Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with walkscore is that is gauge is off and what constitutes 100 right now should be moved to 150... Cities scoring 50 now should really be getting around 10.
The problem as I see it is that walkscore professes to measure walkability when it's really measuring amentities and how concentrated they are. That information by itself is highly useful--more useful than any attempt to gauge the pleasantness of a walk IMO, but when they start throwing around "walker's paradise" tags, they're really just setting themselves up for criticism.
Still, I think posters around here are a little rough on it. For example, many criticized New York's cumulative score (85) for being too low. It's actually amazingly high. For a massive city of 300 sq miles (that includes Staten Island) to maintain that number is outstanding. The whole of Manhattan probably scores a 97 or 98. If I remember correctly, the amount of residents in the city that live in walkscores above 80 NYC tops six million. These numbers correlate to what we can see with our own eyeballs on the street.
The problem as I see it is that walkscore professes to measure walkability when it's really measuring amentities and how concentrated they are. That information by itself is highly useful--more useful than any attempt to gauge the pleasantness of a walk IMO, but when they start throwing around "walker's paradise" tags, they're really just setting themselves up for criticism.
Still, I think posters around here are a little rough on it. For example, many criticized New York's cumulative score (85) for being too low. It's actually amazingly high. For a massive city of 300 sq miles (that includes Staten Island) to maintain that number is outstanding. The whole of Manhattan probably scores a 97 or 98. If I remember correctly, the amount of residents in the city that live in walkscores above 80 NYC tops six million. These numbers correlate to what we can see with our own eyeballs on the street.
But see my notes about how they gauge distance *to* amenities. A mile is a 15-25 minute walk in most cities depending on crossing streets, certainly in NYC, it isn't like walking a swift walk down a path, in my neighborhood I generally don't walk more than 3-4 blocks, if not then I get on the el and go somewhere else.
Also note what amenities are there, they give equal points to say, a Trader Joes vs a 7-11, or a post office, or random person selling boutique clothes, really any commercial building.
Prime walkable areas in Chicago are very walkable b/c you can walk to a movie theater, 30-40 differnet restaurants and bars, a whole foods, a trader joes, liquor stores, ace hardware. They are also not gauging hours these places are open, if a place is close to a CBD such as in LA, Chicago, DC, NYC, it is quite likely these places are closing shop at 5-6pm.
I was just looking around and they are giving points to a gem store, a physical therapy center, etc. Who is using these things on a daily basis? They shouldn't be counted if they aren't typical daily/weekly needs. Likewise a neighborhood bank is only valuable if you bank with that particular company. My building used to have a dentist office downstairs, a foot doctor and a leasing agency, these are not valuable to me yet they are counted for "walkscore" Several other really misleading variables.
Most people generally want as I said, a good grocery store or several, some form of hardware store though in city targets work, restaurants, bars, and possibly a gym in the neighborhood if not in your building. Many of the high rise residential buildings, esp doorman/front desk style ones in Chicago have gym, dry cleaners, and a small convenience store all contained in the building, also sometimes a taxi light, private shuttles, etc.
Still, I think posters around here are a little rough on it. For example, many criticized New York's cumulative score (85) for being too low. It's actually amazingly high. For a massive city of 300 sq miles (that includes Staten Island) to maintain that number is outstanding. The whole of Manhattan probably scores a 97 or 98. If I remember correctly, the amount of residents in the city that live in walkscores above 80 NYC tops six million. These numbers correlate to what we can see with our own eyeballs on the street.
My guess is that the lower walkability neighborhoods dragging down NYC's numbers are ones most would be unfamiliar with unless they lived there, they are in places not covered by the subway and few transplants and tourists (few Long Island kids post-college moving to the city would move to the these places). I'm rather familiar with the city, and even so the existence of unwalkable numbers came as a bit of a surprise. Why shouldn't everything be in walking distance?
Anyway, I agree the 85 is reasonable. The main issue for walk score in the half of the city in very walkable neighborhoods is that the score becomes useless for intracity comparison. The practical difference between a score of 88 and 98 is small. A native suggested a better solution (see my previous post):
Prime walkable areas in Chicago are very walkable b/c you can walk to a movie theater, 30-40 differnet restaurants and bars, a whole foods, a trader joes, liquor stores, ace hardware. They are also not gauging hours these places are open, if a place is close to a CBD such as in LA, Chicago, DC, NYC, it is quite likely these places are closing shop at 5-6pm.
For Downtown Manhattan, true for some stores. For Midtown Midtown, not true. The movie theater in Midtown gets lots of patrons for other parts of the city (late at night and want to go to a movie theater in a Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Where to go? CBD.) The Midtown Home Depot is open late-ish hours. Decent amount of restaurants and bars open though nicer ones a short walk out of Midtown. Eventually Midtown falls asleep, but it takes its time.
"Walkscore is based in Seattle, and they probably have a Seattle centric view of what is considered walkable. Personally I don't think it is necessarily that great, and gets rather suburban looking rather quickly, and has poor transit compared to the cities it is close to. I mean seriously, they give Seattle a walkable score higher than Washington DC, and within a 1/2 percentage point from Philadelphia or Chicago... They used to have Seattle higher than both Philadelphia and Chicago."
This is another problem I have with walkscore. Their top 10 makes the same mistake posters around here make when they compare standard density of cities. They don't take into account the size differences between them. Chicago (2.7 million) is a completely different scale of city than Seattle (600k). The larger the city, the more suburban areas starting entering the picturing, and those areas inevitably drag the averages down. That's the only reason why Seattle is in the same area code as Chicago using this metric. Now, if you look at the amount of residents who live in walkscores above 70 in Chicago (1.9 million) vs Seattle (413k), it's no contest, and more accurately reflects real life.
"Walkscore is based in Seattle, and they probably have a Seattle centric view of what is considered walkable. Personally I don't think it is necessarily that great, and gets rather suburban looking rather quickly, and has poor transit compared to the cities it is close to.
I mean seriously, they give Seattle a walkable score higher than Washington DC, and within a 1/2 percentage point from Philadelphia or Chicago...
They used to have Seattle higher than both Philadelphia and Chicago."
This is another problem I have with walkscore. Their top 10 makes the same mistake posters around here make when they compare standard density of cities. It doesn't take into account the size difference of these cities. Chicago (2.7 million) is a completely different scale of city than Seattle (600k). The larger the city, the more suburban areas starting entering the picturing, and those areas inevitably drag the averages down. That's the only reason why Seattle is in the same area code as Chicago using this metric. Now, if you look at the amount of residents who live in walkscores above 70 in Chicago (1.9 million) vs Seattle (413k), it's no contest, and more accurately reflects real life.
Good points.
LA looks like 1.34 million over 70, just did a quick calc, does that sound right?
Though judging from what neighborhoods I consider doable as far as walkable/car light in Chicago and other areas I know, I'd say the score needs to be closer to 75-80. I've never actually lived anywhere under 87 according to their site though, and some of those were certainly a bit more walkable than others. My personal cutoff of neighborhoods I'd consider in Chicago is right around 85 looking at their chart, includes most neighborhoods and areas I have considered or lived in. Below that is pushing it and I might consider having or using a car more to be honest.
I suppose 85 would be about my threshold to live and not really need to use my car much or have one at all. Other people will have their own tolerances.
LA looks to have 450k or so at over 85 walk score, not too shabby actually and not that far behind SF.
Agreed, though still being a newer city Seattle does well, especially for its density. Dweebo's graphs were the best way, I think Seattle still did decently.
NYC is the largest of the cities and has the highest % of its metros population within city limit for larger cities (not in Texas or Arizona) yet manages to have a high walkscore anyway. But I think San Francisco scored higher than New York City until Walk Score redid its numbers for the size reason.
For Downtown Manhattan, true for some stores. For Midtown Midtown, not true. The movie theater in Midtown gets lots of patrons for other parts of the city (late at night and want to go to a movie theater in a Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Where to go? CBD.) The Midtown Home Depot is open late-ish hours. Decent amount of restaurants and bars open though nicer ones a short walk out of Midtown. Eventually Midtown falls asleep, but it takes its time.
Yeah I was referring to DT/Wall Street area. The Loop in Chicago, DT DC... etc. all super high walk scores.
Wall Street has a walkscore of 100, it is certainly not the most convenient area of Manhattan... Hence why I was saying their threshold for a 100 score is a bit off base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Agreed, though still being a newer city Seattle does well, especially for its density. Dweebo's graphs were the best way, I think Seattle still did decently.
NYC is the largest of the cities and has the highest % of its metros population within city limit for larger cities (not in Texas or Arizona) yet manages to have a high walkscore anyway. But I think San Francisco scored higher than New York City until Walk Score redid its numbers for the size reason.
Wall Street has a walkscore of 100, it is certainly not the most convenient area of Manhattan... Hence why I was saying their threshold for a 100 score is a bit off base.
Makes sense, walk score doesn't work well for certain special cases. Though if you go a 3/4-1 mile out of Wall Street the amenities become more normal. But you said CBD. DT/Wall Street has a little less than half the number of jobs of Midtown, it's not the main CBD.
But see my notes about how they gauge distance *to* amenities. A mile is a 15-25 minute walk in most cities depending on crossing streets, certainly in NYC, it isn't like walking a swift walk down a path, in my neighborhood I generally don't walk more than 3-4 blocks, if not then I get on the el and go somewhere else.
Also note what amenities are there, they give equal points to say, a Trader Joes vs a 7-11, or a post office, or random person selling boutique clothes, really any commercial building.
Prime walkable areas in Chicago are very walkable b/c you can walk to a movie theater, 30-40 differnet restaurants and bars, a whole foods, a trader joes, liquor stores, ace hardware. They are also not gauging hours these places are open, if a place is close to a CBD such as in LA, Chicago, DC, NYC, it is quite likely these places are closing shop at 5-6pm.
I was just looking around and they are giving points to a gem store, a physical therapy center, etc. Who is using these things on a daily basis? They shouldn't be counted if they aren't typical daily/weekly needs. Likewise a neighborhood bank is only valuable if you bank with that particular company. My building used to have a dentist office downstairs, a foot doctor and a leasing agency, these are not valuable to me yet they are counted for "walkscore" Several other really misleading variables.
Most people generally want as I said, a good grocery store or several, some form of hardware store though in city targets work, restaurants, bars, and possibly a gym in the neighborhood if not in your building. Many of the high rise residential buildings, esp doorman/front desk style ones in Chicago have gym, dry cleaners, and a small convenience store all contained in the building, also sometimes a taxi light, private shuttles, etc.
Yeah, grocery stores should be weighted highest of them all--it's the most used amenity by far. Neighborhoods with access to rail should be getting more bonus points than they're recieving as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
