Walk Score has surveyed 2,508 neighborhoods across the 40 biggest U.S. cities to come up with their list of the best places to live if you want to ditch your car. Nearby stores, restaurants, schools, and parks all boost a city’s rank.
There are some definite surprises that made the list, especially So Cal’s offerings. While L.A. and Long Beach may have small neighborhoods that make for nice walking and ample provisions, the site does not take into account factors such as the availability of mass transit, the nature of commutes, and the sprawl that may surround some of these walkable oases.
Walk Score’s top-10 cities, with most walkable neighborhoods:
1 San Francisco Chinatown, Financial District, Downtown
2 New York Tribeca, Little Italy, Soho
3 Boston Back Bay-Beacon Hill, South End, Fenway-Kenmore
4 Chicago Loop, Near North Side, Lincoln Park
5 Philadelphia City Center East, City Center West, Riverfront
6 Seattle Pioneer Square, Downtown, First Hill
7 Washington D.C. Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, Downtown
8 Long Beach Downtown, Belmont Shore, Belmont Heights
9 Los Angeles Mid City West, Downtown, Hollywood
10 Portland Pearl District, Old Town-Chinatown, Downtown
Would-be carectomy patients can plug in their addresses or scope out any locale in the country on the Walk Score website. The country’s sprawling suburbs have already begun to die and people are looking for denser, more sustainable venues. Walk Score is a great way to scout out the areas around potential new homes.
Walk Score is a project run by Front Seat with input from The Sightline Institute, The Brookings Institution, and Google.
See also Where to Live Now that Gas Prices are Crazy for some overlap as well as divergence.
Related posts:
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Good point about cars never being eco-friendly but I wish that you hadn’t perpetuated the myth that alternative fuels are. When people mention alternative fuels, they almost always mean ethanol or biodiesel, and the latest research is that these fuels are actually [i]worse for the environment than fossil fuel[/i].
OK, biodiesel from recycled deep fat fryer oil is a net win, but there probably aren’t enough McDonalds’s in the entire USA to satisfy the biodiesel demand for a single American city.
Maybe someday we’ll come up with truly benign biofuels derived from algae or something like that, but we’re nowhere near there yet. Until then, the best green strategy is to simply avoid consumption.
scotto: I think by ‘alternative fuels’ it means anything other than gasoline, not just biofuels. Solar power is an alternative fuel and so is hydrogen (made from splitting water with wind power).
And I agree with you 100% that virgin biofuels are unsustainable and worse for the environment.
Scotto – I totally agree that many of the alternative fuels are a terrible approach. Actually, the DIY articles are frank in their assessments as well. For Carectomy’s take on the downfalls of biodiesel and alternative fuels, check [url]http://www.carectomy.com/index.php/Politics/CAFE-Doesnt-Cut-It-VMT-Reduction-Needed[/url]
[url]http://www.carectomy.com/index.php/Politics/Ethanol-Not-An-Eco-Darling-After-All[/url]
l agree that the “general” green car is a myth but have you heard of the air powered car about to be made by Tata next year? the tanks filled with compressed air which can be filled by installing a micro wind turbine which, depending on weather conditions can fill the tanks overnight and give you 130 miles on a fill. This car is close as you will get to green and emits no more than a donkey cart if you take the donkey farts into consideration!
Well we all know that cars are and never will be a green thing but we need them. Life as we know it would never been possible without cars. They’re simply the thing that allowed us to reach this way of living. But what I dont agree is that companies building huge s.u.v’s dont do anything to improve their efficiency. That’s what sucks! If companies really were interested in improving mileage and fuel economy they would begin by using other materials that are lighter than now, or putting diesel-electric engines. I now this little things raise up the cost of the car. But if all companies raised the prices of ALL cars to be able to improve the consumption, people would still pick the cheapest car, that now would have a much better fuel comsuption than the previous model.
This would be something.
You are right about cars being inherently “not green.” We could have the most fuel efficient cars with equivalent of 100 miles per gallon. This would still not BEGIN to address over paving and over development required for a personal use vehicle requiring space for parking, roads, etc. that is, land use issues. Continuing to take over land that for car use, cloverleafs, malls, roads, etc. that before long will be needed (and not available) for locally / regionally oriented agricultural production is a sin and crime for which we will be soundly cursed by future generations, including likely our own children and grandchildren.
Nice to meet you.
I had a look at blog.
Please link to this site.
http://www.geocities.jp/yuyuifirst/