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 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.
I understand this criticism of walkscore, and I concur. Ideally everything should be based on neighborhood, or, when not available, zip code. AFAIK walkscores have been calculated for every point in the U.S. and Canada, so this segregation shouldn't be that much more difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
It's returning suburban municipalities which don't contain spread out nothing in walking distance parts, but are consistently built.
I understand that, but the question is why are suburbs in the three areas I mentioned (and Chicagoland, I edited my post - some Chicagoland suburbs have moderately high walkscores) manage to be consistently built, when you can't find the same thing in suburbs elsewhere in the country, where nearly an entire town will functionally score zero on walkscore. Is it just because in those areas it was normal for suburbs to contain some strip malls, whereas elsewhere entirely residential towns took off?
I understand this criticism of walkscore, and I concur. Ideally everything should be based on neighborhood, or, when not available, zip code. AFAIK walkscores have been calculated for every point in the U.S. and Canada, so this segregation shouldn't be that much more difficult.
For one town with a rather walkable center. Lower than I expected, I'm wondering if it's weighted by population? Because I think most of the population is in the green area. Site says it is,
o rank cities and neighborhoods, we calculate the Walk Score of approximately every city block (technically a grid of latitude and longitude points spaced roughly 500 feet apart).
Each point is weighted by population density so that the rankings reflect where people live and so that neighborhoods and cities do not have lower scores because of parks, bodies of water, etc.
I understand that, but the question is why are suburbs in the three areas I mentioned (and Chicagoland, I edited my post - some Chicagoland suburbs have moderately high walkscores) manage to be consistently built, when you can't find the same thing in suburbs elsewhere in the country, where nearly an entire town will functionally score zero on walkscore. Is it just because in those areas it was normal for suburbs to contain some strip malls, whereas elsewhere entirely residential towns took off?
I think it mostly reflects population density, check a population density map, say the NYTimes map. Those areas have the most consistently dense suburbs, as opposed to patchy density.
For one town with a rather walkable center. Lower than I expected, I'm wondering if it's weighted by population? Because I think most of the population is in the green area.
My understanding is that Walkscore only breaks down by zip for scored municipalities (e.g., with over 20,000 people) which it doesn't have neighborhood boundaries for. Obviously since it does this here, however, it could do it everywhere though.
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.
Fair enough, regarding Houston's size.
Atlanta does the stylish, new urbanist thing really well. The problem is that developments are more disconnected while being strung about on hills and winding roads. Houston has quite the advantage with its flat grid set up. It's filling in much more seamlessly and is bound to completely eclipse Atlanta in the urbanity department.
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.
I would never move somewhere with a 54 score and think that would be walkable. I understand how the site categorizes their scores, but I think that is where they get it most wrong.
I said in another thread, 80 is about me threshold to consider a place to be pedestrian friendly and allow for a very car light or car free lifestyle. 70-80 is okay, but many more trips need a car. This is based on my experiencelooking for housing in LA only, maybe it is different elsewhere.
I am assuming your dads old place is north of the 210, maybe even north of Orange Grove? Pasadena is very walkable in places, but outside of its 2-3 square mile urban core the commercial streets get very spaced out.
Atlanta does the stylish, new urbanist thing really well. The problem is that developments are more disconnected while being strung about on hills and winding roads. Houston has quite the advantage with its flat grid set up. It's filling in much more seamlessly and is bound to completely eclipse Atlanta in the urbanity department.
The problem with Houston is that it doesn't do urbanity very well at all. Look at the recent townhomes being built there and compare with recent townhomes/rowhouses built in Atlanta. It's night and day.
As I said before Midtown(and downtown) is more walkable than Houston's inner core and it's likely to stay that way for a long time. By 2030, Midtown will be one of the best urban neighborhoods in the country(and definitely in the south) and I'm confident in saying that.
The problem with Houston is that it doesn't do urbanity very well at all. Look at the recent townhomes being built there and compare with recent townhomes/rowhouses built in Atlanta. It's night and day.
What about them exactly? Are you referring to the style that they're built?
If you could combine Atl new urbanism with Houston grid...and Boston/SF/Philly architecture and old world charm and Chicago size...and NYC transit infrastructure..and DC grandness. Lol
I actually do think that Houston's grid specifically inside the loop could work as an advantage if they had smarter planners. Houston doesn't do urban well at all. It's what frustrates me about the city. An urban planner could do so much with this street. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7792...8i6656!6m1!1e1
That's how most of 610 looks with narrow streets within the neighborhoods. But instead, you would think you are on in a small town instead of a large metropolis.
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.
