98... right here in downtown cleveland... who knew :wink:

It doesn't count transit access in its scoring, but it does include movie theaters. Figure that one out.....

 

yeah emphasis on movie theaters. i live above a subway and busstop and have dance and performance theaters & stuff like that all around, but just because i have to walk a few blocks to go to the movies.....!?

 

however, as long as you are well aware of the quirks i suppose it's still an ok tool for guess-timating walkability. it's a very good idea and if it was tweaked and kept current it certainly has potential to be much, much better.

 

 

It doesn't count transit access in its scoring, but it does include movie theaters. Figure that one out.....

 

Because the purpose of the site is walk ability.  If your neighborhood is walkable, you shouldn't need transportation.  That's what I gather at least.

So this latest study puts us at 14th best. Should we change the name of this topic to something more neutral?

^so what was your "low" score?

I live on Shaker Square, you can't get any more walkable that SS.  I scored a 75, down two points from February.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,13526.0/msg,257946.html

 

There are still inaccuracies.

 

Question? Can the two "walkable" cities threads be combined?

Old Brooklyn got a 62 out of 100 for a "somewhat walkable neighborhood"

 

I would probably agree with that assessment.  They did have me walking an extra mile to go to "Jeremiah's Food Mart"? instead of the Giant Eagle a half mile from my house that is technically in Brooklyn...

 

I live on Shaker Square, you can't get any more walkable that SS.  I scored a 75, down two points from February.

 

 

Yes, you can....live downtown, 100 baby.

 

I live on Shaker Square, you can't get any more walkable that SS.  I scored a 75, down two points from February.

 

 

Yes, you can....live downtown, 100 baby.

 

Let me rephrase that.  SS has to be one of the most walkable neighborhoods in Cleveland, yet our score doesn't reflect that.

 

I live on Shaker Square, you can't get any more walkable that SS.  I scored a 75, down two points from February.

 

 

Yes, you can....live downtown, 100 baby.

 

Let me rephrase that.  SS has to be one of the most walkable neighborhoods in Cleveland, yet our score doesn't reflect that.

 

so for the 287th time on this thread we want to rehash the issues with walkscore?

 

I live on Shaker Square, you can't get any more walkable that SS.  I scored a 75, down two points from February.

 

 

Yes, you can....live downtown, 100 baby.

 

Let me rephrase that.  SS has to be one of the most walkable neighborhoods in Cleveland, yet our score doesn't reflect that.

 

so for the 287th time on this thread we want to rehash the issues with walkscore?

 

Well I'm on topic! :-D :wink:

Just for kicks I did my address again. A highlight:

 

Category: Bookstores

.34 mi

Columbus Adult Store

605 North High Street

Columbus, OH

(800) 273-9847

Searching for reviews...

How did I miss this walkscore thread the first time around  :? :? :? It seems like I spend half my life checking this website...

You missed not one Walkscore thread but TWO Walkscore threads, now, combined into ONE easy-to-miss thread courtesy pf pope.

 

Summary: Walkscore is a joke.

From here: http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/columbus-ranked-27th-most-walkable-city/

 

<b>Columbus Ranked 27th Most Walkable City</b>

July 26, 2008 by johnwirtz

 

<img src="http://xingcolumbus.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/columbuswalkscoremap.png?w=500&h=550">

 

If you’ve never been to WalkScore.com, it’s a pretty cool site that allows you to input an address and get a walkability score out of 100. The score is based on proximity to destinations such as stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc… Distances are calculated as the crow flies, so actual walks will be longer, perhaps much longer if your origin is near a freeway or a body of water and the destination is on the other side. The walk score does not take into account the quality or safety of the walking environment, and does not include public transit as a destination.

 

The site recently came out with rankings for 2,508 neighborhoods in America’s 40 largest cities. The most walkable city was San Francisco, followed by NYC, Boston, Chicago, and Philly in the top 5. Jacksonville was last at #40, with Nashville, Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Oklahoma City rounding out the bottom five. Columbus was #27, right between Houston and Phoenix, ugh. The only other Ohio city ranked was Cleveland, at an impressive #14. Cincinnati doesn’t seem to have been evaluated, although I thought it had a population greater than Cleveland now. You can see the full list of cities here.

 

The walkability map for Columbus is shown below. Weinland Park and Victorian Village received the highest neighborhood scores, at 89 out of 100. Downtown, the Brewery District, and Italian Village scored 86. German Village, John McCain’s hang-out, was mis-labeled as “Southside” and received a score of 82. Harrison West and the University District were the last two of eight neighborhoods scoring above 70, or “Very Walkable.” Columbus didn’t have any locations score above 90, which is labeled a “Walker’s Paradise,” although not necessarily “Walker Evans’ Paradise.” Click on the map to go to the interactive version at the WalkScore website.

 

You can see how the most walkable places are along High Street, which makes another good argument for the streetcar to go there. There’s a little patch of green out at Easton, and another at Polaris. Polaris? I suppose once you’re inside the mall, it’s very walkable. But I already told you the caveats about the algorithm. It doesn’t consider quality of the walking environment, safety, accessibility, or street connectivity. It really seems to be more a measure of economic activity. But if you are visiting a city and want to see where the cool neighborhoods are, check out the walkability map, but do a reality check with satellite images or Google Streetview to make sure it’s not sprawl.

 

By the way, my neighborhood, where I take transit to work every day, walk and bike to most destinations within a few miles, and live easily as a one-car family only scored a 68. So don’t feel too bad if you’re not labeled as “Very Walkable.”

Yeah, Cincinnati is out of the Top 100 largest cities so it didn't register (you're thinking metro, in which Cincinnati is the largest in Ohio).

In most of those suburbs, sure, there are plenty of commercial offices and retail stores in close proximity to residential areas but that does NOT mean people actually walk to them. There is a Kroger with a Starbucks, dry cleaning service, bank, etc inside, .3 miles from my mom's house but who the hell actually walks there? Just because it is "close" does not mean the culture is such that people feel inclined to walk, especially when many of these areas lack sidewalks.

 

Overall, Columbus is a pretty walkable city but I don't understand how you can make something so complex, calculable; without looking more deeply.

I am suprised Houston is not #1. They are making all these dumb lists in at least the top 5.  :laugh: :laugh:

I've never been, but I've always heard that Houston is sprawl-opolis. ;)

From planetizen:

 

"Houston's street design rules also make life more difficult for pedestrians. The city code requires most major streets to have a 100 foot right-of-way and residential streets must have a 50-60 foot right-of-way. Thus, Houston's streets can be up to 100 feet wide. By contrast, most modern streets are 32-36 feet wide, and pre-World War II streets are usually 28-30 feet wide..."

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/109

^ barf

It's sort of ironic that my parent's house in Hudson got an 80 while I got a 60-something in Lakewood. Of course, I would mostly agree as they can walk to shopping, restaurants, the grocery store and library within 10 minutes. Their 'hood is much more walkable than mine. That crazy new urbanism!

I'm assuming the Houston comment wasn't so much about high-walkability as the fact they've been tops on most lists lately talking about cheapest housing, best "value", best place for singles whose favorite day is Thursday, etc.

 

My apartment in the north campus area of Ohio State earned me an 82.  On Sep 1st, when I move like 5 blocks south, my score sprints ahead to an 83!

Houston, TX. Walkscore: 89. Very Walkable.

 

http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.php?street=houston%2C+TX&go=Go

 

Same data, 20-seconds later:

 

Houston, TX. Walkscore: 97. Walker's Paradise.

 

http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.php?street=houston%2C+TX&go=Go

 

 

EnergyBulletin.net has a few good articles about how some cities have been temporarily closing streets to cars but keeping them open for pedestrians and cyclists.  Apparently, such temporary closures have been popular:

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46463 

My workplace in Chardon got a 62.  This seems like a pretty walkable town, actually. 

Walkscore places way too much emphasis on the retail options nearby.  It hasn't yet been able to factor in the actual reality of how walkable a place is in terms of sidewalk connectivity, traffic calming measures, etc.

 

Other cities:

Atlanta, GA - 100/100

Houston, TX - 98/100

Phoenix, AZ - 97/100

Charlotte, NC - 85/100

 

Ohio Cities:

Cleveland - 97/100

Columbus - 95/100

Cincinnati - 89/100

Dayton - 62/100

Toledo - 48/100

I don't know where you are getting those numbers, but walkscore.com lists:

 

Cleveland- 60

atlanta- 52

Houston- 51

Phoenix- 50

Columbus- 50

Charolette- 39

^Sorry...that's what comes up when you type them into the map search.  So this is generally for the center city area that the map defaults to.  With that said, my point still stands for Walkscore placing too much emphasis on retail offerings and not being able to account for those intangibles that make all the difference in the world.

something to chew on that i saw this afternoon, the walk score folks chime in on walkability scores and real estate listings:

 

 

You're Very Walkable, New York. So What?

 

'Walkability' may become the new 'location, location, location' in urban real estate

 

by Leigh Kamping-Carder  |  September 18, 2008

 

 

Walk Score is a Web site that tells you what you already know: In your New York City neighborhood, you can walk places, a lot more places than in a lot of other neighborhoods.

 

With the help of Google's local data, Walk Score rates properties between 1 and 100, based on the number of amenities located within a one-mile radius of its address. The aim is to measure what was once subjective, to quantify the "walkability"--the ease of living a car-free lifestyle--of neighborhoods across the United States.

 

Walk Score garnered media attention last July, when it ranked the walkability of the 40 largest cities in the United States and compiled a list of the country's 2,508 most walkable neighborhoods. Tribeca, Soho and Little Italy made the list; New York City as a whole came in second to San Francisco.

 

"We're not real estate people or land-use planning people," said Mike Mathieu, the founder and chairman of Front Seat, the software company that built Walk Score, "so we looked at it more from the concept of, in a real estate market, we're trying to bring transparency around walkability."

 

BUT WHAT DOES IT mean to decide that one city is three points less walkable than another? If Staten Island had a few more bodegas, would we best Frisco? And should we even care?

 

Recent studies have shown that walkability is profitable. In 1999, Charles C. Tu and Mark J. Eppli of George Washington University analyzed certain mixed-use, planned communities across the United States, concluding that consumers were willing to pay 12 percent more for walkable real estate.

 

According to Christopher Leinberger, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a member of Walk Score's advisory board, square footage in walkable urban neighborhoods goes for between 40 and 200 percent more than in comparable drivable suburban areas.

 

"This is a complete reversal of the market situation 20 years ago," wrote Mr. Leinberger in an e-mail, "when you went to the central city for the best value (lowest price per square foot). This reflects the structural, as opposed to cyclical, shift we are seeing in market demand," as young professionals and empty-nesters move out of the suburbs and into the cities.

 

Since launching in 2007, Walk Score has hosted four million address searches. In a recent survey, the software company found that two-thirds of the Web site's visitors were there to make real estate decisions.

 

Mr. Mathieu is convinced that New Yorkers specifically will take advantage of the Web site's offerings: checking the walk score of a potential property is like a virtual drive by.

 

"I think Walk Score is least useful for someplace that's way out in the boondocks where there's nothing around," he wrote in an e-mail. "You already know that if you live there, so it doesn't help so much. On the other hand, if you look at the walkability map for New York ... you'll see that while Manhattan is pretty much uniformly Walker's Paradise, other borough's [sic] and neighborhoods vary quite a bit, so I think it's still very relevant."

 

THIS FALL, WALK SCORE will expand to bring the service to property listings sites nationwide. Several brokers--such as Fox Residential Group, Gumley Haft Kleier and a handful who link to the site via Craigslist--already use the Real Estate Tile, a mini-version of Walk Score that can be embedded on other Web pages.

 

"The idea is that when you're browsing," Mr. Mathieu said, "you can say, 'This house is $450,000 and it's got three bedrooms, two-and-a-half baths, 2,800-square-feet, and it has a Walk Score of 94.' Or, the next level is to be able to do that search and use it as a filter."

 

But, at least at Gumley Haft Kleier, that's not happening yet.

 

Robert Morgenstern, an executive vice president at the brokerage, noted that Walk Score has helped his brokers and their clients familiarize themselves with local retail (ironically, without having to walk). "It hasn't gotten to the point where people are saying, ‘This is an important piece of data for me,'" he said, especially in Manhattan, where retail is dense.

 

"I think it's been an overall plus for our Web site," Mr. Morgenstern said. "But I can't say there's a quantifiable, that there's been deals done because of Walk Score. It's often hard to know what made somebody buy an apartment."

 

At present, Walk Score has a number of blind spots, most notably the absence of transit data. (Mr. Mathieu says the company is talking to Google about including it. Google did not respond to emails or phone calls.) And there continue to be glitches with the information used to tally amenities. In Park Slope, for example, the Brooklyn Artists Gym, an artist's studio, is listed as a fitness center.

 

Mr. Mathieu is confident that the walk scores are accurate, given that a variety of factors are taken into account when determining an address' score.

 

"We've had almost five million people [use the site] and they kind of all nod their heads and say, 'Yeah, that's about right. The house I grew up in was more walkable than the one I'm in now.'"

 

http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/youre-very-walkable-new-york-so-what

I live in what passes for a suburban edge city here in Dayton.  I get a little over 70.  So I know this is a silly metric as they miss some features of walkability...or things that makes walkability tough...like multilane highways and big parking lots. 

Well, if anyone has the GIS expertise, and the right data layers, I would think that the problems we keep pointing out could be solved.

^ exactly. but that would take work.

 

"Mr. Mathieu is confident that the walk scores are accurate, given that a variety of factors are taken into account when determining an address' score."

 

yeah sure, because it accurately reflects the cheapest, easiest data he could grab...ie., like where is the bloody all important movie theater near you...not the most useful data for true walkability.

 

Cheapest, easiest, and available for all locations.  My point is that other data, such as sidewalk coverage, crosswalks, and traffic volumes, etc, that would help us determine the quality of the actual act of walking in a certain area is not available for vast portions of the U.S.  It's nice to say they should consider this data, but it isn't compiled in such a way to allow it, and the coverage is far from complete.

I really had no idea where to post this, but sidewalks = transit? Read on... and some of the batsh!t crazy comments from Lexington snobs.

 

Proposal would put sidewalks along Tates Creek Road

In 2001, Similar plan for tates Creek Road ran into dead end

By Michelle Ku, Herald-Leader, November 17, 2008

 

Lexington wants to build sidewalks along both sides Tates Creek Road, but residents of the corridor are saying not in my front yard.

 

Sidewalks would destroy the pristine corridor that looks like it's in the country, not the city, said Steve Kesten, who lives between Robin Road and Lansdowne Drive. "I do not see any need for this and neither do any of my neighbors."

 

 

My commentary:

 

And if these aren't the snobbiest group of individuals...

 

Sidewalks are needed. Over the years, these property owners have invaded upon the state right-of-way by installing planters, trees and other items that will need to be removed before the right-of-way is reclaimed -- for sidewalks and other sundries.

 

Storm water runoff? Give me a break. Some of these users have massive driveways with non-porous surfaces that contribute much more so to runoff than a 4' sidewalk.

 

Seeping into your basement? That seems to be a problem with your residence and its faulty construction and design. Litter? If no one uses the sidewalk (as they claim), then there will be no litter accumulating along the sidewalk.

 

Tates Creek Road inside New Circle a "country" route? It's in the middle of a city of 270,000. Not 30,000.

 

Aerial of the "country road": http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38.007339,-84.497545&spn=0.009502,0.030899&t=k&z=16

If the street isn't in a walkable neighborhood or the residents in the neighborhood don't have a need to walk, then I can understand.  Is this a suburban mature nabe?

 

About half of my parents neighbors don't have sidewalks, so I understand both sides.  As a kid, I don't recall anyone having a sidewalk, until you got to a street that crossed Shaker at a train stop.  I had to walk in the street to the either corner then there was a sidewalk to Shaker Blvd.  Most of the homes near the Shaker Lakes only recently had sidewalks installed, in spots - in the last 15 years.

 

Any images of this area?

If the street isn't in a walkable neighborhood or the residents in the neighborhood don't have a need to walk, then I can understand. Is this a suburban mature nabe?

 

There is one in the article, and the map link shows the region. All of the connecting streets have sidewalks, and the sidewalks end about one mile to the north when the highway widens out from three lanes (two with center turn) to four divided. There are some well worn dirt paths.

The problem is that sidewalks are so damn costly to install. It's like a thousand dollars per foot of frontage. It's hard to convince taxpayers - though they can pay for it over like a ten year term on the improved street. It's supposed to add some value. With the high number of foreclosures right now and people selling their house, I bet it's creating a lot of confusion over who's paying for what. Lots of lawyers involved.

The problem is that sidewalks are so damn costly to install. It's like a thousand dollars per foot of frontage. It's hard to convince taxpayers - though they can pay for it over like a ten year term on the improved street. It's supposed to add some value. With the high number of foreclosures right now and people selling their house, I bet it's creating a lot of confusion over who's paying for what. Lots of lawyers involved.

 

HUH?  :wtf:

 

Most people just want an Uninterrupted lawn and don't want to deal with any future maintanece.

 

In some areas it's lead to path on people property (closer to l

Great article here with great pictures.  It's long and the pictures go with the narrative, so I'm just posting the link:

Life Without Cars

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2008/122108.html

 

Another good one:

Idea#1:  Slow Towns

http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/12/22/Idea1/

Great story from Minnesota Public Radio this morning, the city of Albert Lea is embarking on a healthy makeover at a community level.  The community leaders are examining diet, behavior and walkability and focusing on measures to increase the health of the community.  They are working with Dan Burden to address walkability and are measuring the impact of small changes on the longevity of people's lives. Cool stuff!

 

 

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/01/15/longevity_albert_lea/

 

... sidewalks are so damn costly to install. It's like a thousand dollars per foot of frontage ...

 

I can't imagine it costing that much; there must be some cozy deals with all the wrong contractors. Where entire streets or blocks are involved, an experienced crew of three or four guys with a skid loader, dump truck, and prefab steel forms can put in a lot of quality sidewalk in a few days. I've seen some fast work even where they had to tear out old deteriorated or non-code sidewalks.

 

Two years ago I had 25 feet of 80-year-old retaining wall replaced by a reputable, licensed contractor. He removed the old wall and dug out the old footer, and poured a new footer 2 1/2 feet below grade and a new 8-inch-thick wall, with rebar, 2 feet above grade for under $2K. It's a nice-looking job, carefully finished, and he hauled away all the rubble. I was there for the pouring, and I know he didn't cut any corners.

    Concrete itself doesn't cost that much. If there is any significant grading, drainage improvements, traffic signals, retaining walls, bridges, tree removal, or property transfers then sidewalks can be quite costly indeed.

 

  Simply adding sidewalks does not make an area walkable, however. The distances between activities must be reasonable.

So very appropriate for post #666:

 

Solon residents against Bainbridge Road sidewalk plan

Posted by John Horton/Plain Dealer Reporter January 26, 2009 04:00AM

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/solon_residents_against_bainbr.html

 

SOLON — One hundred acres of meadows and woods and water flow off of Bainbridge Road. This land's a personal park for Dr. Stephen Luczek and one of the last pastoral properties left in the city.

 

It's also on the list to get a sidewalk.

 

An upcoming reconstruction of the road could extend walkways from the city's center at Ohio 91 to its somewhat rural edge 2½ miles east at the border with Geauga County. Solon officials requested that sidewalks be included the full length of the project.

 

 

^What's the big deal? Even if you don't want the sidewalk, and it won't be used much, how is it hurting your property? I don't get how a sidewalk would make the road, or the property, less atractive. My mom lives on several acres well into the country and has no sidewalks, but I can't imagine her yard would look any worse with a sidewalk across the front of it. What am I not getting here?

People in this mindset associate sidewalks with everything (everyone) they don't like about the city.  Sidewalks represent several key disagreements between the typical UO person and the typical "this is the rural part of Solon" person.

No comment!  "newly" developed communities.  "rural" hummph!!

This is why I moved out of that area. I used to live in Bainbridge where there were no sidewalks and no stores, schools or anything else could be reached safely or in a time-efficient manner without a car. I refused to be forced to drive everywhere. Thus I consider these areas the antithesis of being free.

People in this mindset associate sidewalks with everything (everyone) they don't like about the city.  Sidewalks represent several key disagreements between the typical UO person and the typical "this is the rural part of Solon" person.

I guess my problem is I view a lack of sidewalk as meaning I'm in a neighborhood that can't afford them. Silly me.  :roll:

People in this mindset associate sidewalks with everything (everyone) they don't like about the city.  Sidewalks represent several key disagreements between the typical UO person and the typical "this is the rural part of Solon" person.

I guess my problem is I view a lack of sidewalk as meaning I'm in a neighborhood that can't afford them. Silly me.  ::)

 

I agree with KJP.  It sucks!

 

We didn't have sidewalks when I was a kid and theres nothing like dodging a car or catching the wrath of some gardner, who is screaming at you not to walk on the lawn, so you don't wear a path.  HELLO, I'm 8 years old.  Sure, let me walk in the street and get hit by a car!  Explain that to my parents!  If there was a sidewalk, I wouldn't need to walk in the street!