Comments on: Drum Roll Please: America’s Most Walkable Neighborhoods Revealed

By: Janel

Janel — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:08:46 +0000

Here’s the corrected link http://www.walkscore.com/rankings/walkers-paradises.php

By: Janel

Janel — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:07:16 +0000

The walkbility site scores individual neighborhoods then gives the city an overall index. Check this out for the actual neighborhood scores: http://wwwwalkscore.com/rankings/walkers-paradises.php
Fourteen of the top twenty neighborhoods are in New York City, so it’s strange SF is number 1 in the list. In fact, the top three neighborhoods score 100 — all in New York City. I am a bit puzzled about why SF is number one on the list — somehow size must be in the equation? Having lived in San Francisco for over ten years without a car (Inner Mission, Haight/Fillmore, Bayview (pre-light rail) and Russian Hill( on the side steeply dropping into northbeach/chinatown – a deadly walk up hill home) and now living in New York City without a car (Upper West Side)…. sorry, NYC hands down for walkability. And I agree with David — so what if the SF financial district is walkable?

By: Russell Huth

Russell Huth — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 03:51:16 +0000

David, I think you are right about Chicago, except the difference is that I do not need air conditioning I only heat in January and I do not have screens on my windows. San Francisco has the cleanest air of any major city. BTW I live near Union Square, which makes most of the city walkable and a easy metro ride to GG Park.

AND I love Chicago except for the weather…we don’t receive hardly any rain in May but you can’t know it won’t snow in Chicago in May. Unfortunately, I think weather is too important for me to consider Chicago except as a place to visit.

I will leave this on a positive note and say that when I stay with a friend right on Lake Michigan, I thought that was the quintessential city condo.

By: David

David — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:32:16 +0000

They don’t measure areas you can cover, they measure amenities/sq mi essentially.

I think it’d be better to compare areas where people actually live–ex out the Loop, Financial District and Wall Street, and then check out the ‘hoods.

It’d also be interesting to see price/walkable area and compare. I bet you have the same density of amenities in, say, Lakeview in Chicago as you do in North Beach for less than 1/2 the $$/sq ft.

By: Russell Huth

Russell Huth — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:58:25 +0000

David, you don’t include North Beach/Telegraph Hill and SOMA, along with some of South Beach as included in downtown/financial district as well as Nob Hill and lower Nob Hill, you should include Russian Hill because I consider downtown as east of Van Ness…where you include diverse neighborhoods in NYC you limit your focus in SF…Of course NYC is much larger but there are other things to consider like how far do you have to walk to get anywhere…SF I think may beat NYC in the downtown area in how many areas you cover in a mile.

By: David

David — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:34:14 +0000

I’d have to disagree that SF is more walkable (even in those ‘hoods) than NYC or those Chicago ‘hoods. Additionally, the financial district here is tiny compared with Chicago’s Loop, ditto with Chinatown compared to Lincoln Park or Tribeca. Finally, practically no one lives in the Financial district/downtown here, whereas Lincoln Park/Near North Side/Tribeca/Little Italy/SoHo/, etc are actual residential neighborhoods.

So basically, only Chinatown is walkable here. Oh well.