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.
So basically it's a worthless study since all city limits are different sizes. It is the reason why they have Miami higher than DC and Chicago and one spot lower than Philadelphia. Laughable.
I wouldn't say it's worthless, but walk score would do well change their policy of only using city limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDPMiami
Nothing about low city limits benefits Miami, the list is calculated on a per capita basis, 36 square miles of suburbia will get 10 or less. Try and keep up.
Miami benefits greatly from its tiny borders, think it would score a 76 if it covered 500 sq miles like Houston? DC's 36 most densely populated sq miles would produce a higher walkscore than 76, no question about it.
Because Miami (yes even the city) is no different than the rest of the sunbelt. It's dense but that's it. Most of it is suburban with poor transit options and built around the car. Only the areas close to the water is what anyone would call urban. People see the density numbers and think, oh it's about as urban as Boston or Philadelphia, but in reality, it's more like Atlanta and Houston.
I wouldn't say it's worthless, but walk score would do well change their policy of only using city limits.
Miami benefits greatly from its tiny borders, think it would score a 76 if it covered 500 sq miles like Houston? DC's 36 most densely populated sq miles would produce a higher walkscore than 76, no question about it.
Would San Francisco or NYC have their walk scores at 500 sq miles? Nope, they'd decrease dramatically.
Oddly, there is no score for transit for my apartment, maybe because it is outside LA city limits. My last apartment in Hollywood was 67, so I would venture to guess my current apartment is like a 60.
Would San Francisco or NYC have their walk scores at 500 sq miles? Nope, they'd decrease dramatically.
NYC walk score would not decrease LMFAO. It would increase even more if they just did the surrounding Manhattan/Brooklyn area. Do your math or at least common sense.
NYC walk score would not decrease LMFAO. It would increase even more if they just did the surrounding Manhattan/Brooklyn area. Do your math or at least common sense.
Lol so New York's suburbs are more walkable than the city itself?
NYC walk score would not decrease LMFAO. It would increase even more if they just did the surrounding Manhattan/Brooklyn area. Do your math or at least common sense.
Yeah I don't think this is correct. NYC has walkable suburbs but they would probably lower the score a little bit.
At 500 square miles, the Bay Area would have around the same walk score as Los Angeles or maybe a little bit higher.
Yeah, I just checked Gallery Place for D.C. and it was:
Walk Score = 99
Transit Score = 100
Bike Score = 88
I wonder if any neighborhoods, like say in NYC, have 100 in everything?
imagine bike score would be a challenge - much of what can make an area this walkable and even transit friendly is probably going to have some impact on bikeability
just looked at 15th and Market in Center city
Walk 100
Transit 100
Bike 89 (they are supposed to put in a dedicated bike lane on JFK linking to many trails but doubt would make it a 100) I dont know if any core urban areas would ever get a 100 bike score to be honest
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.