According to Walkscore, California has the most walkable cities (Los Angeles: home, neighborhoods)

[overunder12]

If you go to the California page and organize the "walk score" column by highest to lowest you'll notice there are over 25 cities with a walkscore of 70+. There are no other states who come close.

Cities in California on Walk Score

I think this captures a certain truth about the state that is stereotyped as being "where car is king". Yes, for being such a big city, LA has a ton of sprawl. But California as a whole has a lot of walkable cities and areas. It doesn't even belong in the same conversation as states like Arizona or Texas. California really does have tons of walkable areas, especially in Northern California, but in Southern as well.

The jaw-dropping sprawl of places like the Inland Empire capture everyones imagination, but the truth is California has a TON of walkable downtowns and cities.

[DANNYY]

California gets put into conversations with other Sunbelt states because its largest city isn't as walkable as it should be. And your link shows that, Los Angeles has a walkscore of 67. Which isn't great at all, anything less than 75 isn't all that impressive, in my opinion.

- Oakland: 68 (7th largest city in CA)
- San Jose: 55 (3rd largest city in CA)
- San Diego: 56 (2nd largest city in CA)
- Los Angeles: 67 (1st largest city in CA)
- Sacramento: 54 (6th largest city in CA)


Most of the cities are the small cities, what I find impressive is when large major cities have a great walkscore. Not small towns. San Francisco has a great score and the only notable one amongst the larger cities in California.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by overunder12

If you go to the California page and organize the "walk score" column by highest to lowest you'll notice there are over 25 cities with a walkscore of 70+. There are no other states who come close.

Cities in California on Walk Score

I think this captures a certain truth about the state that is stereotyped as being "where car is king". Yes, for being such a big city, LA has a ton of sprawl. But California as a whole has a lot of walkable cities and areas. It doesn't even belong in the same conversation as states like Arizona or Texas. California really does have tons of walkable areas, especially in Northern California, but in Southern as well.

The jaw-dropping sprawl of places like the Inland Empire capture everyones imagination, but the truth is California has a TON of walkable downtowns and cities.

I think that the Walk Score in a California city is directly proportional to the percentage of the population that can no longer afford to drive.

[rah]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

California gets put into conversations with other Sunbelt states because its largest city isn't as walkable as it should be. And your link shows that, Los Angeles has a walkscore of 67. Which isn't great at all, anything less than 75 isn't all that impressive, in my opinion.

- Oakland: 68 (7th largest city in CA)
- San Jose: 55 (3rd largest city in CA)
- San Diego: 56 (2nd largest city in CA)
- Los Angeles: 67 (1st largest city in CA)
- Sacramento: 54 (6th largest city in CA)


Most of the cities are the small cities, what I find impressive is when large major cities have a great walkscore. Not small towns. San Francisco has a great score and the only notable one amongst the larger cities in California.

The guy was not referring just to the largest CA cities, but to CA cities with walk scores with scores of 70+...which means these ones:

West Hollywood - 91
San Francisco - 85
Albany - 84
Santa Monica - 83
Berkeley - 81
Culver City - 78
Beverly Hills - 78
Hermosa Beach - 77
Huntington Park - 76
Artesia - 76
Redondo Beach - 75
Lomita - 74
Burbank - 73
Lawndale - 73
El Segundo - 72
Gardena - 72
Grover Beach - 72
San Gabriel - 71
Grass Valley - 71
Burlingame - 70
Maywood - 70
Torrance - 70
Ukiah - 70
Costa Mesa - 70
Alameda - 70

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

California gets put into conversations with other Sunbelt states because its largest city isn't as walkable as it should be.

That's just an example of Eastern ignorance because in reality, no other state even comes close as far as its top 25 walkable cities.

And your link shows that, Los Angeles has a walkscore of 67. Which isn't great at all, anything less than 75 isn't all that impressive, in my opinion.

- Oakland: 68 (7th largest city in CA)
- San Jose: 55 (3rd largest city in CA)
- San Diego: 56 (2nd largest city in CA)
- Los Angeles: 67 (1st largest city in CA)
- Sacramento: 54 (6th largest city in CA)

Oh please. You do know that our cities have hills that are not developed or cannot be densely developed right?

In any event:

Los Angeles Neighborhoods Walkability Score, 80+
Neighborhood, Score
Downtown 97
Near Downtown 95
Civic center-Little Tokyo 91
South Park 91
Mid City West 90
Hollywood 88
Mid Wilshire 86
Wholesale District 86
Sawtelle 84
Westlake 83
Century City 81
Valley Village 80
Los Feliz 80
Los Angeles, California Neighborhoods on Walk Score

Oakland Neighborhoods by Walkability Score, 80+
Neighborhood, Score
Downtown 99
Civic Center97
Old Oakland/Waterfront 96
Lakeside 95
Chinatown 95
Piedmont Avenue 94
San Pablo Gateway 93
Merritt 92
Fairview Park 91
Waverly 91
Temescal 89
Northgate 89
Bushrod 88
Shafter 86
Golden Gate 86
Lake Merritt 85
East Peralta 85
Pill Hill 85
Fruitvale Station 85
Mosswood 85
Laurel 85
Gaskill 85
Cleveland Heights 83
Hawthorne 83
Rockridge 83
Grand Lake 83
South Kennedy Tract 82
Lakeshore 82
Dimond 82
Paradise Park 82
North Kennedy Tract 81
Ivy Hill 81
St Elizabeth 81
Oakland Av-Harrrison St 81
Upper Laurel 81
Santa Fe 80
Oakland, California Neighborhoods on Walk Score

Sacramento Neighborhoods by Walkability Score, 80+
Neighborhood, Score
Downtown 94
Boulevard Park 92
Mansion Flats 88
Marshall School 88
Richmond Grove 87
Midtown 86
Southside Park 85
Alkali Flat 84
New Era Park 80
Sacramento, California Neighborhoods on Walk Score

San Diego Neighborhoods Walkability Score, 80+
Neighborhood, Score
Gaslamp Quarter 99
Core 97
Horton Plaza 96
Marina 93
Cortez Hill 93
East Village 85
Park West 84
Midtown 82
Little Italy 81
Normal Heights 80
West University Heights 80
http://www.walkscore.com/CA/San_Diego

[BRinSM]

LA getting a 67 is misleading since there are neighborhoods that would be close to 0 along with those that are very high as seen above. i used to live in santa monica where the walkscore was 93 i believe, which is much higher than the 83 seen above. walkscores need to be calculated at the neighborhood level, trying to score an entire city and the amount of geography it covers is ridiculous (especially the city of LA).

[rah]

^yeah parkland, industrial areas, office parks, undeveloped mountains/land, and car-dependent outer neighborhoods can all greatly bring down the walk score of a city that otherwise has lots of very walkable neighborhoods. LA is probably the best example of that.

also, might as well post the SF and SJ hoods with scores of 70+:

San Jose:
Total score - 55
1. Downtown - 72
2. Rose Garden - 70

San Francisco:
Total score - 85
1. Financial District - 99
2. Chinatown - 99
3. Downtown - 98
4. Nob Hill - 97
5. Mission - 95
6. South Of Market - 95
7. Pacific Heights - 95
8. Presidio Heights - 95
9. North Beach - 94
10. Western Addition - 94
11. Haight-Ashbury - 93
12. Castro-Upper Market - 92
13. Russian Hill - 92
14. Inner Richmond - 92
15. Marina - 91
16. Noe Valley - 89
17. Outer Richmond - 87
18. Potrero Hill - 85
19. Bernal Heights - 85
20. Glen Park - 83
21. Inner Sunset - 83
22. Parkside - 80
23. Outer Mission - 79
24. Diamond Heights - 79
25. West Of Twin Peaks - 78
26. Ocean View - 76
27. Outer Sunset - 74
28. Bayview - 71
29. Seacliff - 71
30. Excelsior - 70

^I'm kind of confused as to why they only gave the Excelsior a score of 70...Mission street is the main strip there, and there is no shortage of amenities at all. It's also pretty densely populated, and it's not that big of a neighborhood....maybe they included McLaren park (2nd largest park in SF) with the Excelsior, which brought the numbers down? That must be it because there's no way hoods like Potrero Hill, the Bayview, Outer Sunset, Diamond Heights, etc are more walkable than the Excelsior is.

edit: might as well do Long Beach and Fresno too:

Fresno:
total score - 52
1. Central - 76

Long Beach:
total score - 66
1. Downtown - 84
2. Belmont Heights - 83
3. Belmont Shore - 83
4. East Side - 78
5. Naples-Marina Area - 74
6. Alamitos Heights - 73
7. Circle Area - 71
8. Bixby Knolls - 71
9. Poly High District - 71

[Curmudgeon]

I have to question their scoring. Our home in the boonies registers as a Zero. I don't question that. But it also lists several stores and other amenities within just slightly a mile or two from us (I consider that easily walkable, by the way). However, the reality is that the closest anything, a gas station/convenience/liquor/bait and tackle store is seven miles from us with another five miles beyond that and any real shopping between 18 and 24 miles away. To me, that disparity makes their scoring strongly suspect.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

That's just an example of Eastern ignorance because in reality, no other state even comes close as far as its top 25 walkable cities.

Well, Texas ignorance. We see a lot of that in the CA fora.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Sacramento Neighborhoods by Walkability Score, 80+
Neighborhood, Score
Downtown 94
Boulevard Park 92
Mansion Flats 88
Marshall School 88
Richmond Grove 87
Midtown 86
Southside Park 85
Alkali Flat 84
New Era Park 80
Sacramento, California Neighborhoods on Walk Score

Yeah, I was going to say the Sacramento walkscore is VERY misleading as the central city (not just downtown, but the entire central city) is a completely different world than the surrounding suburbs. A night and day difference as far as walk ability and urbanity.