walker’s paradise: city vs suburban

When I lived in the city, my Walk Score was 92. Definitely a Walker’s Paradise (their definition), except that I lived at the top of a very steep hill. (So when I was hobbling around on crutches with a broken ankle, there was no way it was even walkable, much less a paradise.)

Now I live in the suburbs, and my Walk Score is… 97! Even more of a Walker’s Paradise. Especially because it’s flat. (Which means it’s also a biker’s paradise.)

There’s no question both locations are superb for walking. And my current suburban location IS more convenient, even if I were to flatten that San Francisco hill.

However, the Walk Score does not measure something that I’m interested in, which is walking A LOT. And if I were able to choose that parameter, it’s likely that an urban address will score higher than a suburban address.

Why? Within a half mile south of my suburban home, the density of stores, restaurants, library, post office, doctors, dentists… is very high. But then it’s another 1.5 miles before another business area. In between, there are lovely residential streets, but hardly any other people walking or around at all. On the other hand, in the kind of dense urban center where I used to live, there are stores and cafes and people all along a 1.5 mile walk.

Of course, it all depends on what you like when it comes to walking. I like people-watching, so if I had to create a walkscore, mine would include a measure of how far the walkability extends.

This entry was posted in everyday, sustainable, walkability. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s