Walkability in Various Cities

**Hermod** · January-08-12, 11:33 AM

In many of the threads on this site, there is a lot of talk about "walkability" and how desirable it is.

Reading my local fish wrapper at breakfast this morning, it repeated an article from the Palm Beach Post reporting on a study by an outfit called "Walk Score" on walkability. The walkability score is based on the mean distance form each home in a locale to groceries, parks, and department stores.

The worst place in Florida [[and third from the bottom in the nation) is an unincorporated 1960s development called The Acreage. It is an isolated 37 sq mil community of 40,000 people on uniform 1.25 acre lots. The only exercise they get is walking to their cars.

Walk Score doesn't measure how pleasant the conditions of the walk are, just how short the walk is.

The best area in Palm Beach County is Lake Worth with a W-S score of 55. The best in Florida are Miami Beach [[75) and Miami [[73).

New York and San Francisco [[famous for their walkability) only score 85.

The only places in the US rated higher than 90 are all in New Jersey.: Hoboken [[92), Union City [[92), and West New York [[90).

**Novine** · January-08-12, 12:00 PM

Link to Walkscore

Walkscore can give you a score based on your address, zip code or city. If you search by city name, it bases the score on whatever it considers the "downtown" location. New York City came up with a 100 walk score because it's based on a location in Manhattan. It also has a 100 Transit score. Chicago was 98 for walking and 100 for transit. Detroit has a 25 walk score because it scores based on a location centered on Campus Martius. Detroit had no score for transit which is probably from a lack of data. Change the zip to 48202, which is the Wayne State campus area, and the walk score goes up to 91. Both areas are equally walkable. But the Wayne State area has a higher density of retail, restaurants, etc. Birmingham scores a 95 and Northville scores a 91. It's all based on Google data so if particular amenities aren't entered in the Google, it won't be reflected in the walk score.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-08-12, 12:31 PM

I don't put much faith in walkscore. 48226 [[the CBD) has a walkscore of 29! It says its car dependent.

**animatedmartian** · January-08-12, 12:36 PM

It counts amenities in Windsor. Makes a big difference.

Also, I don't think it's meant to be perfect either, but it's a general idea.

**Hermod** · January-08-12, 12:37 PM

Detroit as a whole city has a walk score of 49.8 and is tied with Houston, TX

**DetroitPlanner** · January-08-12, 12:50 PM

I think the issue is that they are trying to quantify things based upon having limited or incomplete data. A walkscore needs to be a qualitative assessment. I would give much of Detroit a good score based upon infastructure alone. Yes there are holes in proximity to things people will want to walk to, and another issue would be real or percieved crime.

**Hermod** · January-08-12, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

I think the issue is that they are trying to quantify things based upon having limited or incomplete data. A walkscore needs to be a qualitative assessment. I would give much of Detroit a good score based upon infastructure alone. Yes there are holes in proximity to things people will want to walk to, and another issue would be real or percieved crime.

How many houses in Detroit are within walking distance of a supermarket? How many are in walking distance of a department store? That is the infrastructure being measured.

**stasu1213** · January-08-12, 01:20 PM

Royal Oak should have walk score of 95 for Main Stret and Washington Street.

**antongast** · January-08-12, 02:34 PM

FWIW, my current address [[in Detroit) rates a 92, my most recent former address [[also in Detroit) got an 85, the address where I grew up [[in an inner-ring Detroit suburb) is a 52, and another former address of mine [[in a very nice, very functional city very far away from here) got a 63. I don't know if that says more about my past and present neighborhoods or Walkscore's methodology, but there it is.

**wolverine** · January-08-12, 02:43 PM

My neighborhood scored 100. Kind of helps that there 10 supermarkets within 5 mins walk from each other.

**313WX** · January-08-12, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

My neighborhood scored 100. Kind of helps that there 10 supermarkets within 5 mins walk from each other.

WOW!!!

Now that's density!!!

Many neighborhoods are lucky to have 2 or 3 within a 5 minute walking distance in Detroit.

**mtburb** · January-08-12, 04:18 PM

The zip code 48192 [[Wyandotte) has a walk score of 49 [[and the site thinks downtown is at 7th and Chestnut when it isn't) and is car-dependent. No transit data. My current Wyandotte address has a walk score of 69, making it "somewhat walkable". My first address [[in Southgate) had a walk score of 85, making it "very walkable". The address after that, also in Wyandotte, had a walk score of 46, also making it car-dependent. The address after that, this one in southwest Detroit, had a walk score of 37, again making it car-dependent. Then my next address, in Warren, has a walk score of 77, making it "very walkable" and the address after that [[and before my current one), in Dearborn, had a walk score of 45, making it car-dependent.

Oddly enough, a section of Greenfield Village is car-dependent!

**iheartthed** · January-08-12, 04:26 PM

On a micro level WalkScore is pretty flawed. You'll never run out of comparisons worth a head scratch. On a macro level it's pretty accurate. Detroit today probably is about as walkable as Houston. NYC and SF are the most walkable big cities in the U.S., etc.

9mile&seneca · January-08-12, 05:37 PM

The general rule of thumb is: the lower the property value, the more walkability. As soon as Mr and Mrs boojie are flush, they imagine themselves English nobility. They require vast expases of grass, no sidewalks, and five miles to the nearest watering hole. That's why, after the DUI's, Mr Boojie white guy has to sell his little mini farm that only produced grass to begin with, and move to a more "walkable" neighborhood.

**Gistok** · January-08-12, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by 9mile&seneca

The general rule of thumb is: the lower the property value, the more walkability. As soon as Mr and Mrs boojie are flush, they imagine themselves English nobility. They require vast expases of grass, no sidewalks, and five miles to the nearest watering hole. That's why, after the DUI's, Mr Boojie white guy has to sell his little mini farm that only produced grass to begin with, and move to a more "walkable" neighborhood.

Not necessarily true... the 48236 [[Grosse Pointes) zip code got a 26... while my SCS zip code got a 62.

**casscorridor** · January-08-12, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by 9mile&seneca

The general rule of thumb is: the lower the property value, the more walkability. As soon as Mr and Mrs boojie are flush, they imagine themselves English nobility. They require vast expases of grass, no sidewalks, and five miles to the nearest watering hole. That's why, after the DUI's, Mr Boojie white guy has to sell his little mini farm that only produced grass to begin with, and move to a more "walkable" neighborhood.

So what about Manhattan? Clearly, this rule doesn't apply universally. Or even in Michigan for that matter... What about Birmingham and Ann Arbor? Both highly walkable but high property values.

**mtburb** · January-08-12, 06:52 PM

Went back on that site and Wyandotte itself [[not the zip code) got a score of 45 and a rank of "car-dependent." and was centered on Biddle and Ford [[Northline).

Originally Posted by casscorridor

What about Ann Arbor?

Checked the intersection of Main Street and Stadium Boulevard [[next to the Big House) and it got a score of 58 and a rank of "somewhat walkable." Ann Arbor itself, on the other hand, got a score of 94 and a rank of "walker's paradise."

This is what the site describes about the CBD:
"Downtown is the #90 most walkable neighborhood in Detroit. This neighborhood is a Car-Dependent neighborhood with an average Walk Score of 18. Downtown has 3,912 people—or 0.5% of Detroit's population.Downtown is similar in walkability to Carbon Works and Gold Coast. Downtown's Walk Score is 32 points lower than Detroit's Walk Score of 50."

And that of WSU:
"Wayne State is the #3 most walkable neighborhood in Detroit. This neighborhood is Very Walkable with an average Walk Score of 80. Wayne State has 3,976 people—or 0.6% of Detroit's population.Wayne State is similar in walkability to New Center and Art Center. Wayne State's Walk Score is 30 points higher than Detroit's Walk Score of 50."

**iheartthed** · January-08-12, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by 9mile&seneca

The general rule of thumb is: the lower the property value, the more walkability. As soon as Mr and Mrs boojie are flush, they imagine themselves English nobility. They require vast expases of grass, no sidewalks, and five miles to the nearest watering hole. That's why, after the DUI's, Mr Boojie white guy has to sell his little mini farm that only produced grass to begin with, and move to a more "walkable" neighborhood.

So why does a 1 bedroom apartment in Manhattan's West Village cost the same as a 4 bedroom house in Bloomfield Hills?

**313WX** · January-08-12, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by 9mile&seneca

The general rule of thumb is: the lower the property value, the more walkability. As soon as Mr and Mrs boojie are flush, they imagine themselves English nobility. They require vast expases of grass, no sidewalks, and five miles to the nearest watering hole. That's why, after the DUI's, Mr Boojie white guy has to sell his little mini farm that only produced grass to begin with, and move to a more "walkable" neighborhood.

Do you have some solid proof to back up your general rule of thumb?

I always thought property values correlated with quality of life, not walkability.

**Gistok** · January-08-12, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Do you have some solid proof to back up your general rule of thumb?

I always thought property values correlated with quality of life, not walkability.

The same question of proof could be asked of you.... Royal Oak and St. Clair Shores have similar housing stock [[upper middle class and middle class)... yet the property values in Royal Oak are higher... does that mean the people of Royal Oak have a better quality of life than SCS?

**313WX** · January-08-12, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

does that mean the people of Royal Oak have a better quality of life than SCS?

Yes, actually.

The people of Royal Oak have a nice, bustling, walkable downtown filled with all sorts of retail, eating and entertainment establishment. They also have a huge zoo along with a farmer's market in their community. People will pay more money to be in a stone's throw of these things. St. Clair Shore is just a run of the mill bedroom community.

That said, even look at it on a macro scale. New York and San Francisco have a very high cost of living, while cities such as Detroit and Cleveland have a cost of living which is at rock bottom by comparison.

**Parkguy** · January-08-12, 10:33 PM

My house in Rosedale Park scores 66. Rosedale Park overall is 60.

A recent article:
The article uses CEOs for Cities’ Walking the Walk to quantify the effect that the increased demand for walkable communities has on home prices:

“...homes within a walkable mile of ‘common daily shopping and social destinations’ command from $4,000 to $34,000 more than similar homes in more car-centric communities.”

This blog entry quotes and links to a NY Times article.

http://www.ceosforcities.org/blog/entry/3154

**Gistok** · January-08-12, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Yes, actually.

The people of Royal Oak have a nice, bustling, walkable downtown filled with all sorts of retail, eating and entertainment establishment. They also have a huge zoo along with a farmer's market in their community. People will pay more money to be in a stone's throw of these things. St. Clair Shore is just a run of the mill bedroom community.

Talk about making generalizations... when was the last time you've even visited SCS? Did you know that there are over 1,000 homes with waterfront access via canals and the lake... 6 miles of lakefront with restaurants along the Nautical Mile... and the zoo... guess what... it doesn't belong to Royal Oak... and it's only 10 minutes [[I-696) from SCS. So that's a moot point. I will say that Main Street and Woodward are nice, but there's a nice collection of restaurants along the waterfront.

And for every nice subdivision in Royal Oak you can mention [[I know that Vinsetta and Sunset Blvd. are the best)... there's likely an equal number of very nice homes within 1/4 mile of the lake. Some in the high 6 digits.

**rjk** · January-09-12, 07:38 AM

Speaking of RO, I was in downtown RO on Saturday morning and almost got run over three times by cars making turns. This was at 10:00am when there weren't many people/cars. It wasn't the first time I've experienced this problem.

It's dangerous being a pedestrian almost anywhere. Some people act like waiting 2-3 seconds for someone to cross the street in front of them is going to ruin their day.

**animatedmartian** · January-09-12, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by rjk

Speaking of RO, I was in downtown RO on Saturday morning and almost got run over three times by cars making turns. This was at 10:00am when there weren't many people/cars. It wasn't the first time I've experienced this problem.

It's dangerous being a pedestrian almost anywhere. Some people act like waiting 2-3 seconds for someone to cross the street in front of them is going to ruin their day.

Oh my god! [[lengthy rant possibly coming)

I drove down Main Street twice one day. The first time it was alright because it was like 1:30-2 o clock and traffic was light. I saw a pedestrian about to pass so I stop before the intersection which is exactly what you're supposed to do.

I pass by again around 6 or 7 and it's like...in reality I don't get too angry driving, but it was annoying as I don't know what. There's a car in front of me and he wants to make a left. There's traffic coming from the other direction and it seemed like a long constant stream. There's a pedestrian on the corner to my left waiting to cross. I was almost worried for her as she took a chance and tried to cross the street.

A car finally stops, but this is what annoyed the hell out of me. The car stops in the MIDDLE of the intersection. So the guy in front of me is still sitting there waiting to make a left, and I can't get over because I'm already too close to the guy and the traffic in the next lane over was flowing in a long constant stream as well.

I think I had time to get out and go into Borders by the time someone finally stopped BEFORE the intersection and gave the guy in front of me a chance to finally make a left [[and another pedestrian to safely cross the intersection). The whole time I was sitting there, I was just thinking that it's more effective to have stop signs on all four corners or put in street lights. Especially for a rush hour scenario like that. People don't seem to know how to treat those intersections when it says "Yield to pedestrians".

I drove through downtown Birmingham and this problem didn't seem as apparent probably due to how differently traffic flows through there. But even on major mile road intersections [[like 14 Mile and Ryan or something), traffic seems to have no problem when it comes to pedestrians and crossing the street. It probably would have something to do with the drivers having less to visually focus their attention on [[or because they spend more time at each intersection) but you'd think that seeing less pedestrians in a certain area would make them more likely to not be noticed. It doesn't seem to be the case.

/rant