how important is a walk score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I'm hearing here is that walkability for what people want to do is important. One doesn't need a "walk score" to understand that, and the walk score itself is misleading because people value the different types of walkability differently (schools, work, shopping, restaurants.)

Well, it obviously can't factor in your commute, can it?

Walk score is important for people who like to walk, don't mind living in more dense urban areas, and who embrace that type of lifestyle. If you are used to driving everywhere, and like it, and prefer to have a lot of greenery around you, walkscore is completely irrelevant.

Min is 89, BTW, and I'm a little surprised that it's not higher. I live in the heart of Columbia Heights, and I'm hard pressed to think of anywhere more walkable in DC. PP with a score of 99, where to you live?

It can definitely factor into commute because Walkscore takes into account types and availability of public transit. Sure, you're going to have a few people who work in offices out at Dulles, but if my neighborhood is any indication, most people work in the downtown DC area near a metro. It's convenient to have the option of taking public transit to work.

[Anonymous]

The score doesn't factor in the quality of the destinations to which one can walk. Note that Van Ness has a high walkability score. And while there are a number of walkable shops, restaurants, etc., not many of them are worth walking to.

[Anonymous]

We wanted somewhat walkable so we weren't completely car-dependent, but we also wanted great public schools and space for a garden. We are in the suburbs in the mid-60s and would not trade that for an urban neighborhood with a higher WS and less attractive schools. DS for DF, as they say.

[Anonymous]

It's important to us. Currently we are about a 90.
We plan to make a move south to a smaller town, but I still want an urban/local feel, so I'm willing to go into the 70s. No lower.

That all said, I don't care about an official "walk score" but I do care about feeling like I can foot it to places I enjoy footing it to - grocery, coffee, library, school, maybe a retail spot or two. I do suppose, though, that if I can do that the walk score will be decent.

[Anonymous]

What the F is Swampdoodle??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The score doesn't factor in the quality of the destinations to which one can walk. Note that Van Ness has a high walkability score. And while there are a number of walkable shops, restaurants, etc., not many of them are worth walking to.

This is exactly how I feel about it. I live in the suburbs, but somehow managed to get a 75 walk score from the website. Yet, I drive pretty much everywhere, because the places within walking distance are, mostly, not places I need or want to go. However, we did buy where we did in large part because there are 2 nice parks within a very easy walking distance, and having that was more important than being able to walk to a grocery store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the F is Swampdoodle??

NoMa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the F is Swampdoodle??

It's Swampoodle. No one calls it that, but it's the area slightly east and North of Union Station.

[Anonymous]

One thing walk score does not take into account is the likelihood of getting mugged for your phone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing walk score does not take into account is the likelihood of getting mugged for your phone.

That would be Talkability

[Anonymous]

PP with the 98 score - we live in Dupont.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walk Score is very important for certain neighborhoods where walkability is the big selling point. It has little or no importance in areas where home and lot size are more highly valued. It's like asking if the 0-to-60 time is important when buying a car -- yes if you are buying a sports car but no if you are buying a minivan -- completely different products.

This is not true. These neighborhoods already have a lower price/ square foot built in because they're not walkable. Distance from urban amenities lowers property values.

[Anonymous]

Walk score is so stupid. Are people really not capable of figuring out if they can walk where they want to go from whatever house they are looking at. I realize it's some sort of "objective" measure, but it seems silly to me. I can tell which areas are walkable or not without some score.

[Anonymous]

My take on it is that walkability is nice vis-a-vis places you would actually want to walk to. For me, it was important that the neighborhood had sidewalks so I could take my so out. I have two parks in short walking distance, which is great. I can walk a block to his elementary school, which is great.

Now even though I can walk to a grocery store in ten minutes, I would not want to walk there - unless you are going there to grab a bottle of milk, who wants to lug bags of groceries for ten minutes? Most of my grocery shopping loads cannot even be carried by one person, and I wouldn't want to go more often than I had to. If you a single person, perhaps, but shopping for a family with kids requires a car in my view.

I also have a metro station within 15 minute walk. While it's nice to have that option, I prefer to drive and I think I always will. I grew up in a country where everyone except the very rich takes public transport, and I can channel your Hollywood old-timers in believing that "I drove and I took the bus, and driving is better." And 100+ times with a kid in tow.

[Anonymous]

PP, we use granny carts for groceries. They work beautifully.

We also pop into grocery stores en route to other places, which means we don't need to buy the week's groceries all at once because shopping is so easy to integrate with other activities.

I'm past the stroller years, but when the stroller was my primary vehicle, it used to hold a lot of grocery bags.