musicman Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 My 'hood gets a score of 69. Anybody else want to post their score?72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Yeah, Walkscore doesn't calculate whether or not there are sidwalks. Here's an overview of the flaws in Walkscore...http://www.walkscore.com/how-it-doesnt-work.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieDidIt Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Amazingly, my old apartment on Budde Rd. in the Woodlands is higher than my Heights house, at 68. There are several shopping centers on Sawdust, a couple of blocks south. However, there are no sidewalks, and Budde has ditches, so it does show a flaw in the website...OR an opportunity for Montgomery County to improve walkability.Note: So as to not offend any Woodlanders, I must point out that these apartments are not actually IN the Woodlands...merely next to it.Budde was a scary road, and I just drove it. My old addie there got a 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsets Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 That's a weird site. I live in Woodland Heights (probably a 1/2 mile away form Red Scare) and I scored a 43. Considering I don't even need to use my car at all during the work week, I think the score is a little low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 sunsets, since many of the stores are not listed in Google (like Target, for one), it can skew your score. BTW, see ya at Lights in the Heights. I'll be walking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 My place in Westbury gets a 31. I'd say that's too high, considering how many places they say I could walk to are places I would never, ever walk to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 My place in Westbury gets a 31. I'd say that's too high, considering how many places they say I could walk to are places I would never, ever walk to.Heh, yeah I noticed that myself. I'm not walking to the Valero gas station to do my grocery shopping. And I'm certainly not walking to grocery stores that are listed as existing (they don't) in the middle of an industrial area, or to the nearest bar--in Sunnyside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Eastwood gets a 68. The closest 'coffee house' is the old maxwell house plant. That's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Eastwood gets a 68. The closest 'coffee house' is the old maxwell house plant. That's funny.They don't pick up on Bohemio's coffee, a cruddy bar on McKinney in the neighborhood, or the Kroger on Polk Street. Instead they classify Kroger as a drug store and think it's located on Avenue H, east of Lockwood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satriela Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I scored 78. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 My old Houston address scored 78. I have to wonder though, how many people actually want a walkable neighborhood. This might especially be the case in Houston, due to the climate and spread out design. I'm not saying walkable neighborhoods are bad, just that you have to wonder how in demand they can ever be when driving is an easy option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 a cruddy bar on McKinney in the neighborhoodSo you've been to Mak's Ice House? Damn, and I thought it was my little secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satriela Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 My old Houston address scored 78. I have to wonder though, how many people actually want a walkable neighborhood. This might especially be the case in Houston, due to the climate and spread out design. I'm not saying walkable neighborhoods are bad, just that you have to wonder how in demand they can ever be when driving is an easy option.Hmmm...I always assumed that most people would want a walkable neighborhood. I know its hot and humid, but I love being able to walk to the corner store for a coke and make it back home within five minutes. Heck, I'm trying to get a job closer to my place so that I can walk to work--and I only have a 10 minute commute. Honestly, I always assumed that most people's line of thinking went something like..." I need a big house and a big yard in the suburbs to raise my kids happily and safely, but I WISH I could live somewhere walkable." But maybe you've got a point and people don't think that way at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satriela Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Speaking of walkable neighborhoods, I think I'll walk the dog to the Valero store for a Dr. P and a smoke.Back in a few.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OkieEric Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hmmm...I always assumed that most people would want a walkable neighborhood. I know its hot and humid, but I love being able to walk to the corner store for a coke and make it back home within five minutes. Heck, I'm trying to get a job closer to my place so that I can walk to work--and I only have a 10 minute commute. Honestly, I always assumed that most people's line of thinking went something like..." I need a big house and a big yard in the suburbs to raise my kids happily and safely, but I WISH I could live somewhere walkable." But maybe you've got a point and people don't think that way at all.IMO, people desire walkabilty - however, walkability infers density and, quite likely, higher land values. I would think that people who desire big yards would live out in the suburbs because that's really the only place economics will allow it - not because they don't want the option of walking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hmmm...I always assumed that most people would want a walkable neighborhood. I know its hot and humid, but I love being able to walk to the corner store for a coke and make it back home within five minutes. Heck, I'm trying to get a job closer to my place so that I can walk to work--and I only have a 10 minute commute. Honestly, I always assumed that most people's line of thinking went something like..." I need a big house and a big yard in the suburbs to raise my kids happily and safely, but I WISH I could live somewhere walkable." But maybe you've got a point and people don't think that way at all.I think people are less interested in walking from point a to point b, and that the desire for "walkability" is mainly a desire for a feeling of community and connectedness. It manifests itself in very specific communities, like the Seaside model, and for a place like Houston metro, in the town square shopping concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 i got a 62... but i think thats very underrated since it doesnt appear to have counted any of the stores actually in the galleria proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdude Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I think people are less interested in walking from point a to point b, and that the desire for "walkability" is mainly a desire for a feeling of community and connectedness. It manifests itself in very specific communities, like the Seaside model, and for a place like Houston metro, in the town square shopping concept.Yes, yes, yes. A place is walkable not only because of distance, but there should be stuff in between point A to point B that makes the walk walkable, things to see and experience, people activity, weather. I see folks saying I am near this and I can walk to that, but what is in between? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Yes, yes, yes. A place is walkable not only because of distance, but there should be stuff in between point A to point B that makes the walk walkable, things to see and experience, people activity, weather. I see folks saying I am near this and I can walk to that, but what is in between?I think that we can all agree that terms like "walkable" or "livable" are a little pretentious and over the top. If mobility is possible on foot, then it is walkable and If I can sustain my life in a city, that city is livable; the city's aesthetic may not be enjoyable, charming, lively, or engaging, but then those are the words that ought to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Yes, yes, yes. A place is walkable not only because of distance, but there should be stuff in between point A to point B that makes the walk walkable, things to see and experience, people activity, weather. I see folks saying I am near this and I can walk to that, but what is in between?I totally agree. One of the things I noticed about San Francisco is there is beautiful architecture, activity, and interesting sights everywhere you look. An atmosphere like that really does make walking more pleasant than abandoned buildings, empty lots, parking lots, blank walls, fences, etc. People are more likely to walk if walking is an enjoyable experience, not just a way of getting from point A to point B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I think that we can all agree that terms like "walkable" or "livable" are a little pretentious and over the top. If mobility is possible on foot, then it is walkable and If I can sustain my life in a city, that city is livable; the city's aesthetic may not be enjoyable, charming, lively, or engaging, but then those are the words that ought to be used. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! This "walkable" business is not walking for the purpose of surviving. It is walking to appear hip and trendy. It is the Porsche 911 for the urban set. It should be called "strollability", as walking to actually ACCOMPLISH something is not part of the equation. Why else would Sugar Land Town Center meet the definition? Then again, this is the entire knock on Houston in the first place. The fact that I can go to work, buy grocercies, shop Target and even buy a Rolex at the Galleria by a) walking, or walking one block to the bus stop, is not "walkability" if I do not live in a shiny condo with a flat roof, or if I must walk across a parking lot (horrors!) to get to my pharmacy. It is as rampant on this forum as it is at all of the "urban institutes". It is a form of "hipness", just as much as the designer label one wears. Walking to actually DO something is as much a fashion faux pas as wearing comfortable clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Size has nothing to do with it.To an extent. Boston, DC/Baltimore, San Francisco, Philly, Chicago, LA and NYC are all larger than Houston. I would argue that every metro over 3 million in the US except for the sunbelt sprawlers such as Phoenix, Dallas, and Atlanta are more walkable than Houston. The cities I listed have always been America's largest cities, not just by metro but even in their core. Cities that have a history of being America's largest cities (see above) from their pre WWII boom will easily be more walkable since they were developed and boomed at a time where the automobile was a luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 I totally agree. One of the things I noticed about San Francisco is there is beautiful architecture, activity, and interesting sights everywhere you look. An atmosphere like that really does make walking more pleasant than abandoned buildings, empty lots, parking lots, blank walls, fences, etc. People are more likely to walk if walking is an enjoyable experience, not just a way of getting from point A to point B. beauty is very subjective. we have people here who suggest new is better, prettier, etc.....but if that's the case they're missing out on a lot. go ride down sherman and meet the cactus man. he's very interesting. there's also a great elderly couple farther out that works out in their yard daily. they always want to chat when i ride by. oh but i forgot it's on the ugly east side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I know that beauty is subjective, but I think we can all agree that blank walls, empty lots, etc. are not beautiful. If we could replace all the empty lots in Houston with cactus men and quirky elderly couples, maybe more people would walk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 I know that beauty is subjective, but I think we can all agree that blank walls, empty lots, etc. are not beautiful. If we could replace all the empty lots in Houston with cactus men and quirky elderly couples, maybe more people would walk? an well maintained empty lot can be beautiful as can a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!This "walkable" business is not walking for the purpose of surviving. It is walking to appear hip and trendy. It is the Porsche 911 for the urban set. It should be called "strollability", as walking to actually ACCOMPLISH something is not part of the equation. Why else would Sugar Land Town Center meet the definition?Yes, exactly. Walkability, whatever that is, is not the same thing as mobility. And back to the original question of the study/report. Maybe I sounded like I was taking a romantic, but pretentious view of people wanting to feel connected, blah blah. I think they do, but in the pleasant, consuming, familiar sort of way. I also suspect that the many of the people who pay attention to 'walkability studies' in the first place are probably more interested with what shiny condo owners consider 'walkable'. I frankly don't think they give a damn about the people who walk past my house every morning on their way to the bus stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 This "walkable" business is not walking for the purpose of surviving. It is walking to appear hip and trendy. It is the Porsche 911 for the urban set. It should be called "strollability", as walking to actually ACCOMPLISH something is not part of the equation. Why else would Sugar Land Town Center meet the definition?Once again, RedScare nails it. When I lived places where walking was worthwhile, I only walked because I had to. I needed to go somewhere, it was close, so I walked there. It was nice because I got more exercise, it was cheap, and less stressful than driving, but it wasn't ever trendy.I think there may be a significant number of Houstonians who don't value "walkability" because they've never experienced it. I grew up in the suburbs, and the only place worth walking to was a 7-11 (with a Defender and a Star Castles!) It wasn't until I moved to Austin that I realized everyone didn't live the way I had.And how many people actually walk to Sugar Land Town Center? If you have to drive someplace to walk, that's yet another mall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 And how many people actually walk to Sugar Land Town Center? If you have to drive someplace to walk, that's yet another mall.I made the argument once on HAIF that a Wal-Mart Supercenter is "walkable" and got dogpiled. I stand by that assertion. It is no more or less walkable than Sugar Land Town Center; it just lacks the Disney element and caters to people that can't afford fru-fru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!This "walkable" business is not walking for the purpose of surviving. It is walking to appear hip and trendy. It is the Porsche 911 for the urban set. It should be called "strollability", as walking to actually ACCOMPLISH something is not part of the equation. Why else would Sugar Land Town Center meet the definition? Then again, this is the entire knock on Houston in the first place. The fact that I can go to work, buy grocercies, shop Target and even buy a Rolex at the Galleria by a) walking, or walking one block to the bus stop, is not "walkability" if I do not live in a shiny condo with a flat roof, or if I must walk across a parking lot (horrors!) to get to my pharmacy. It is as rampant on this forum as it is at all of the "urban institutes". It is a form of "hipness", just as much as the designer label one wears. Walking to actually DO something is as much a fashion faux pas as wearing comfortable clothes. I dont' know if it is walkable to "appear hip and trendy" as much as walkability grafted onto an auto-driven framework. Sugar Land Town Center is walkable in just the same sense as any shopping mall - you get in your car and drive there, then as you say, stroll around. In a true walkable place walking is an option (or requirement) for most activities - you don't drive somewhere to walk. I would agree that Houston isn't a walkable city, but again, I'm not convinced it should be. It's similar to the point about street-level retail: is it inherently better than tunnels, or is it just trying to meet some archetype of what a city should be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.