apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I did this when i was buying my condo, my section of montclair gets a score of 100%.

Walking distance is EVERYTHING to me. I don't own a car, and use City Car Share when I do need car. The necessities (grocery, post office, bank, dry cleaner) is less than half a mile from my house.

I've always hated driving, and will gladly walk and lug everything back to my house. Plus, what a great way to get out and move!

The 40 cities they included aren't exactly a complete list - contiguous metro areas that technically encompass several cities (like the Twin Cities) aren't considered large enough, since each city is factored separately.

We got a 91 in our section of Cambridge MA. I'm actually surprised it wasn't a bit higher.

so i searched my address for a small sleepy town outside boston... and it got a 68... the place i'm moving to in the hustle and bustle of davis square is only a 71! interesting...

but the house i grew up in is a 0 out of 100!`

My neighborhood is about a 58 (seems lower than I'd rank it), but Portland as a whole is #10 on the list!

My SoFi neighborhood on Miami Beach got a 77. Not bad, but I think it should get points for the beach. :)

I live 60 miles from Manhattan (in Newburgh, NY), but I commute daily. It was really important to me that I could do that commute without having to rely on a car, since I don't drive. I am walking distance (~1 mile) from a ferry that takes me across the river to Beacon, where I take Metro North to Grand Central. From there, I can walk to my midtown office. It's a very enjoyable commute, actually!

77... not bad for the midwest

That's strange.

How can SF be more walkable than NYC?

Many people don't walk in SF because of the hills.

My neighborhood is a 95 - I live in San Francisco and have been carless for the past 9 years.

My address gave me a 95%, "walker's paradise", but my neighborhood--Dupont in DC--is listed as 99%. I consider it 100%. I'm close to everything, it's all walkable and I like to walk.

The rating is based on what's really near your address and the results for my address include places that aren't there anymore and exclude places that are.

The place where I grew up got a 31, "car dependent." Guess that's why I got a car as soon as I could.

So...my address in Swampscott, MA got a 50. Sounds about right. The only thing worth walking to is the Commuter Rail to head into Boston and The Paradiso- a decent Italian place across the street from the station.

My mostly full time residence in Rockaway Park , NY got a 60. Some decent shopping and restaraunts within walking distance but only 1 block from the beach. That is a 100 in my book...I can hear the ocean from my bedroom and almost never need to put on the AC. Maybe tonight though, it's steaming in NYC today !

My address scored a 37, the next time I move I will make sure I am in a more walkable area. I love having everything right around the corner. My city scored a 52. I'm in Atlanta. I'm surprised, I thought it would score a bit higher.

@art- Walkscore doesn't take into account topography, which is a big factor. That's probably a big reason why SF beat NYC.

In dupont in DC, too, and I got a 100. But some of the stuff they listed (e.g. the hardware store) is no longer open, and I do have to leave or take public transportation to find clothes or furniture. Still, I'm happy not having a car.

My two childhood homes got a 9 and a 22, respectively (though on that second one I'll go out on a limb and say (1) the Holiday Inn does not count as a bar, and (2) the Podiatry store does not count as clothing and music, so there's some accuracy questions).

Although my town isnt very urban, it is very walkable- there is a great path along the main road not to mention trails in the adjacent state park. Then a short (5 min) bike ride away is a small town with shops- its perfect!

kimdog- thats the immediate thing I thought as well, their "ooh-aah" algorithm doesn't take into account topography, which is a gross oversight.

I scored a 52 in Raleigh, NC. I'm suprised it wasn't a little higher considering i'm in a downtown neighborhood,. My parents, however, in suburban charlotte scored a 2. needless to say my childhood was spent wishing for a more urban/walkable adulthood.

I live in Mount Vernon, Baltimore and I the score was 92. It's about right because I don't have a car and I'm able to do all of my shopping in my neighborhood and I'm close to public transportation (buses, light rail, subway, Penn Station) and work (3 blocks).

My neighborhood scored a pretty solid 85, which was actually lower than I thought it would be. With a CVS at the end of my alley, a UPS/Post Office/Oberweis/Jimmy John's/dry cleaner complex across the street, a major grocery chain within a quarter mile, and the best chinese in the city about twenty feet from my door, I don't drive anywhere but work.

I live in Downtown Concord (CA), and my place scored 83. With gas so expensive, I walk everywhere...grocery store, farmer's market, local pub, coffee shop, park(s). I'm also in walking distance to BART and numerous bus stops. My husband prefers to bike, but I'm afraid of being hit by a Escalade, so I stick to the sidewalks!

80 in Cleveland, OH. This is a surprisingly walkable city provided you live in the right neighborhood.

Just because you don't walk because you don't like the terrain doesn't mean you couldn't walk to everything you needed. Which is why San Francisco should still win. Topography shouldn't matter. Hills are good for you.

The section of Boston, I live in, Brighton, scored an 88. I thought it would do better. I'm one block from the T, there's a nice park across the street, there's a huge variety of restaurants and stores within a few blocks. It's the kind of neighborhood where it's nice to go for a walk...just to go for a walk!

I live in SF, and hills *do* matter. There are certain places that I don't go as often because they involve several heinous hills, and sometimes? I don't want to show up to my dinner reservation that sweaty and winded.

SF is more compact than NYC, which is why its score is higher (that, and they count the boroughs, too, for NYC, not just manhattan). But hills do matter, and can affect how often or how far you want to go to do certain things. Or maybe I'm just lazy and slow. Hmm. That could be it.

Oh, and nice pix of someone walking past trash. How walkable is that neighborhood?

My current address scored 85 and my old address in the middle of the city scored 97. Not bad.

The Walk Scores are bogus. I tried an address in Venice, Italy - a city in which you have to walk everywhere because there are no roads or cars.

It gave a score of 45, labeling the address "car-dependent."

It also told me how great Jacksonville's San Marco neighborhood is, with its short blocks and pedestrian oriented design based on Piazza San Marco in Venice.

Snort.

This thing isn't complete. It said there were no grocery stores in my area of Los Angeles, but there were three, including a BIG Ralphs. It still rated high, but it's missing things.

And the place I live now is a suburb on a hill with two busy roads (one is a major trucking route) forming a "V" around us. They list things no regular person would/could go to, like a restaurant supplier, and a closed mini golf park. And these things are at the bottom of a steep hill, with no sidewalks to be found for miles, next to busy roadways! And it rated a 50!

My neighborhood scored a 57 and I'm frankly surprised it got even that. Although most of the places I go are not terribly far, there is no safe way to walk to them. First, most of the streets are very busy, Houstonites drive like maniacs, and there are no sidewalks. Second, it is prohibitively hot on the pavement most of the year. Unless they installed showers at work, I would not attempt it. Another bias on the part of this site that doesn't affect me as much is a failure to consider the crime rates in some areas.

And yes it is a priority for us to move somewhere we can walk to something... anything, really. I'm not sure leaving this sweaty state will be an option, though.

My place in the north half of Dupont (in DC) scored a 98 but I'd like to throw in that even though there are probably at least a dozen restaurants within a 1/4 mile, that doesn't mean more than one or two are any good (as rated by either me or ZAGAT). To have three good places within a 1/2 mile is better than having 50 bad ones within a quarter mile.

My stupid comment just goes to show it's hard to ever be satisfied with the status quo. I did check this site before buying my place.

My city, Toronto, Canada, has an overall score of 97/100. My neighbourhood scored an 88/100.

I walk everywhere and anything I need (subway, groceries, post office, hardware...) or want (movie theatre, local shops, cafes, parks...) is within a few blocks.

Although my neighbourhood is more residential than areas right in the heart of the downtown core (and scored lower), I actually think it's more walkable because it's a bit quieter and has more green space.

They don't even show Minneapolis?!? I think Minneapolis, had it been rated, would be one of the top 10 walkable cities in the US. I know that it has the 2nd highest bike-commuter (year-round too, yikes!) population in the US, second only to Portland, bike-capitol of the world!

And yes, walk-ability is very important to me when choosing apartments.

My street in Amsterdam (the original in Europe) scores only 46. Why? Google doesn't know about most facilities in my area. The nearest drugstore is at 17 kilometers according to Google, while it is really at 300, 350 or 400 meters whether you mean to go to a general store, a druggist or of pharmacy (the US drugstore is not really a Dutch thing). Neither is 80% of bars, cafe's or shops on the Google map (there are a normal supermarket, a turkish and a moroccon one within 300 meters). I'm pretty sure it should be 100 % here: doctor, dentist, taxes, groceries, bakery, general store, pharmacy, cafes, restaurants are all within 500 meters.

Still, the idea is pretty nice. If only the source of the material was better.

I guess I don't live on the same block as Gordon... my section of Brighton scored an 85. I think, other than liking to walk or knowing it's faster than taking the T quite often (depending the distance of travel, time of day or week, etc.), I think it might even be less walkable. Sometimes I'm surprised the short distances people will wait to ride, but I'm willing to walk a lot further - if I'm in the mood.

If I'm not in the mood, everywhere is too far to walk except a couple restaurants and a convenience store. It's just mostly residential, and all the streets are zig-zaggedy and crooked, so no matter how close you are on the map to something, it's actually at least twice as far to walk. I think another thing, if you're used to riding, some distances seem pretty far that are actually close; occasionally the opposite is true. I'm less likely to want to walk somewhere if walking is the only way I could get there. I don't own a car or a bicycle, so if there's no public transportation to help out with a route, I may be carrying heavy items or just feel like getting home from where I went is getting to be sort of a time-consuming bummer.

The Haight, San Francisco--95, baby!

But where I grew up, in North Beach, SF, is a 98!!!

My address in Washington Heights in Manhattan gets a 95, but it's a bit of an overestimate because although there are stores (grocery, hardware, clothing) with a couple of blocks, the quality is not very good. For most things I shop downtown on the Upper West Side, and either schlep on the subway or if I have a lot to carry, take a cab.

I live in Denver which scored 66 (11th most walkable city), however my neighborhood of Capital Hill scored 88. I'm pretty pleased with that.

98 and loving every second of it!

94- downtown Jersey City

Are you kidding me? New York is so much more walkable than San Francisco. I've lived in both cities. I think Walkscore can only tell you so much.

100, on the UWS in NYC...

I've always lived places where everything is within walking distance, probably b/c I grew up in the country, where just getting groceries was a 2-hour endeavor.

KTG,
I live on Gordon Street...
and just for the record, my real first name is Gordon.
Ah, the irony...
Some sections of Brighton aren't as walkable as either of us would like. That hill leading to Whole Foods is pretty steep.
On the other hand, all the cool and funky stores and restaurants on Harvard Ave. are just a few blocks away.

I don't understand how SF is #1 and NYC is #2. SF has one neighborhood that rates 100 and 2 that rate 99. NYC has 3 that rate 100 and 11 that rate 99. By that alone it looks like NYC would be #1. But hey, I love both cities!

Yep, the Toronto site doesn't have things listed, or it has stuff listed under incorrect categories: the corner store up the street is listed as a "supermarket" but the 24 hour supermarket two blocks away isn't listed. The Yoga studio in the next block is listed under 'exercise" but the HUGE U of T athletics centre across the street from my residence doesn't show up at all.

I wish you could correct this stuff.

My current neighborhood got a 72 out of 100 — Very Walkable. However, I don't think this site actually looks at the type of neighborhood, traffic, etc. While distance-wise some things are close, it is a suburban hood full of monster SUVs (yes, even now with gas prices what they are) and crossing major streets involves taking your life in your hands - most drivers just don't expect to see pedestrians. Speed limits are 45 on the streets around me - but most drivers go at least 50. So- yeah- very walkable if you have a death wish.

There are some nice walking paths - and I actually cut through a field and take a back way to the Whole Foods parking lot to avoid having to cross any busy streets. Takes 5 minutes so that's cool. However, as far as getting to places of business that are not right around the block, it's not easy to do on foot.

I spend part of my time in another city in Colorado in an area close to downtown- that address scored 80 and it is SO much more than 8 points more walkable than my permanent address.

A lot of people seem confused about why NYC rates lower than SF - this is quite simple: they include Staten Island, which is obviously not part of New York City.

If they had restricted this to New York City - ie., Manhattan, Northwest Brooklyn, Western Queens, South Bronx, it would have obviously been #1. SI drags the whole index down.

I don't really like that site. It doesn't seem to take into account the quality of the places you can walk to, nor whether you're walking down a highway or through a friendly neighborhood. Or whether there are sidewalks or crosswalks. It also doesn't take public transportation into account -- if there's a frequent subway line right there, it's not a big deal if your neighborhood lacks a couple of types of businesses, and it hardly makes you "car dependent."

Yeah, I know this stuff is all listed under "known issues," but still. Why even bother? It's not really a walkability scale -- it's just a density-of-businesses scale, so of course gross highways covered in stripmalls are going to score highest.

Gordon on Gordon Street! Yay!

I was walking on Harvard Ave near Sunset a few years ago, and some college-aged guys stopped me and my group of friends and asked if we could tell them how to get to Gordon Street. Naturally, I responded with the monologue from The Graduate ("I once knew a girl who lived on Gordon Street..." except ending with accurate directions to this particular Gordon Street, of course). The guys didn't seem to get it, but my friends and I thought we were pretty funny.

Your neighborhood is quite walkable!

it's definitely interesting but basically useless until they take into consideration the following factors:

Topography
Proximity to mass transit
CRIME

Saying Bushwick Brooklyn is more walkable than Williamsburg simply because it has more crappy bodegas is ludicrous.

Also, Pioneer Square in Seattle? have they MET those crackheads?

New York came in at #2 because of outer Queens and Staten Island. San Francisco is much smaller and if NY were just Manhattan, it would have been #1.

That said, my nabe (West Village, NYC) came in with a 98. Funny thing is... all the cities I have lived in as an adult (Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and New York) fall within the top ten walkable cities. I personally cannot imagine owning a car... I would much rather spend my money on toys. My worst nightmare would be to live in a place like Phoenix without a car (OK, honestly even with a car... it's just why?), I would rather slash my wrists.

Well, if they're going to consider crime, they need to use statistics for random crime, i.e., crimes where the perpetrator and the victim don't know each other. I live in a lower-income neighborhood, and my ZIP code also contains a neighborhood with vacant lots and abandoned houses. So, yes, we have a lot of domestic violence, retaliation from people who owe each other money, and a lot of teens without much guidance who get into fistfights and things. We also have areas where kids go to drink and whatnot.

But random crime? People being assaulted while walking down the street? Look at the stats, and that stuff is a lot higher in the expensive downtown areas, where no one ever says anything about being scared to walk. People's fears don't tend to be about actual crimes that are likely to happen to them; they're more about fear of the "other," like people deciding a neighborhood is unsafe to them because there are people walking around collecting recyclables.

The idea that San Francisco is more walkable than NYC is a JOKE.

Staten Island drags us down again!! (I kid) West Village is only a 98 - well I guess cause lack of laundromats? I rarely leave my 10 block radius - sad, I know but everything I need is here.

Shadyside, in Pittsburgh, got an 89...too low, I think- It's near perfect- perhaps the problem with the score is the (noted) lack of feed to this site from our public transit system...which is actually excellent in this part of town-pretty much as good as it gets, with a bus-only "Busway" where the express buses all stop right by my place. Everything I need is here, and lots of neat extras, too.