how important is a walk score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walk score is paramount.

Walk score is more important than good schools, low crime, reliable city services and reasonable taxes. There is nothing more important. Nothing.

[Anonymous]

I think it shows the importance of building nice mixed-used communities in the suburbs. TND, new urbanism, etc. Places like Ashburn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very strange. I'm less than a mile from Ballston and only have a score of 57?? Seems off. And, when I lived in Glover Park DC I only had a score of 87? Again, that seems very low considering I could walk two blocks and be at a Whole Foods, Liquor store, dry cleaner, restuarants, gym ,CVS etc,.

You might be my neighbor - I could have written this post. There is something off from the formula - specific restaurants and grocery stores aren't even listed. WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the spray-on tan reference, there really was no need to ask where the poster lived. Clarendon should have been the obvious answer.

Really? Because I walked to the spray-on tan place on P st in Dupont all of the time.

I thought so too, I used to live in West End and could relate to what the PP was saying about her Clarendon neighborhood, I thought she was around Dupont/Foggy/east village in DC. Minus schools... that's what threw me off, so I asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walk score is paramount.

Walk score is more important than good schools, low crime, reliable city services and reasonable taxes. There is nothing more important. Nothing.

There are plenty of areas that have all of what you are listing and are walkable to some extent. DC metro is actually pretty good in this respect in comparison with some other areas of the US I used to live in where going suburban means driving 5-10 min to the nearest basic amenities. We live in the close-in NOVA suburb and our walkscore is 67, not anything to write home about from the perspective of those looking to be in the midst of urban activity, but this wasn't what we were looking for. we specifically looked for more suburban lifestyle, but even for us the walkscore mattered in our choice of the neighborhood. The main idea is not to be dependent on the car every second you need anything outside of your home, it is convenient when you just don't feel like driving on some days and want to enjoy the walk and not feel stuck.

I used to live in a west coast suburb where I had to get into the car and drive for 10-15 min to get to the nearest amenity, there was nothing around, but trails. So, I could go for a jog or a bike ride no problem, but there was nowhere else to go. I felt stuck all the time as I just didn't feel like driving sometimes. A year later a new strip mall opened up 1 mile away from our home and it felt like a big change. I was able to take my bike or walk along the trails to go somewhere, be it for some minor shopping or to get some icecream, starbucks, chinese food or go to the local gym. It just felt like the quality of life improved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walk score is paramount.

Walk score is more important than good schools, low crime, reliable city services and reasonable taxes. There is nothing more important. Nothing.

There are plenty of areas that have all of what you are listing and are walkable to some extent. DC metro is actually pretty good in this respect in comparison with some other areas of the US I used to live in where going suburban means driving 5-10 min to the nearest basic amenities. We live in the close-in NOVA suburb and our walkscore is 67, not anything to write home about from the perspective of those looking to be in the midst of urban activity, but this wasn't what we were looking for. we specifically looked for more suburban lifestyle, but even for us the walkscore mattered in our choice of the neighborhood. The main idea is not to be dependent on the car every second you need anything outside of your home, it is convenient when you just don't feel like driving on some days and want to enjoy the walk and not feel stuck.

I used to live in a west coast suburb where I had to get into the car and drive for 10-15 min to get to the nearest amenity, there was nothing around, but trails. So, I could go for a jog or a bike ride no problem, but there was nowhere else to go. I felt stuck all the time as I just didn't feel like driving sometimes. A year later a new strip mall opened up 1 mile away from our home and it felt like a big change. I was able to take my bike or walk along the trails to go somewhere, be it for some minor shopping or to get some icecream, starbucks, chinese food or go to the local gym. It just felt like the quality of life improved.

You don't understand, I would rather dodge bullets and navigate through minefields and IEDs then have to drive to work, school or the grocery. And these good schools and low crime rates you speak of, well they are for pussies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You don't understand, I would rather dodge bullets and navigate through minefields and IEDs then have to drive to work, school or the grocery. And these good schools and low crime rates you speak of, well they are for pussies.

I believe the phrase is "reductio ad absurdum." And some of the expressed preferences for walking are sufficiently absurd in their zeal that our satirist need not reductio very far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You don't understand, I would rather dodge bullets and navigate through minefields and IEDs then have to drive to work, school or the grocery. And these good schools and low crime rates you speak of, well they are for pussies.

I believe the phrase is "reductio ad absurdum." And some of the expressed preferences for walking are sufficiently absurd in their zeal that our satirist need not reductio very far.

Right, because everyone who said they like walkable neighborhoods said that walk score was the one and only thing they considered when they purchased their home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the spray-on tan reference, there really was no need to ask where the poster lived. Clarendon should have been the obvious answer.

Really? Because I walked to the spray-on tan place on P st in Dupont all of the time.

I thought so too, I used to live in West End and could relate to what the PP was saying about her Clarendon neighborhood, I thought she was around Dupont/Foggy/east village in DC. Minus schools... that's what threw me off, so I asked.

I left the east village/west end for the public schools--ended up in Clarendon. WFs, traders, gyms, metro,etc. they are similar in that aspect. I didn't want to lose the walkability that I did have in the west end east. Plus-still very close to W.E. so go back to visit frequently.

[Anonymous]

it is a factor, but not the most important one.

[Anonymous]

I live in North Cleveland Park, and I just found out my walk score is 75. Transit score of 68.

[Anonymous]

who cares what the walkscore says, really... I was looking to buy in lots of different areas and wanted someplace walkable, but would never had given any weight to what a silly website statistic data says. My current house is a walkscore of 83 in a nw hood that some people on here would claim is utterly suburban and is way more walkable for the things we need every day than our old place closer in dc with a similar score.

What's hilarious is that if you look on their color coded map, they give tysons corner high scroes and shade it green, would anyone consider this area walkable currently?

[Anonymous]

I can walk to work, stores, movies, restaurants, gym, dog parks, post office, etc. The only thing we have to drive to is school, public charter, but it's worth it. Live in DC in a completely rehabbed victorian rowhouse with original details. We love living this way so walk score is important.

[Anonymous]

We were looked in suburbs and walkscore was still important for us. We were priced out of the areas which good suburban schools but with a lot of walkability and metro access like central Bethesda and Clarendon and other most dense parts of Arlington. We didn't want to rely on our car 100% of the time for every single errand and walking to school was very important too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who cares what the walkscore says, really... I was looking to buy in lots of different areas and wanted someplace walkable, but would never had given any weight to what a silly website statistic data says. My current house is a walkscore of 83 in a nw hood that some people on here would claim is utterly suburban and is way more walkable for the things we need every day than our old place closer in dc with a similar score.

What's hilarious is that if you look on their color coded map, they give tysons corner high scroes and shade it green, would anyone consider this area walkable currently?

I would find it scary to walk around Tysons corner area. That area is not fun to even drive around.