Most Walkable US City

S.F. a step ahead as most 'walkable' U.S. city

A STEP AHEAD: Effortless access to markets, cafes makes S.F. most walkable city in nation

July 17, 2008|By James Temple, Chronicle Staff Writer

• Chinatown, with a walkability rating of 99 out of 100, has a dizzying array of drugstores, restaurants, markets and souvenir stands.
  Credit: Kim Komenich

If you or your loved one is struggling to break the cycle of fossil fuel addiction, San Francisco may just be your Betty Ford Center.
The city by the bay is the most "walkable" in the nation, according to rankings set for release today by WalkScore.com, a service designed to help those seeking a less automobile-dependent life. The distinction encompasses a host of environmental, health and economic advantages.
WalkScore, a division of Seattle software company Front Seat, evaluated the 40 largest U.S. cities based on residents' proximity to grocery stores, coffee shops, restaurants, movie theaters and other amenities. Hills were not taken into account in the rankings, just distance and concentration.
San Francisco scored an 86 out of 100, besting New York's 83 and Boston's 79. Seventeen of San Francisco's neighborhoods ranked 90 or above - considered a "walker's paradise" - including Chinatown, the Mission, Nob Hill and Haight-Ashbury.
"That says that San Francisco isn't just isolated pockets of walkability, but broad swaths," said Mike Mathieu, chairman and founder of Front Seat. "If you live and work in San Francisco, you know this. It means it's easier to get around, even with the hills."
The ability to conveniently travel by foot to services and jobs matters for a number of reasons. Studies show it means people get more exercise, drive fewer miles and consequently spend less on gas and produce fewer greenhouse emissions. Walkability also means there are people on the sidewalks, in stores and at restaurants, making neighborhoods livelier and, for many, more attractive.
"It's both healthy for the Earth and for humans to be able to walk to most of the places they need," said Kate White, executive director of the San Francisco office of the Urban Land Institute, a planning group. "Your carbon footprint is significantly lower than someone who has to drive everywhere ... and you're able to have real neighborhoods where you're not totally separated from your neighbors."
That in part explains why growing numbers of people are willing to pay more for smaller homes in dense neighborhoods than big ones in sprawling suburbs. Developers have taken notice of such trends, with many increasingly focusing on so-called urban infill projects.
Go to the source