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.
You mean, Houston's unusually large city limits? Atlanta's city limits are a little below average. Atlanta's urban core is more compact and cohesive than Houston's is and Houston does not have a neighborhood that can stand up to Midtown Atlanta for walkability.
You know what I kind of hate about Walkscore? That a neighborhood like this in the video only scored a 54. It's a classic walkable neighborhood in Atlanta with restaurants, shopping, and residential.
It's not very good at reading what's walkable and what's not. You can't see some of the residential units in the neighborhood, but here are some in the photos. Most people would consider this walkable.
I'm sure Glenwood Park's score will increase considerably when Fuqua's Kroger is finished.
Which is kinda really important. People generally don't walk to stare at rowhouses, they walk to get to run errands, go to places, etc.
Walkscore gets it right for the most part.
Walkscore gets it right in most of the country. The only places I've noticed really paradoxical scores (e.g., much higher than you'd expect based upon the built environment) are "suburban" areas with high densities. This isn't just limited to California and Southern Florida. You also see this in New York, where unquestionably suburban areas can end up with reasonably good walkscores. Small-lot suburbia of any sort results in a relatively large number of people living closer to the commercial corridors, which boosts walkscores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
The only places in the South with good walkability would be New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah, and Miami Beach. And even those areas are far from perfect. I'm not aware of any other such places.
I think the core of Richmond (running from Museum District to Church Hill, most notably including The Fan) would count. There are also a lot of older, smaller cities which would count, at least in downtown (Fredricksburg, Covington, Key West, etc).
Walkscore gets it right in most of the country. The only places I've noticed really paradoxical scores (e.g., much higher than you'd expect based upon the built environment) are "suburban" areas with high densities. This isn't just limited to California and Southern Florida. You also see this in New York, where unquestionably suburban areas can end up with reasonably good walkscores. Small-lot suburbia of any sort results in a relatively large number of people living closer to the commercial corridors, which boosts walkscores.
51 is a decent walkscore? I don't think that's paradoxical, it's meant to measure how much is in walking distance. I lived in a house with a walkscore of 54 as a child, it meant there were a bunch of useful destinations in walking distance, but not pedestrian oriented. Levittown's issue is the wide commercial streets and street crossing locations appear far apart.
I just looked up my dad's childhood home in Pasadena. It has a walkscore of 54. However, I've been there tons of times and there was nothing walkable about it minus the fact that it was near a park. If you wanted any sort of business, you'd have to walk at least 10-15 minutes (sometimes more). Never thought of it as a pedestrian oriented area other than the fact there were sidewalks and it was a nice neighborhood for a stroll.
Walkscore weighs walkability based on the variety of things you can walk to. A bunch of rowhouses will get a bad score and a bar strip similarly if they don't have much of the way of other options.
People here just can't accept that the average Miami resident can accomplish more errands on foot than all major U.S. Cities but 3.
51 is a decent walkscore? I don't think that's paradoxical, it's meant to measure how much is in walking distance. I lived in a house with a walkscore of 54 as a child, it meant there were a bunch of useful destinations in walking distance, but not pedestrian oriented. Levittown's issue is the wide commercial streets and street crossing locations appear far apart.
The only parts of the country I see suburbs which score walkscores of over 50 in reasonable numbers are around metro NYC (including northern NJ - southern NJ burbs don't score high), Chicagoland, California, and Southeast Florida. Make of that what you will.
The problem with using towns, is it averages spots far from stores and residential-only. My town's walk score is 39 is it less walkable than Levittown? Yes and no. Parts are much better, other parts just have nothing in walking distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
The only parts of the country I see suburbs which score walkscores of over 50 in reasonable numbers are around metro NYC (including northern NJ - southern NJ burbs don't score high). California, and Southeast Florida. Make of that what you will.
It's returning suburban municipalities which don't contain spread out nothing in walking distance parts, but are consistently built.
I just looked up my dad's childhood home in Pasadena. It has a walkscore of 54. However, I've been there tons of times and there was nothing walkable about it minus the fact that it was near a park. If you wanted any sort of business, you'd have to walk at least 10-15 minutes (sometimes more). Never thought of it as a pedestrian oriented area other than the fact there were sidewalks and it was a nice neighborhood for a stroll.
Let's not pretend that a walkability score in the 70s is good either. IMO, if it isn't 90s you will rely on your car. 50s is terrible.
Let's not pretend that a walkability score in the 70s is good either. IMO, if it isn't 90s you will rely on your car. 50s is terrible.
70s is decent - pretty good but not amazing. Walkscore considers anything above 70 as "Very walkable." 60s and maybe 50s is considered "Somewhat walkable." 90s and above is "Walker's paradise" I believe. If you were to calculate this same thing for 90+, it would look different. Miami actually has no total neighborhoods that Walkscore deems 90+. The closest is Downtown at 89. Little Havana at 86.
70s is decent - pretty good but not amazing. Walkscore considers anything above 70 as "Very walkable." 60s and maybe 50s is considered "Somewhat walkable." 90s and above is "Walker's paradise" I believe. If you were to calculate this same thing for 90+, it would look different. Miami actually has no total neighborhoods that Walkscore deems 90+. The closest is Downtown at 89. Little Havana at 86.
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.
