apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I think there's a fine line between walkability and livability.

For pure livability, I'll take a cul-de-sac in the 'burbs any day. I like the fact that the curvy roads (and speed bumps in some areas) keep speeds down. I see more families walking with their kids for pure recreation in the 'burbs.

My neighborhood isn't cul-de-sacs, unfortunately, but for walking, I can walk about a mile and be near any shopping or eating I want, even sushi. There are no major through streets so kids feel safe enough playing hopscotch in the street. That'd never be possible in a busy "compact neighborhood".

My San Francisco home, atop Uranus Terrace, scored 75, and my Portland condo on Lovejoy kicks glutes at 98. This is pedestrian paradise! Ironically, my legs were undoubtedly better exercised walking that 17th St hill once or twice most days.

Walkability makes the neighborhood feel like home. I noticed that the scoring related more to bookstores and libraries that were closer, though not necessarily to my taste or even accessible to me (such is a limit of google maps), but if there's one bookstore in a neighborhood, there is a good chance that another exists.

And walkability does link to livability, especially if we're committed to reducing consumption of fossil fuels.

Well we all have different viewpoints on that. I won't preach about the benefits of my SUV if you won't preach about your lifestyle being better than mine.

Interesting. I'm in West Berkeley and my address got an 89.

I think livability is purely subjective. My neighborhood is very family-friendly and is a far cry from the burbs.

We can walk to most everything that we need and do it often. There are so many restaurants of every ethnic flavor that you could possibly imagine. We always zig zag along a different path to see a different part of our neighborhood.

Although - the Super Dollar showed as a nearby grocery store on my Walk Score, can't say that I've ever considered buying any groceries there...

And yes, luckily we live in a flat part of the bay area so we don't have any daunting hills to deter us.

I got thwarted by Google as they've blocked access due to too much traffic. :-( That said, I live in a very liveable/walkable neighborhood of Seattle.

True, I have to walk up hill to get to the grocery store or most other businesses in the 'hood, but despite it being a city neighborhood, it's very walkable since I have sidewalks to walk up (and down) on and never have to contend with the traffic, outside of crossing streets.

I walk around the neighborhood often and enjoy it too.

I dunno about the streets in San Francisco, but in Montreal, where much of the city follows a relentless street grid, the narrowness of the streets and the careful placement of stop signs seems to keep traffic speeds reasonable.

83 for me in downtown Oakland, 74 for my parents in North Berkeley. I'd consider the latter significantly more livable than any suburb I've been in (I played lots of hopscotch while growing up, and the kid down the street has football and soccer games in the street all the time).

The TL (or Lower Nob Hill, if you're a real estate agent) scores a respectable 97. I think that in general SF is ridiculously walkable (hills and all) and is one of the reason I love it here.

@amy - I used to live in West Berkeley, and miss the insane density of restaurants.

Ouch. My n'hood in East Oakland got a 49. Most grocery stores listed are actually corner liquor stores. By all standards, my neighborhood could be called suburban, but lacks the livable aspects of the burbs. To make this tool really useful, it should somehow cross-reference crime stats, unemployment rates and school scores, which all speak to a general atmosphere that would inspire or deter walking.

Our former neighborhood scores a 98. As far as being able to talk to most necessities and take mass transit to many of the rest, it truly was a win.

Livability depended on one's exact tolerance for pimp-and-ho shout-offs, mendicants urinating on one's doorstep, and drug-related shootings. It was the shooting across the street in broad daylight that really abraded my tolerance for the 'Loin.

krister and i are in the same 'hood...i'm up on upper terrace, just above clayton and 17th, and my score was 75 out of 100. even with the hills and whatnots, cole valley, the haight, and the mission are within easy walking distance.

i eschew cars, personally. who needs an SUV when you can ambulate most anywhere in SF easily on appendages that grow naturally from your hips...i think they are called legs?? :P

My old 'hood (b/t the Mission and Noe Valley) scored a 94. I put less than 5000 miles on a new car over the course of three years because I could walk to practically everything. I've temporarily relocated to the midwest burbs and am sooooo not enjoying my new dependence on the car.

Wende, I lived in the 'Loin for two years while attending law school at Hastings. Oh the noxious smell of bleach (with an underdraft of pee) emmanating from the UN Plaza fountain!

WEIRD. i type in my address several times and they couldn't find it. you would think i know my address! but i type in my uncle's address which is couple blocks away and it worked. i frankly think the scores don't really mean much, other than satisfying my secret desires for acquiring high scores. ;0)

i type in my parents' home address as well where they live in total burbs. it's not "walkable" by the site's definition but they enjoy the private location where you can walk around and feel like you walk in the nature, not in the midst of shops, etc. so i think the "walk score" is quite subjective.

cheers,

cindy

I think the important thing to remember in this context is how this particular site is defining "walkability". Rather than looking at in as "Is the area a nice place to walk?" it's gearing it towards, "Can you walk or bike instead of using a car?"

Also, it's very much not perfect. I score an 88, but I very specifically chose where I live because it would allow me to sell my car and commute and run errands entirely on foot, bus and occasionally FlexCar. Their metric doesn't seem to weight the more important amenities like grocery stores or drug stores any higher than bookstores or coffee shops (both of which my neighborhood also has plenty of). While I live near a lovely park on narrow tree lined streets (no worries about zooming traffic usually!) I don't consider this neighborhood walkable for those reasons, but because I can live a car-free life here.

My parents live in an area that is very lovely to walk in, and while my mother keeps threatening to buy a grocery cart like mine--it's still over two miles for her to the nearest grocery store. It would be a lovely walk, but not practical for most people in suburban areas.

Whoo hoo! I got a 92. But I love my neighborhood precisely for its walkability. (Although absolutely everything/anything is within walking distance, so I have no idea what's missing that would get it 100.)

Boomer, can one honestly 'preach' about the benefits of owning an SUV? Well I suppose in a suburb, it must be really essential for navigating those speed bumps. Hm, I guess I'm being snarky. . .sorry (SUVs are just a pet peeve of mine). Anyway I'm getting off-track! My neighborhood came in at 95% yay! And yes, it's also extremely livable ;-)

I also live on Upper Terrace so I have the same score as bitsandbobbins, 75 out of 100. I have to admit, I've walked plenty of times down to Haight or Cole Valley, but have yet to walk down the 17th street grade to Castro. The two staircases that I know of (Clifford Terrace stairs and the stairs coming up Upper Terrace) also make this a great place to live, albeit a bit far to walk up and down with more than a cup of coffee and maybe a few small grocery bags!

I demand a recount! My hood scored a 48, but the businesses it recognized were seriously weird. It missed the big grocery store that's only three blocks away and counted an online book dealer as a book store. I walk everywhere...but, admitedly, most places are around a mile away.

Downtown Saint Paul, MN, gets a 97/100. Its a great place to live with the only major shortcoming being the lack of a walkable supermarket. Late Spring through Fall brings the Farmers Market but in winter one has to drive.

This is why I moved downtown.

Cheers!

Sweet. I knew I liked living in Central Square, Cambridge, MA for a reason. We got a perfect 100. Funny how under 'schools' it doesn't list either Harvard or MIT. Not important enough. Heh.

My home (city) got a 90, but my country house got a 0. The fact is that I walk EVERY DAY in the country, but I never walk more than a few blocks at home in the city. The problem with this tool is that it doesn't take into account walking in the woods or down a street just to take a walk. It only counts walking TO something. Which is really stupid. I also totally disagree with the idea that walkability makes a place feel like home. I feel much more at home in the country, where I drive to get places. I know my country neighborhood in a way that I'll never know my city one.

djs, what else do you want this tool to do? Tell you when the next bus is coming and how fast you need to walk?

I'm being facetious of course, but come on... Maybe this site should be called Country Living :) Then we can have tools that tell us where we can find the most pine cones.

Readers' comments are interesting. Of course, Walk Score doesn't compute freshness of air, or deposits of urine or trash, or steepness of hills, or discernment between MIT or the nearest beauty college, or even the worthiness of an SUV for trekking to big box scores. Chill out, folks...it's only a measurement for convenience to certain types of businesses.

Sean G, I'd like it to compute walking trails as well as sidewalks. That's all.

djs: I imagine it does that if the trails are municipal property. The chances of that being the case diminishes quickly in more rural areas.

I think this tool is flawed in a number of ways too.

Cheers!