There’s a new web site called, Walk Score that gives your neighborhood a “walkability index” based on how many shops, restauants and other amenities are within walking distance. Kind of neat.
My neighborhood scores 57 out of 100, Somewhat Walkable. There are some questions regarding the quality of the mapping data they are relying upon. For example: the closest grocery store is listed as Circle K, which for non-natives is a gas station/convenience store. A proper grocery store, Jewel is less than half a mile away though. I confess I’ve rarely walked there although the wife often bikes there in summer. And the closest movie theater is listed on WalkScore as, The Showboat Theater, a summer stock theater that doesn’t show movies. Although… not a bad idea.
The nearest restaurant is listed as the KFC, which has been shuttered for over a year. Besides, I think fast-food places should get a lower score than a proper restaurant. Just glom McDonalds, Taco Bell, BK, etc. together and whenever the map indicates one give it say 60% of the score of any other listed restaurant. Although that probably wouldn’t account for say, a local hot-dog place.
I also don’t think it is able to take into account the quality of the sidewalks which in Clinton can be pretty bad and sometimes nonexistent on one or both sides of the street; or the crosswalks some of which have crossing lights that are very pedestrian unfriendly.
So, take these listings with a grain of salt. But it is certainly a step in the right direction. And my neighborhood is certainly better off than say, someone who lives up on Meadoview Drive, Score 26, Car Dependent, or Highview Drive by 13th Avenue North, Score 37, Car Dependent and the many developments further afield in Clinton.
Be that as it may, a new study (PDF link) by CEO’s for Cities shows that walkability has a direct impact on property values.
Remember, the researchers who did this analysis controlled for all sorts of variables that affect housing prices: the size and age of the home, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, neighborhood incomes, the distance from major job centers, and so forth. So their results don’t stem from some spurious correlation — e.g., that walkable neighborhoods tend to be worth more because they’re closer to downtown. Nope, this is the real deal: in just about every metro area they looked at, walkability adds value to property. (Las Vegas, NV and Bakersfield, CA were the two exceptions. What’s up there?)In part, there’s a straightforward economic rationale for spending more for a walkable neighborhood: reducing your car dependence can cut your transportation costs. This Reconnecting America study, for example, also found that housing is cheaper in distant suburbs and exurbs — the sorts of places where most trips require a car — but that every dollar saved on housing means an extra 77 cents spent for transportation. That’s the average, and there are probably some families who are able to drop a car (or more) by living in a walkable neighborhood; for them, paying more for walkability may be a money-saving proposition in the long run.
Regardless, what the CEOs for Cities study shows is that there is a real and measurable pent up demand for homes in walkable neighborhoods. For decades, sprawl apologists have argued that low-density suburban development was somehow “natural,” because it’s what homebuyers “prefer.” By now, though, it’s clear that many homebuyers are wiling to pay a premium for walkability. The real problem is that the demand for walkable homes exceeds the supply — which pushes up the price.
All of which just adds impetus to my belief that Clinton should stop allowing developments further afield than any existing or under-construction ones, and begin to look at giving more incentive and resources to infill in the city proper.
Check it out WalkScore. How does your neighborhood score? Share in the comments.
