apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

This list seems kind of trite to me. It basically just lists America's largest cities, including LA (with the disclaimer that many people don't know how walkable their city actually is?) Any city no matter how large or small is walkable if you move to a neighborhood with close conveniences (grocery, laundry, restaurants etc) as apposed to living out in the suburbs...

Boston is pretty darn walkable because it's compact. I do live way out a few miles in Brighton, but staying within the reasonable urban limits, it takes about an hour to walk anywhere from anywhere else.

There's no way San Francisco is more walkable than NY. The public transportation system in New York is so much better than SF. Really, I think a more meaningful list would be one that rates the public transportation systems. Just because I'm lucky enough to live near amenities doesn't really mean the city is walkable. It would still take me and hour and a half to get downtown by bus and walking--a mere 3 miles away!

I noted this on the renest site, but the walk score website is definitely not error proof. I put in my address and got a score of 80, and then someone's a block away and got a score of 65! Also, some of the businesses that pop up on the left, which seem to contribute to the walkability score, are out of date, including a bookstore that closed about 5 years ago (and a school I've never heard of).

I'm glad a SFan said it first, I doubt SF is more walkable than NY. Enter your own address and see all the errors the program makes - it missed a large city park a block away from my apartment.

The other thing this doesn't take into account is topography... another reason why NYC is really more walkable than SF.

Kimdog, I was just going to make that point until I saw your comment. I can walk in NYC for hours but walking an hour in San Francisco is absolutely killer on the calves and booty!

I agree. I've lived in both NY and SF, and there is NO WAY that SF is more walkable. NY is 10 times easier to get around on foot.

I agree -- I don't think that their measure of proximity to basic amenities necessarily equates to "being able to live car-free." (and on a side note, they consider a 7-11 to be a grocery store, which I suppose it sort of is, but not really.) It's too bad they couldn't include a measure of the distance people must commute to get to work, or distance to major public transportation -- all they really measure is density of certain types of businesses in any given area.

The website that computed the rankings acknowledges some of the shortcomings of its results here: http://www.walkscore.com/how-it-doesnt-work.shtml

The problem with the site is that it only looks at the proximity of stores, schools etc. Just out of curiosity I put in my old address and it listed a store that, while only .32 miles away, would require you to walk across a four lane highway bridge spanning a river that does not have sidewalks!

Hooray for Long Beach! It's always been one of my favorite places, in part because I could leave my car parked for days at a time and enjoy the city by foot.

Has anyone ever walked up those hilly streets in S.F.? Based on that alone, I don't understand why this city is #1.

Ha! I walk up and down punishing hills every day here in SF! And really, there are some places that while close, are just too many hills away some days. As I said in the previous post on this - I don't want to show up to my dinner reservation sweaty and winded, which can happen on any number of 6-block walks in this town.

Clearly, topography was not taken into account.

NYC has similar scores, but no hills. it definitely wins for true walk-ability.

Portland is very walkable, the public transportation here is great and it is pretty compact for the most part. Not to mention all of downtown is free for public transportation.

nothing wrong with hills and if you walk them regularly.....surprize.....you don't sweat on them. my 75 yr. old mother in law walks potrero hill daily during her visits.

we regularly walk potrero, bernal heights, telegraph hill, liberty hill and the assortment of amazing stairways around san francisco. (there's even a book on hidden san francisco stairs). along bus corridors i routinely see people getting on and off the same bus as i walk.
i rent a po box requiring a 2 mile round trip to pick up mail.

meanwhile professionally i see obese people, (with all the associated complications - diabetes, hypertension, reflux, back and knee pains, sleep apnea...), commuting large distances for work and eating too much takeout...for convenience.

our reluctance to walk has made us the fattest western nation in the world.

i don't think "most walkable" really matters, either sf or nyc is fine. i just think we need to walk and bike more.

I love to walk in downtown Boston. I can start out on historic Beacon Hill and pretty much have the 19th century sidewalks to myself, then cross the Common, and be in the middle of our vibrant, crowded Chinatown in no time.

In my own Brighton neighborhood, I almost always go for a walk after dinner, just for pleasure.

I really think Boston should be number one. I've walked NY a million times and walked SF a lesser number - just based on scale Boston has them beat. I can walk from my house in Cambridge to downtown Boston in less than 30 minutes. I can also walk to every major point in Boston - city hall, dmv, grocery store, movie theatre, arts district, entertainment district, courthouse, museums, etc - with or without using public transit.

Agreed about topography being an overlooked issue on that site, and also that some of the "proximity to stores" results are bogus if you know the area. I've tested the site using my current and various past addresses, and some of the results just don't make sense IRL. Still, it's a good starting point for evaluating neighborhoods.

As for SF versus NYC, one possible reason for SF taking the top spot may be that it's much more compact, so possibly proximity to amenities and public transit is more constant throughout, versus NYC which does have more remote areas. Really, though, I think this is due more to a faulty ranking system; NYC seems more walkable to me.

It is a strange metric that they use. It has me walk past my local large chain grocery (three blocks away), the full-service Kosher grocery, and the small Greek grocery, all the way to a small Korean grocery about a half mile away. Weird. And it does refer to a few stores that have been long gone, before I moved to my current place five years ago.

New York is definitely more walkable than Boston. Too many insane drivers in Boston.

I may be biased, but DC should be ranked much higher..."The nation's capital isn't particularly known for walkablility, beyond the expansive National Mall and hordes of visiting tourists. But many neighborhoods are arranged with good accessibility". Ask a DC resident. We walk in the city or take the metro, and do not attempt driving. The national Mall is a great place to walk as well, even at the height of tourist season (now)

I live in Philadelphia which was ranked at #5. Yay! So glad they made the list. Just wondering how accurate this is though, from all the comments I've read above.

If you look at this blurb from walkscore.com's website, you'll get an idea of where some of the problems come from: "We are currently using "as the crow flies" distances rather than walking directions. This means if you live across the lake from a destination, we are assuming you will swim. And if you live in a subdivision with long curving streets with few intersections, we hope your neighbors don't mind you walking through their back yard." That being said, the site is still a great tool or house/apartment hunting.

No southern cities!? Columbia, Charleston, Savannah, Richmond, even New Orleans? (DC doesn't count, sorry.) Based on what I experienced living in Columbia and traveling to other Southern cities, public transport is not as developed as NY or Boston, but walking/bicycling/running seem to be preferred alternatives.