkable neighborhood – restaurants, grocery store, hardware store, a few bars, a state store, a SEPTA train station… It only scored an 84.
I’m surprised my house in UC scored a 52. We walk to Vons/Riteade/Lornas… but it’s not the most friendly walking area – hills, lack of curb cuts in key spots, cars that drive like maniacs.
UCGal | February 11th, 2010 at 6:20 amThis score only computes whether or not there is at least one thing in several categories (restraunt, park, etc.) within a mile, with extra points if it’s closer. It doesn’t count how hilly an area is, whether or not there are sidewalks, whether or not jobs are nearby, etc. My Riverside house gets a 68. I get penalized because there isn’t a bar within a mile of my house (never mind there’s about a dozen restraunts within that radius, several of which sell liquor). However, it counts a store with the word “theater” in it as a movie theater, when the closest actual movie theater is over two miles away.
Basically, it’s not perfect, but it’s probably as good as an automated score like this could be. Very Zillow-like, as Jim said.
Geotpf | February 11th, 2010 at 7:40 amOne fault I had with walkscore was that they would subtract from the walkscore for not having things nearby that didn’t matter to you. For example, my family doesn’t drink alcohol, so no bars is not a big deal for us. That was partly the inspiration for the “don’t care” rating on my own evaluation site.
Kwaping | February 11th, 2010 at 9:05 amThe dilemma one faces with walkability is that it brings one in proximity with other people, which while it has benefits, also has drawbacks. I would much prefer a large estate on massive acreage. I grant there are those that want to walk to the cafe. I’ll be in my castle.
PS: better, Jim?
KnifeDodger | February 11th, 2010 at 3:39 pmYes, thank you, and love the thought.
Walking to the cafe has it’s drawbacks: You could get mugged, hit by car, or pay $8 for a cup of joe, etc.
Jim the Realtor | February 11th, 2010 at 4:06 pm86!!!
Touchdown, San Diego!!!
W.C. Varones | February 11th, 2010 at 5:39 pm97, not bad.
Maybe that’s why I only put around 1,200 miles/year on my car. Hmm…
Big E | February 11th, 2010 at 7:36 pm