Thursday, July 17, 2008


I first saw this last year and can't recall if I blogged about it.. but the WSJ's number guy reminds me of a neat site which you can use to figure out your own neighborhoods "Walk Score". Not a criticism, but what it misses is access to transit routes which I think is a part of the mix. But it's a neat site, check it out.

I found a nearly perfect score in the middle of Bloomfield. A score of 98 out of a hundred for 4700 Liberty Ave.

Let's have a contest. Can anyone find a higher score anywhere in the Pittsburgh region?

Where is the lowest score?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

98 is going to be tough to beat. On the low end, if you include the suburbs, I'm sorry to say that Upper St. Clair scores a 17.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:59:00 PM  
Blogger Adam said...

Forbes and Murray hits 98 also. As you move away from this intersection in Squirrel Hill, the score drops off. There are many problems with the algorithm, but one is that it cuts off at exactly 1 mile. I consider anything I can walk to in under an hour walkable, but I realize that's extreme. I would say 1.5 miles (30 minutes for the average adult) would be more reasonable. Or they could weigh amenities from 1-2 miles at a lower score and from 2-3 miles at an even lower score.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:08:00 PM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

and thus the fundamental issue in aggregation theory, any metric like that does not apply to everyone the same. For some 5 miles is a perfectly legitimate radius. For my mother I think about 200 feet is about it. But 200 feet gets her to a bus stop and thus you will see her most anywhere in the city at any given time.

I'm sure they don't think its perfect, but there is a lot of neat work going on in public health on the relationship to walkability and health outcomes.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, the database seems a bit short on information. When I type in my Forest Hills address, it lists the nearest pharmacy and bar as being twice as far from my house as they are, misses several local restaurants, and fails to recognize that there is a Forest Hills branch of the CC Mellor Library.

I agree with Chris, though, this is interesting. Admittedly, I walked more when I lived on Beechwood in Squirrel Hill than I do now. Of course, I was a poor student without cable TV at that time, so . . .

Friday, July 18, 2008 11:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love what they're doing in Lawrenceville, don't get me wrong. But that walkability index is awfully one-dimensional.

For instance, you asked what's the worst Walk Score in the region. Well, you can't beat a zero, which is what I get for 119 Beech Ridge Drive, 15143.

No doubt this is really a pressing concern for the homeowner, restauranteur Joe Nocito. For instance, instead of walking to a neighborhood ballroom, he had to have the builders put one in his home, which is the biggest mansion in all of Western Pennsylvania. Presumably Nocito seeks solace by strolling along the cascading fountains in his back yard, or over to the fairways of the nearby Sewickley Heights Country Club.

Friday, July 18, 2008 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live on the 4700 block of Liberty! Yay for me!

Friday, July 18, 2008 8:28:00 PM  
Blogger Bram Reichbaum said...

East Deutschtown scores a 72!!

Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:25:00 AM  
Blogger John Morris said...

I think about 50% of NYC scores near 100 so that might give one a clue as to why people pay so much to live there. It would be interesting to relate walkscores to real estate prices.

The data is pretty twisted though. I think it credits the 43rd St Cement plant in Lawrenceville as being a hardware store.

The low walk scores for the North Side pretty much tell you everything you need to know. A small population and most of the best land handed over to black hole sports facilities, parking lots and other vistor ammenities.

Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:57:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home