Walk Scores (Minneapolis, Plymouth, Hills: house, neighborhoods, school)

[1stpontiac]

Just curious, what do you all think of Walk Scores? Is it a reasonably useful metric of how walkable a particular area is?

I've enjoyed looking at the scores as I look at MSP neighborhoods, but I have seen a few oddities...particulary in the groceries category. I see places that get a higher walk score because groceries are close by, but then you see that the groceries are either Kang's North Indian Mart* or Casey's General Store, I find it a little funny. I'm also not sure if they take into account whether there are actual sidewalks and/or trails leading to the places you want to walk.

Of course, to some people, a walkable neighborhood means you can live without a car, and to others, it means there are lots of trails to woods, so no scale is going to please everyone.

*For the record, I probably would actually go out of my way to live near a good Indian mart.

[DaPerpKazoo]

It's pretty good, but not the best. It also doesn't account for transit, which is a big deal for walkability. For example, where I live now in Chicago scores an 83, but that doesn't account for the fact that I am one block from the L, where I can catch a train every 15 minutes or less 24 hours a day. If I enter the address of the station one north of mine, it scores a 99, but me being a five minute train ride away doesn't help my score.

Also, I beleive it is weighted too heavily in favor of super close things. For example, my former home in Diamond Lake scored about the same as my former home in East Harriet. The house in East Harriet seemed a lot more walkable to me, however. Thanks to geography, walking to Lyn-Lake was more convenient than walking to Linden Hills, but walk score didn't think so.

They should also take into effect how pedestrian oriented an area is. I'll walk 3 miles on your average Minneapolis street before I'd walk 1 mile on an average Plymouth street.

[uptown_urbanist]

It's pretty good, but not perfect. It's a great resource as a starting point for research, but it can't replace actual on-the-ground experience. (or couple it with some "walks" via Google street view)

DaPerpKazoo: where in Chicago do you live, if you don't mind me asking? We're looking at places in Lincoln Park (due to school), with move date this month. Walkscores in the area we're focusing on have ranged from low 80s to mid-90s.

I've heard that it's better in the city than in the suburbs (in the Twin Cities, anyway), although I don't have enough experience to comment on that aspect myself. I think that's because of the issues mentioned above -- pedestrian-appeal of the street, that sort of thing.

They have transit scores now, but I'm not sure how useful those are. A good starting place, I suppose. It's very useful to at least get a preliminary snapshot of an area.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

Just curious, what do you all think of Walk Scores? Is it a reasonably useful metric of how walkable a particular area is?

It's an interesting idea, but the last time I looked at my local area there were a number of serious mistakes (business shown which did not exist, and businesses which exist that were not shown) and there was no obvious way to submit corrections.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

I've looked at it for alot of different locations and I've found the mistakes and missing locations to be pretty consistent anywhere you look. As a result, I still find the website to be a useful tool when comparing the walkability of different locations.

[DaPerpKazoo]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

DaPerpKazoo: where in Chicago do you live, if you don't mind me asking? We're looking at places in Lincoln Park (due to school), with move date this month. Walkscores in the area we're focusing on have ranged from low 80s to mid-90s.

(Looking again, the station is only 91, but same difference)

I'm living on campus at Illinois Tech as of right now, which is in Bronzeville, just about where it meets Armour Square. I'm planning of finding a place in Bridgeport by August (31st and Halstead would be my ideal location). I might end up a bit east (around 33rd and King), but would really rather be in eastern Bridgeport.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

It's not great, but it gives you an idea. I'm not sure how variety is taken into account in the score. Where I lived in Marcy-Holmes has a 91, and where I live now in Philadelphia has a 95. And while I considered where I lived in Marcy-Holmes quite walkable, the idea that it is only 4 points lower than where I live now is laughable.

And, for example, they count a kitchen boutique store as a grocery store.

Also, the transit score is broken. It says I am within walking distance of 20 rail lines, but I'm actually within walking distance of 22.

[Camden Northsider]

Agree w/others- a good general guide, but shouldn't be viewed as "the bible" on an area's walkability (which, as others have referenced, is a somewhat subjective term in itself). In my neighborhood, one of the small parks w/in neighborhood shows up as a "park", but the entire Park District surrounding the neighborhood does not register.

[golfgal]

I don't find it accurate at all for our area. It does not recognize most stores in our area and "walks" us to places 3 miles away, skipping over 4 other coffee shops to get there too.

Street view on Google maps is a better option to see what is in the immediate area but that isn't available everywhere.

[1stpontiac]

I do like Street View...lots of fun to give myself virtual "tours" of neighborhoods, although I find that my response is heavily affected by whether it was sunny or cloudy the day the google car drove through. Have to remind myself to look past that.