Denny's Free Grand Slam Breakfast Day Tuesday
Marina Yoga Studio Donates Old Mats for Haitian Relief
Prop 8 Trial Judge Is Gay; Should This Matter?
Muni Bus Nails a Fire Hydrant
Sarah Palin Calls Global Warming Studies 'Snake Oil' at NorCal Conference
Walk Score, a site that tells you just how "walkable" your city or hood is, ranked San Francisco the top spot for those of us who get by on foot exclusively. Eating San Francisco's dust is 2. New York, NY; 3. Boston, MA; 4. Chicago, IL; 5. Philadelphia, PA; 6. Seattle, WA; 7. Washington D.C.; 8. Long Beach, CA; 9. Los Angeles, CA; and 10. Portland, OR. (Chinatown came in as the number one hood for walking.) On a score from 0-100, WalkScore decides which city is deemed "Walkers' Paradise," "Very Walkable,""Somewhat Walkable," and "Car-Dependent" like this: they "calculate the walkability of an address by locating nearby stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc. Walk Score measures how easy it is to live a car-lite lifestyle—not how pretty the area is for walking." The site also features helpful maps and other pro-pedestrian propaganda. Be sure to check it out. [via Curbed]
WalkScore Scores San Francisco No. 1 When It Comes to Walking
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Comments (11) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Harry the Penguin feeling better:
Notorious penguin Harry survives infection
[more]
I remember thinking this website relied on strange criteria/incomplete information to determine its scores when it first popped up, but I believe its results here: it would follow that a place so small and dense would be pretty damn walkable, although I wonder if the WalkScore people have ever tried trekking up California in search of breakfast while hungover.
Here's their description of what the site doesn't do
http://www.walkscore.com/how-it-doesnt-work.shtml
There are a number of factors that contribute to walkability that are not part of our algorithm:
* Public transit: Good public transit is important for walkable neighborhoods.
* Street width and block length: Narrow streets slow down traffic. Short blocks provide more routes to the same destination and make it easier to take a direct route.
* Street design: Sidewalks and safe crossings are essential to walkability. Appropriate automobile speeds, trees, and other features also help.
* Safety from crime and crashes: How much crime is in the neighborhood? How many traffic accidents are there? Are streets well-lit?
* Pedestrian-friendly community design: Are buildings close to the sidewalk with parking in back? Are destinations clustered together?
* Topography: Hills can make walking difficult, especially if you're carrying groceries.
* Freeways and bodies of water: Freeways can divide neighborhoods. Swimming is harder than walking.
* Weather: In some places it's just too hot or cold to walk regularly.
Yeah, I was just (badly) joking about the topography...I meant more stuff like how actually "unwalkable" a place like the Financial District is after five and on weekends.
Hmm, I'll in the #2 most walkable city a little over 24hrs from now. :)
(yes, I'm bragging, I'm excited - first time since I was a kid)
Um. They included the outer boroughs [namely staten island/queens] in the NYC calculations. It would be like if they added Oakland into the mix for SF. Sure, it's not technically SF and Staten Island is technically NYC -- but it's pretty equivalent. Having grown up/ lived in both NY [manhattan/brooklyn/queens at various points in my life] and in the Bay Area I can tell you that NYC (especially Manhattan and probably most of Brooklyn) is MUCH more walkable than San Francisco.
And if my Aunt had a package she'd be my Uncle. Of course the size is why, same reason Boston is considered more walkable than Chicago.
really? I think it's all by zip code. So, the outer lying areas wouldn't affect inner city readings.
Um. Also: when I grew up in FLA, there was a bumper sticker that read "If You :heart: NY, take I-95 North." The sentiment applies here. If you don't care for it here, think New York living is far superior, "they do it better there," etc., etc., then fair enough, whatever; just split before your whining becomes too incessant and annoying. No one's feelings will be hurt.
SF is pretty walkable, but I'd argue the Sunset and Ingleside are really not walkable at all.
At any rate, how the hell did LA get on this list at all?! Nobody walks in LA!
Actually, the Sunset is pretty walkable, at least where I'm at by 20th and Judah. Tons of shops, markets, restaurants, bars and recreation (as it were) all along Irving from 9th to 25th or so. Even further south there are various commercial stretches on Noriega, Taraval, and by Ocean Beach that are within a 10 minute walk of even the most ass-end and/or isolated spots in the neighborhood. Weeks go by where I don't leave the neighborhood or use a car.
Central Sunset is very walkable. Safe day or night. Parking is easy here, but I hardly drive at all.
Not as central or "complete" as some neighborhoods, but with shops, markets and restaurants on Irving and Noriega, most everything I need is an easy walk. Not to mention the many beautiful parks nearby.
Six Muni routes within a half mile make it pretty easy to get to other neighborhoods.
And it's quiet at night. I sleep well, and that's as important to me as a high walkability score. Which, by the way, is 85.