2007-08-28 14:42:27.24706+00 by Dan Lyke 9 comments
Another way to evaluate real estate quickly: WalkScore.com takes an address and pops up a map with assorted walkable necessities nearby and gives you a score based on how accessible they are.
[ related topics: Maps and Mapping Real Estate ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-28 16:46:22.421194+00 by: ebradway
I'll have to check some other addresses, but my condo only got a 49% and downtown Boulder netted an 86%. A big factor left out is the quality of the walking environment. Boulder is amazing - pedestrians really have the right-of-way and there are hundreds of miles of walking trails. The City of Boulder even has a separate crew to clear snow and ice from the trails - and has priority over roads.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-30 04:16:49.958044+00 by: Diane Reese
I think it's bogus. My suburban house netted a 49% but there's no way that figure is meaningful. Looking at the detail about what it considered a "hardware store" (a Kelley-Moore paint store) or a "school" (a Montessori preschool) or a "restaurant" (a home improvement store???), the choices aren't rational and probably don't yield a realistic result.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-30 11:04:18.317665+00 by: DaveP
It also doesn't account for barriers to walking. Things that are just across the river (on a bridge that isn't there anymore, with the adjoining one closed to the public) from my house count into the ranking, even though they're nearly impossible to walk to at the moment. Ditto for railroad tracks with no crossing, freeways with no bridges, and busy streets that lack signals. All are huge barriers to walking (or biking), and are ignored by their algorithm.
It's still useful, but it needs a lot of tweaking to be good.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-30 13:14:23.402789+00 by: Dan Lyke
Others have noted that it doesn't account for things like lack of sidewalk.
And as y'all have pointed out it the database and ranking aren't complete. It misses the Paper Mill Creek Saloon in San Geronimo, classes the deli/general store in Lagunitas as a restaurant, misses the little general store in San Geronimo altogether, and rather misclassifies the one in Woodacre.
On the other hand, as we're throwing around neighborhoods and areas in Petaluma it's a good reminder of what strip mall is where and lets us wipe out large swaths quickly.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-30 14:14:12.602929+00 by: Diane Reese
So maybe a feedback / rating system could be incorporated into this, to let us highlight local faves and give less weight to what we know "on the ground" to be poor choices.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-30 15:05:59.199424+00 by: Dan Lyke
I got an email from the proprietor, I'll mail back suggesting that.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-30 17:11:47.682497+00 by: topspin
I see it as spotty also.
It correctly gives a friend's exquisite digs just off the funky, percolating strip of Bardstown Rd in Louisville an 85%.
However, it rates the apt Eric (and later I) lived in on McCallie Ave an 86% while giving the mega-buck, mega-view condos on Forest (steps from the Walnut St. Walking Bridge) at 78%. The new condos at 103 Cherokee (across from Rennaisance Park) get an 82%. Unless you're a college student, those condos FAR outshine the McCallie Ave address.
In giving my own non-walking friendly, "yeah, but it's close in, ya know," aging 'hood a deserved 38%, it lists the Rusty Duck as a bar and a restaurant (only if you like eating a redneck's fist) and a coffee vendor's office (Jenco) as a coffee shop.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-30 21:06:18.382768+00 by: Dan Lyke
The MonkeyFilter thread on this suggests that there should be icons for street preachers, puke puddles and car exhaust, and that the score should be diminished for each of those.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-31 01:06:50.321368+00 by: TheSHAD0W
Heh. My new house scored 0 out of 100. Win!