Walkable Neighborhoods
Jul. 26th, 2007 06:24 pmToday I found Walk Score, a website which uses Google Maps information to calculate walkability scores for any US street address you type in. It basically looks for businesses in several categories that are in walking distance, then calculates a score based on the types of businesses, how far away they are, and how many of them there are. It also gives you a map showing all the locations.
It is agreed that there are many problems with the calculation, most based on the fact that only distance is used to calculate how easy it is to walk to a place. Better data would include such issues as safety, aesthetics, and walking distance rather than point-to-point distance.
And it doesn't tell you how good the stores, gyms, etc. are. Each category looks overly broad.
I think adding bus stops and, of course, the houses of your friends, would also make the results more helpful, but you'd still have the problems of not knowing whether the bus stops were for good buses.
It is nevertheless agreed that the numbers it provides are generally pretty good indicators. I tested this myself on several locations I know something about. 0 is the worst possible score and 100 is the best.
* my place (fairly good) - 48
* my parents' place (boring) - 31 (it turns out more places have been built since I lived there)
* my sister's place (empty suburbia) - 11
* my last place (fair) - 48
* my favorite place I've lived (quite good) - 74
* my current employer (quite good) - 82
Basically, these scores are ranked about as I expected. My current place is definitely better than my last place, but you can't tell because Google does not yet realize that the old airport even has streets in it, let alone businesses.
They also give score ranges and what they mean, and based on the scores I found, I disagree with the cut-off points. For example my current and last place, which both have scores of 48, fall just inside the "not walkable" range, and I could definitely live without a car at both places (if I could get to the houses of my far-away friends somehow). Scores between 50 and 70 are said to have many walkable locations but many everyday trips still require a car. They think you need a 70 to live someplace walkable whereas I think you need about a 45. But I was raised in places where you could walk only to schools and corner stores or drug stores and, if lucky, a library and a grocery store.
Overall, I love this site. And if I ever move again, consulting this site will be right up there on the priority list, just below getting the house inspected but above checking the flood plains. I love, love, love being able to walk places.
Oh, that's another problem with this site: of course your score could change quite a lot after you move into a place. So far, my walkability has only gotten better (for example, Wards was replaced by Target).
Oddly related journal entry - Observations from Single Ma's New 'Hood - "After nearly 3 months of exploring my new surroundings, I've made quite a few - let's call them - 'interesting' observations:
10. Every other vehicle is a Mercedes, Beamer, or luxury SUV
[snip]
1. Valet parking at the doctor's office
*faint* Where the hell am I???? ... I just wanted a good school district."
It is agreed that there are many problems with the calculation, most based on the fact that only distance is used to calculate how easy it is to walk to a place. Better data would include such issues as safety, aesthetics, and walking distance rather than point-to-point distance.
And it doesn't tell you how good the stores, gyms, etc. are. Each category looks overly broad.
I think adding bus stops and, of course, the houses of your friends, would also make the results more helpful, but you'd still have the problems of not knowing whether the bus stops were for good buses.
It is nevertheless agreed that the numbers it provides are generally pretty good indicators. I tested this myself on several locations I know something about. 0 is the worst possible score and 100 is the best.
* my place (fairly good) - 48
* my parents' place (boring) - 31 (it turns out more places have been built since I lived there)
* my sister's place (empty suburbia) - 11
* my last place (fair) - 48
* my favorite place I've lived (quite good) - 74
* my current employer (quite good) - 82
Basically, these scores are ranked about as I expected. My current place is definitely better than my last place, but you can't tell because Google does not yet realize that the old airport even has streets in it, let alone businesses.
They also give score ranges and what they mean, and based on the scores I found, I disagree with the cut-off points. For example my current and last place, which both have scores of 48, fall just inside the "not walkable" range, and I could definitely live without a car at both places (if I could get to the houses of my far-away friends somehow). Scores between 50 and 70 are said to have many walkable locations but many everyday trips still require a car. They think you need a 70 to live someplace walkable whereas I think you need about a 45. But I was raised in places where you could walk only to schools and corner stores or drug stores and, if lucky, a library and a grocery store.
Overall, I love this site. And if I ever move again, consulting this site will be right up there on the priority list, just below getting the house inspected but above checking the flood plains. I love, love, love being able to walk places.
Oh, that's another problem with this site: of course your score could change quite a lot after you move into a place. So far, my walkability has only gotten better (for example, Wards was replaced by Target).
Oddly related journal entry - Observations from Single Ma's New 'Hood - "After nearly 3 months of exploring my new surroundings, I've made quite a few - let's call them - 'interesting' observations:
10. Every other vehicle is a Mercedes, Beamer, or luxury SUV
[snip]
1. Valet parking at the doctor's office
*faint* Where the hell am I???? ... I just wanted a good school district."
no subject
on 2007-07-27 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
on 2007-07-27 10:16 am (UTC)no subject
on 2007-07-28 03:27 am (UTC)no subject
on 2007-07-28 11:18 am (UTC)Basically, I think the walk score thing is a better toy than really useful tool at this point, especially for smaller locales.
no subject
on 2007-07-28 02:22 pm (UTC)It would also be a fun thing to check if you're trying to decide between two job offers. Hey, it could happen. That's what I've heard anyway.
no subject
on 2007-07-28 03:31 pm (UTC)I agree with elevengirl that this site is of questionable value if the data is this far out of date. Things can change a lot in three years. Of course, my area really isn't very walkable, so it would not have steered a person wrong who was looking for a place where a car isn't necessary. But given how obvious that is merely by looking at it, I'm not sure how this adds information unless a person is actually planning to buy a house or rent an apartment in an unfamiliar city sight unseen.
no subject
on 2007-08-01 02:25 am (UTC)77 Woo-Hoo
on 2007-07-30 09:45 pm (UTC)My previous address (3 blocks south of the Colorado Capitol) scored an 82.
And my office (downtown Denver) scores a 92.
Woo!
Re: 77 Woo-Hoo
on 2007-08-01 02:26 am (UTC)