^^Brookings is also based out of Washington.  I wonder if that had anything to do with it as well.

Brookings Institute is a conservative "think tank". mull over it and get back to me. Orlando? come on. I know I already commented, but this is what you call  B F'in S.

Brookings institute is hardly a conservative think tank.  They are officially nonpartisan and tend to lean left if anything.

I don't know... I have a car, but I'd say Lakewood is pretty walkable. Granted - I live in an especially convenient spot, and I can walk to work, grocery store, dry cleaners, deli, post office, bank, takeout restaurants, church and bars.

 

I also don't think University Circle is especially walkable compared to downtown.

 

There are some problems with the study.

 

Cleveland not friendly to walkers, Brookings study says

Monday, December 10, 2007

Laura Johnston

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

If you're going somewhere in Cleveland, you're probably driving a car.

 

That's because the region has one truly walkable urban place - University Circle, according to a study released this week.

 

With its hospitals and hotel, university and museums, homes and restaurants, University Circle fits the stringent criteria set by the Brookings Institution, which ranked Greater Cleveland 29th out of the 30 largest U.S. metropolitan areas.

 

Based on places per-capita, Washington, D.C., took first, boasting 20 neighborhoods with workplaces, medical facilities, stores, restaurants, entertainment, culture, schools and homes. Tampa, Fla., placed last, with none.

 

And although Columbus and Cincinnati have just one walkable urban space each, they beat us by virtue of smaller populations.

 

"It's no doubt that the research is depressing," said Keith Benjamin, director of community services in South Euclid. "In the last few decades, our Greater Cleveland region has not done a great job of creating a sense of 'place.' "

 

But the news isn't all bleak.

 

"Downtown Cleveland is certainly going to make it," said the study's author Christopher Leinberger. "It's certainly on the edge, but it's almost there."

 

Meanwhile, we have plenty of neighborhoods that may not meet the study's criteria, but welcome walkers just the same.

 

How about downtown? Or Coventry? Or Crocker Park?

 

Ken Silliman, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's chief of staff, lists eight neighborhoods he argues should have made the list, including Ohio City, Tremont, the Warehouse District and Shaker Square.

 

But those spots don't pack the regional significance or critical mass demanded by the study, said Leinberger, a University of Michigan professor who has traveled often to Cleveland.

 

He called them local spots - residential neighborhoods that serve everyday needs with small businesses such as drugstores or dry cleaners.

 

For critical mass, he says, a real estate development would not require government assistance to make it financially feasible.

 

However, Crocker Park, a lifestyle center in Westlake, and downtown Cleveland nearly meet those strict standards. As for all those other neighborhoods - downtown Lakewood or Cedar-Fairmount or Little Italy - one or two of them could grow to be regionally significant, Leinberger said. But, still, the more than 2 million people in Greater Cleveland should have about eight to 10 walkable places.

 

"You certainly have a lot of good bones, good infrastructure in place," he said. "It's just critical to continue the focus of making downtown, midtown work to make University Circle work, to make Lakewood work."

 

How did we lose

 

walkability?

 

Basically, we like our cars.

 

In the 1950s and '60s, as interstate highways stretched across the country, folks moved farther away from urban centers to ranches and colonials in bucolic, sprawling suburbs.

 

And then there were zoning codes, which forced the separation of housing from retail and industrial uses, said Jim Kastelic, a Cleveland Metroparks planner.

 

Also, many factories evaporated.

 

"It's not that Clevelanders don't like to walk," said Coral Co. President Peter Rubin, who is developing a mixed-use Cedar Center in South Euclid. "But the way this city grew up over 200 years, it was in industrial spurts. It developed around industrial centers that then left the city."

 

Why should we care?

 

That fickle group demographers called Generation X wants to live in walkable urban places, Leinberger said. Highly educated people, too, flock to spots where they won't need a car to pick up a gallon of milk.

 

"It's an economic development question," he said. "There are two types of cities: magnets for young people and others that are losing their young people."

 

Silliman, Mayor Jackson's chief of staff, agrees. Mixing shopping and restaurants with homes and offices is appealing, which is why developers are creating mini-downtowns, called lifestyle centers, in the suburbs, he said.

 

"We have the means to draw people, draw businesses, into Cleveland," he said. "It's good for the city because it's energy-conserving."

 

So what can we do about it?

 

In Cleveland, the city is encouraging pedestrian amenities, streetscape improvements and bike lanes in all new developments.

 

In the inner-ring suburbs, officials are emphasizing their compact layout, with sidewalks and neighborhoods close to commercial districts. South Euclid is replacing tired strip malls with a gleaming row of retail and residential, a city park and a community center, steps from Whole Foods and the big-box stores of University Square.

 

In the Metroparks, planners are building links from neighborhoods to the Towpath and bike and hike trails.

 

And throughout the region, developers like Rubin and Bob Stark want to build gathering places.

 

Call them "community cores" or lifestyle centers, but both developers - who are battling over who gets to build in Solon - are proposing offices, retail, housing, arts centers, health facilities, college classrooms, hotels and movie theaters, all in one spot.

 

Leinberger applauds any walkable developments in suburbia, in old downtowns and in new ones.

 

"Fifty percent of these places are in suburbs," Leinberger said. "This is not just a downtown turn-around story."

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4115

 

 

Brookings institute is hardly a conservative think tank.  They are officially nonpartisan and tend to lean left if anything.

I have to disagree as in some areas they have conservative looking agenda-such as education. I suppose perceptions are relative anyway!

i dk, i'm kind of glad for the (yes b.s.) ranking and especially for that peedee article. maybe it will wake some clueless readers up to what's important in city living. it wouldn't hurt stark and all the other downtown developers to at least gain a little tacit support from doubters.

At the same time, though, it makes Cleveland look underservedly bad to individuals who've never been to Cleveland. Had I stayed in Indiana after undergrad and not moved to Cleveland, and had I seen this report, with Cleveland considered far less walkable than greater Miami, I would have thought the city was in one of Dante's circles of hell ... a circle with sh!tty weather and no sidewalks.

 

Had the researcher identified even THREE walkable places in the entire metropolitan area, we'd be on par with Chicago, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Portland ... places that I would associate us with from my travels.

 

The problem is that this research had very little to do with walkability and more to do with the regional draw of regions' respective walkable places. Cities with large pedestrian-oriented tourist populations CLEARLY had an advantage. Had this report highlighted Cleveland's true weaknesses when it comes to connectivity, walkability, etc., I'd understand your point ... but instead of focusing on how sprawl has contributed to underutility of our walkable neighborhoods or the fact that we could be doing a better job to expose visitors to neighborhoods throughout greater Cleveland, it's making it sound like we lack the basic infrastructure for people to walk around comfortably. I think Stark would be better served by a report that explored true indicators of what constitutes a desirable, walkable neighborhood, rather than what we got.

I don't see how a place like Atlanta can be ranked higher than a city like Cleveland in terms of walkability.  Atlanta is one of the least hospitable places for pedestrians that I have ever been to...I just can't imagine Cleveland being worse than that given its built form.

Reread the methodology.  This study doesn't measure walkability per se, but an unsophisticated media and public are perceiving it that way.

Turns out the only walkable place in cincinnati is hyde park

Randy, when you're back in the ATL we will go to all kinds of walkable neighborhoods, in weather that actually makes you want to walk.

A critique of the study:

 

Phoenix More Walkable Than Sacramento? Walk On

7 December 2007 - 11:47am

As we at CP&DR know, the business of rating urban things is dangerous. Our recent rankings of the best and worst big city downtowns and medium-sized city downtowns didn’t exactly thrill everyone. But people, myself included, love lists.

 

You probably read or heard about the Brookings Institution’s recently released report on the walkability of the country’s largest metropolitan areas — “Footloose and Fancy Free: A Field Survey of Walkable Urban Places in the Top 30 U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” But if you’re truly interested in the subject, you might want to read the entire report for yourself.

 

Two reasons for reading the report:

 

First, the methodology is problematic, something which the study’s author, Christopher Leinberger, acknowledges. I think the methodology makes the rankings nearly meaningless.

 

Second, the report contains some observations and conclusions – which are not harmed by the methodology — that appear to hold true in California.

 

If you read the news stories, you know that the Washington, D.C., area ranked first in walkability, followed by Boston and San Francisco. At first glance, that seemed like a reasonable top three. What caused me to pause in the first place was the ranking of Sacramento: 27th out of 30. Now, I’ve knocked Sacramento’s alleged urbanism in the past.  But it’s hard for me to believe that Sacramento is less walkable than the likes of Houston, Orlando and Phoenix.

 

Sacramento’s downtown and midtown are very walkable. Uses are mixed, many sidewalks are wide, motorists are accustomed to pedestrians, and the streetscape is generally pleasing. Older residential neighborhoods such as East Sacramento, Curtis Park and Land Park are full of people on foot. On the metropolitan periphery, much of the college town of Davis is easily walkable, as is the older core of Woodland.

 

Ever tried to walk somewhere in Phoenix, a place defined by high-speed surface streets and low-density development? Good luck.

 

Turns out the Brookings’ report rankings are based on the number of walkable urban places per capita. For the purposes of the report, a walkable urban place must be “regional serving,” rather than “local serving,” a distinction that I think misses the point of walkability. The definition is thus: “Regional-serving places provide uses that have regional significance, such as employment, retail, medical, entertainment, cultural, higher-education, etc., and generally integrate residential as well.”

 

The report lists five types of regional walkable urban places: downtown, downtown adjacent, suburban town center, suburban redevelopment, and greenfield (such as mixed-use “lifestyle centers”).

 

According to this criteria, the Sacramento metropolitan area’s 2 million people are stuck with only one walkable place — downtown Sacramento. Phoenix’s 4 million people can choose from Tempe and “24th and Camelback.” Houston’s 5.5 million people have the lively Montrose district and two suburban lifestyle centers.

 

Those are the only sorts of places that rate in the study. Moreover, the study admittedly does not account for the size of these places. Thus, downtown San Francisco is given the same weight as the handful of walkable blocks in Emoryville (sic) and Menlo Park.

 

In addition, the study counts only those urban places that are at or near “critical mass,” meaning new development does not require significant public or private subsidies. I’m baffled here. Why consider staunchly slow-growth Menlo Park to be at critical mass, but not nearby Mountain View — where developers are building hundreds of market-rate housing units in the very fine downtown?

 

But enough of my griping. Leinberger does use the survey to make some interesting observations:

 

• “Today, walkable urban places are just as likely to be found in the suburbs as in center cities.” This is especially true in California, no matter how you define walkable urban place.

 

• “Rail transit seems to play a significant role in catalyzing walkable urban development.” Just have a look around a BART, Metro or San Diego Trolley station.

 

• “A tale of two kinds of metropolitan areas may be evolving: Those metros benefiting from the trend toward walkable urbanism, and those out of position.” Those out of position, according to the report, are those not committed to providing good rail transit systems. The report names Cincinnati, Detroit and Kansas City. If this conclusion is true (and I have trouble arguing against it), places such as the Inland Empire and Orange County (both of which have very limited Metro service), Fresno, Bakersfield and Sonoma County are stuck with the car culture, for good or ill.

 

- Paul Shigley

http://www.cp-dr.com/node/1875

At the same time, though, it makes Cleveland look underservedly bad to individuals who've never been to Cleveland. Had I stayed in Indiana after undergrad and not moved to Cleveland, and had I seen this report, with Cleveland considered far less walkable than greater Miami, I would have thought the city was in one of Dante's circles of hell ... a circle with sh!tty weather and no sidewalks.

 

Had the researcher identified even THREE walkable places in the entire metropolitan area, we'd be on par with Chicago, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Portland ... places that I would associate us with from my travels.

 

The problem is that this research had very little to do with walkability and more to do with the regional draw of regions' respective walkable places. Cities with large pedestrian-oriented tourist populations CLEARLY had an advantage. Had this report highlighted Cleveland's true weaknesses when it comes to connectivity, walkability, etc., I'd understand your point ... but instead of focusing on how sprawl has contributed to underutility of our walkable neighborhoods or the fact that we could be doing a better job to expose visitors to neighborhoods throughout greater Cleveland, it's making it sound like we lack the basic infrastructure for people to walk around comfortably. I think Stark would be better served by a report that explored true indicators of what constitutes a desirable, walkable neighborhood, rather than what we got.

 

true enough, but i was thinking more of its impact, actually the pd response article impact, on locals than on outsiders to the region. as for the outsiders, from what i have been reading here and elsewhere i think there is enough criticism to the report from every city that no one is taking it as gospel.

This is such craptastic BS

 

Randy, when you're back in the ATL we will go to all kinds of walkable neighborhoods, in weather that actually makes you want to walk.

 

Wear a bullet proof vest ans watchout for falling hillbillies!

MTS is back!

MTS is back!

 

Amen to that!

This is such craptastic BS

 

Randy, when you're back in the ATL we will go to all kinds of walkable neighborhoods, in weather that actually makes you want to walk.

 

Wear a bullet proof vest ans watchout for falling hillbillies!

 

Fo sho ... igon, unfortunately for you ... many of us have been to the ATL. No one is fooling anyone here.

Guys, get off of your thrones and stop hating on Atlanta just because of some ranking.

I came across another new walkability study that seems to use better methodology (based on Census data of who uses means other than a car to get to work). The full study is at http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/carfree-census-database.html

 

Here are the Top 25 big cities (250,000+ population) in several categories. All rankings are based on percentages, to normalize for population. Keep in mind that some of these, particular car-free households, are probably a function of poverty as much as they are of a city's walkability. Bike commuting also seems strongly correlated with warm weather (lots of California and Southwest cities on that list).

 

Pittsburgh comes out looking great, while Cleveland and Cincinnati are pretty comparable in their mediocrity (state policy anyone?). Even Detroit pops up once or twice. Columbus is nowhere to be found.

 

Most Bike Commuters:

1 Tucson

2 San Francisco

3 Seattle

4 Minneapolis

5 Portland

6 Sacramento

7 Honolulu

8 Mesa, Arizona

9 Oakland

10 Anaheim

11 Washington

12 New Orleans

13 Albuquerque

14 Santa Ana, California

15 Boston

16 Denver

17 Austin

18 Tampa

19 Phoenix

20 Philadelphia

21 Riverside, California

22 Fresno

23 San Diego

24 Long Beach

25 St. Paul

 

Most Pedestrian Commuters:

1 Boston

2 Washington

3 New York

4 Pittsburgh

5 San Francisco

6 Philadelphia

7 Newark

8 Seattle

9 Baltimore

10 Minneapolis

11 Honolulu

12 Chicago

13 Cincinnati

14 St. Paul

15 Portland

16 Buffalo

17 New Orleans

18 Milwaukee

19 Denver

20 Louisville

21 Lexington

22 St. Louis

23 Cleveland

24 Oakland

25 San Diego

 

Most Public Transit Commuters:

1 New York

2 Washington

3 Boston

4 San Francisco

5 Newark

6 Chicago

7 Philadelphia

8 Pittsburgh

9 Baltimore

10 Seattle

11 Oakland

12 Atlanta

13 Minneapolis

14 New Orleans

15 Portland

16 Buffalo

17 Cleveland

18 Honolulu

19 Miami

20 St. Louis

21 Los Angeles

22 Milwaukee

23 Cincinnati

24 St. Paul

25 Detroit

 

Most Non-Car Commuters:

1 New York

2 Washington

3 Boston

4 San Francisco

5 Philadelphia

6 Newark

7 Chicago

8 Pittsburgh

9 Seattle

10 Baltimore

11 Minneapolis

12 Oakland

13 New Orleans

14 Portland

15 Honolulu

16 Atlanta

17 Buffalo

18 Cleveland

19 Cincinnati

20 Miami

21 Milwaukee

22 St. Louis

23 St. Paul

24 Los Angeles

25 Denver

 

Car-Free Households:

1 New York

2 Newark

3 Washington

4 Baltimore

5 Philadelphia

6 Boston

7 Buffalo

8 Pittsburgh

9 Chicago

10 San Francisco

11 New Orleans

12 Miami

13 St. Louis

14 Cleveland

15 Atlanta

16 Cincinnati

17 Detroit

18 Milwaukee

19 Louisville

20 Minneapolis

21 Oakland

22 Honolulu

23 St. Paul

24 Los Angeles

25 Seattle

 

Ah, that's a methodology I can get behind, even if it is a little simple and doesn't take into account specific characteristics of walkability (multi-use, density, dedicated bike lanes, etc.). Two things I would note ... First, these rankings are based on 2000 Census data, so we may see some movement after 2010 info is in. Second, in 2000, there were 67 American cities with populations of 250,000 or more, so placing in the top 20 or so is actually not too shabby (although, obviously, all Ohio cities could stand to improve).

 

While Columbus didn't place on any of the Top 25 lists, it is worth noting that Columbus did have the highest rate of bicycle commute among its Ohio peers (0.35% compared to Cleveland and Toledo's 0.22% and Cincy's 0.20%), but all Ohio cities ranked in the bottom half of the group in this category (Columbus at 41, Toledo at 48, Cleveland at 49 and Cincy at 53).

 

cincinnati will never do well in bicycle commuters.  hills.

^You could split it up - ride your bike one direction, take the bus the other :-)

I have done that, it feels really lazy

cincinnati will never do well in bicycle commuters.  hills.

 

I dunno, steep grades in San Fran (#2) and Seattle (#3) don't seem to be hurting them too badly. And hilly Pittsburgh comes in at #36 to Cincy's #53.

Question, Why is this thread titled "Cleveland ranks at bottom in 'walkable' places"  isn't this about all of Ohio?  Am I missing something.

Thank you, skippy - the thread is named after the article in the first post. The thread is now discussing similar articles and findings from other cities.

 

You disappear for months on end and when you come back, you seem to think you're an Admin. :wtf:

Boo, I'm asking a question.  I'm not trying to be in a position of power here on UrbanOhio.  I'm simply asking a question.

 

Ironically, how did you know "skippy" was my family nickname?  :|

Take steps so that kids walk, bike to school

Friday, February 15, 2008 3:08 AM

By Ann fisher

 

The morning walk to school, once as American as apple pie, has been fossilized into something of a fable about how Mom and Dad -- or Grandma and Grandpa -- walked 10 miles through drifting snow to learn their numbers and letters.

 

That is wrong, of course, but so is the current trend: Today, fewer than 15 percent of schoolchildren walk or bike any distance to school. More than half arrive for classes in automobiles, according to the National Center for Safe Routes to School.

 

Our parents and grandparents had to deal with inclement weather. We are more worried about child abductors, speeding vehicles and red-light runners. You can add unsafe walking routes, crummy or nonexistent crosswalks and sidewalks, and a dearth of crossing guards to the mix.

 

READ THE REST AT:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/02/15/ann15.ART_ART_02-15-08_B1_OT9C7H7.html?sid=101

 

 

Ann Fisher is a Dispatch Metro columnist. She can be reached at 614-461-8759 or by e-mail. Check out her blog at blog.dispatch.com/ann/.

 

 

To learn more about Ohio's program, go to dot.state.oh.us/SafeRoutes.

this is so ridiculous.  Who didn't ride their bike to school.

 

I think these new exurbs is the problem, the homes are out in the middle of nowhere, with no sidewalks so kids have to be driven to school.

 

I had to walk to school, I loved walking to school, I rode my bike in Junior and my moped in High School.

 

Since my nephews/nieces live so far away from their schools, they ride in fall and spring.  Except my niece who can walk to her school.

After all we've done to make our world revolve around the automobile in this country, it seems silly to spend so much to get our children back on their own two feet.

 

Let me rephrase that:

 

After all, it seems silly we've done and spent so much to make our world revolve around the automobile in this country.  Get our children back on their own two feet.

Although I live about a mile away from my high school, it is easier for me to just drive. There are NO sidewalks where I live and the route I would have to take to get to school isn't very safe for pedestrians. Not to mention there is a highway that lies between my neighborhood and my high school, forcing me to go out of my way to cross it. To make up for this, I take a couple of my friends home from school.

this is so ridiculous. Who didn't ride their bike to school.

 

I didn't. I lived in Geauga County in the 1970s and 80s. Not only were there no sidewalks, but no berms on the sides of the two-lane roads with deep ditches on both sides. Some of the roads were gravel back then. Speed limits were 35-50 mph, depending on the road, or section of road. And it was four miles each way to school, which seemed like forever to me back then.

 

It was a very pretty area where I lived, overlooking the valley of the Aurora Branch of the Chagrin River from our back deck. But I am much happier here near the Gold Coast in Lakewood, where 20,000 people live within a mile of me.

 

This is where I lived in Geauga County (in Bainbridge and less than a mile from Sea World/Geauga Lake)...

 

View from the valley behind our house, which I shot in 1979:

 

View from our street, looking at our house with all its Christmas lights on in 1983 (it was below zero when I shot this picture):

 

Where I live now (I shot this from my building's seventh-floor party room). I'd say this is a bit more walkable compared to where I used to live:

KJP thats my point.  People want to try to change their kids lives, but parents move to areas where its potentially unsafe for your kids to walk or ride your bike.

 

In the 70/80's it was much different as we didn't have the internet, advanced video games, or habitual boob tube programming, etc to keep us indoors.

 

 

my address got a respectable 85/100, although Linda's Superette is my closest grocery  :roll:

 

E- I see runners all hours going over the well lit Detroit Superior Bridge.

ok, so this indicates since the last time I did this, my neighborhood has become LESS walkable (75)? come on!

Shaker Square got a 56!  Of all the Cleveland neighborhoods, it should have rated higher!

 

Above is my first test.  Now today I get a 77   :? :?

 

i'm curious how old and what is feeding their list of businesses. A few of the addresses I entered returned businesses that haven't been there for at least three years....

 

Lots of out of date information.  Joseph Beth is still listed and not all the restaurants on Shaker Sq., Larchmere or Buckeye are listed.

 

 

hmm...I get a 97 now.

 

Of note, the nearest grocery store is Carvel Ice Cream

 

Nearest Library: Hahn Loeser Parks

 

Nearest Hardware Store: Sherwin Williams HQ

 

(yes I know we've pointed out many of the faults before, but still....giggle)

 

Walkable towns curb obesity, pollution, expert says

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080401/hl_nm/walkable_towns_dc

http://walkscore.com/

I can't believe this hasn't been posted...maybe it has--I only skimmed the thread. 

 

My address in DC gets an 85% walk score. 

 

Oh, and repeat after me.  "Streets are for people, not cars." 

^ Downtown Cleveland.... 96.  I guess this explains why i've been in a car once in the last 3 weeks. And as soon as they finish that Mayfield Road rapid stop, my occasional Mama Santa craving will no longer even require that.

http://walkscore.com/

I can't believe this hasn't been posted...maybe it has.... 

 

Here you go: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,13526.0.html

^search, schmerch.  ;)

 

 

Now we can drill down a bit on this topic:

 

Walkscore for my home address in Fairview Park is 71/100 and 85/100 for my Downtown Cleveland office on Superior.

 

Visit www.walkscore.com, found out about this in the PD article here:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/07/web_site_rates_walkability_of.html

^lol. I live in next walking distrance downtown, OC and in an entertainment district and I am an 80 to Fairview parks 71? My personal conspiracy theory about Brookings lives! I guess I do not have a Walmart or Applbees in the near hood.

 

anyhow. I do chuckle at Lindas Superette being my neighborhood grocery (then West side liquors). Lottery tickets, quarts of beer and cigarettes are not in my diet much.

 

mmm. Ever heard of the west side market??? thats close too but does not show up by name.

^Yes this walkscore website is not perfect, it even missed a few of the local establishments around my home.

 

But peabody99, why no love for Fairview Park? It's a largely walkable inner-ring burb, especially the older sections. From my home here's what is within a 2-4 city block radius (all via sidewalks  :-)) from my 1920's built home:

 

Public High School

Public Middle School

Two K-8 private schools

Track/turf football & soccer field

Couple of baseball diamonds

RTA stop at the end of my street (75 to downtown/22 to West Park rapid)

New Rec. Center

Bain Park/Cabin/Playground

Regional branch of the Cuyahoga County Library

Several neighborhood watering holes

New independent coffee shop (Russo's)

Great sandwich shop (Presto's)

Giant Eagle

Dunkin Doughnuts (I like their coffee)

Drycleaner

Several medical\dental offices

A bunch of other small businesses\independent retailers along Lorain that I'm leaving off the list...

 

Every suburb is not an evil souless void. I'm sure you don't like people making generalizations about Cleveland proper. I know I don't.

 

 

Please I'm still pissed that on Shaker Square I scored low.  this thing blows!

^so what was your "low" score?

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

Sorry, I actually do not think fairview park is horrible. I really I do not. I am glad it has some sidewalks at least. It is just hard to fathom it would rate nearly so high walkability wise. 

No hard feelings peabody99 :-) I don't think it's that hard to fathom though.

 

Most older suburbs (street car) or those that we developed largely pre-WWII/interstate highway expansion are going to score well on walkabilty and why shouldn't they? Believe me, I absolutely love many Cleveland neighborhoods OC, Tremont and of course Shaker Square and hope to someday move my family back to the city proper. However, from an overall amenities standpoint, you have to admit that some city neighborhoods may not be as well rounded (yet) as some of the inner-ring burbs. By this I mean the whole package literally within a few blocks of your door -- groceries, schools, library (my kids have an insane number of books and DVDs shipped from all over the county to our branch), recreation, a bank, pharmacy, drycleaner and other neighborhood convenience businesses, bars, places to grab a coffee or a quick sandwhich.

 

The site admits that their methodology has gaps and transit is a big one as KJP pointed out. Of course generally neighborhoods that score well on this site would tend to be relatively dense and would therefore be well served by public transit assuming the area has a decent system, which we do in Cuyahoga County.

 

 

I got a 100! Woooo.