Real Gardens

How Walkable Is Your Neighborhood?

OK, this is too cool, so I’m hijacking it from the comments in the previous post.  On the heels of GardenWalk, an oh-so-walkable event, check out what Susan found:

Go to WalkScore and type in your address.  It uses Google Maps to score how walkable your neighborhood is based on the proximity to restaurants, stores, schools, etc.  (and freely admits that other factors, like the availability of sidewalks, are not taken into account.)

My editor’s office in Greenwich Village scores a perfect 100.  Given that, how does little old Eureka fare?

88.  Not bad, but I’d advocate for adjusting it downward because our local food co-op is included in the listings several times (for its deli, coffee shop, etc etc) even though it had the nerve to move across town several months ago.  Damn them.

How do you score?

Posted by on July 31, 2007 at 6:58 pm, in the category Real Gardens.
Comments are off for this post

17 responses to “How Walkable Is Your Neighborhood?”

  1. sam remirez says:

    448 N. Garfield ave apt 1 Montebello, ca 90640 when you walk pass this apartment all you smell is the odor of strong pot, and its across the street from a catholic school, i rate this area montebello,ca 2 out of 10

  2. alessia says:

    My walk score is 35. That’s not so bad I should say. This service can be rather useful especially for those who are going to buy a house or just want to estimate their present location. So as it turned out my neighborhood is quite walk able. I have also tried one more service at http://drivescore.fizber.com/ It is called Drive Score. With the help of it you can see how close establishments are by car. My result is 50.

  3. tina says:

    omg…I got a perfect 0. Ugh! I kept waiting for the score to change and it took a minute for me to realize it just wasn’t going to. No wonder I stay in my own yard.

  4. chuck b. says:

    And it is REALLY out of date.

    The socialist bookstore is long gone.

  5. chuck b. says:

    I expected a perfect 100, but I only got 86. Must have been the hills. The hills can be daunting.

    http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.shtml?street=cortland+street%2C+San+Francisco%2C+CA+94110&go=Go

  6. Vic Stewart says:

    We got an 83, but I think that’s WAY too low! Don’t you?
    VS

  7. Carol says:

    My subdivision neighborhood scored a 9. Ugh… You can walk around the neighborhood, or ride bikes, and many do, there are just not any good destinations within the ‘hood!

  8. MaryContrary says:

    Urp. A whopping 5. Yes, a single digit.

    Of course, I live in the country and they don’t give me points for being able to walk to a beautiful beach on the Chesapeake Bay … or for being able to walk just to the side yard for most of my fruit and vegetables.

  9. firefly says:

    My street got a 72, and while it’s true there are lots of things within walking distance as the crow flies, it’s also true that two of the major routes leading north out of Portland are smack in the middle of all that. You seriously take your life into your hands every time you cross.

    Worse yet, in winter the snow shoveling ordinance is not enforced. One of the city councilors was actually quoted in the newspaper as saying ‘well, in my neighborhood, people just walk in the street’.

    Yeah, that’s what streets are for. Who needs sidewalks?

  10. Claire Splan says:

    My neighborhood in Alameda got an 83, but I’d actually rate it slightly higher. If we ever get the old Navy base completely revamped, I’m sure the score will zoom up.

    So now I really have no excuse for not walking, do I?

  11. Jane says:

    My house got 65, although the data was a bit out of date so I think we might score slightly higher now – some new small retail has gone in recently. Also, it doesn’t seem to include galleries (we have 3 small ones at the moment) or personal services like hairdressers, massage therapy, medical, dental, etc. which we have also and definitely improve walkability.

    Very cool website, though.

  12. molly peasy says:

    The score–78–seems about right for my under served Brooklyn neighborhood, but the listings are hit and miss. Major resources, like the 8-acre park right around the corner from my house, are left out.

  13. Marte says:

    My address scored a 51, but I would rate it a bit higher, based on proximity to the post office, a clinic and many more restaurants than the maps noted.

  14. Val Webb says:

    Ugh. My neighborhood scored a dismal 37 out of 100, although it is showing signs of improvement. And although possibly not so pedestrian friendly, it is verrrry bike friendly… so there’s hope! Thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking tool.

  15. John says:

    The idea is sound and the site is well executed, but it gave me 71 out of 100 and I’d rate my area no better than 40 or so.

    The reason it did so poorly for me: incorrect business and landmark data from Google Maps. Most of the problem is that the items were miscategorized, with wholesale business showing up as retail and some businesses not showing up at all. It should work better if the data improves.

  16. eliz says:

    86, but this thing is way out of date, as others have commented. Not too bad though–the out-of-date coffee shop they have was simply replaced by a new one. I think there are closer delis than what they have–half a block, not 1 & 1/2.

    I think everyone was playing this on a local listserv last week.

  17. Pam/Digging says:

    My neighborhood ranks a middling 43 out of 100. That’s about what I’d have guessed.