I came across this yesterday and found it pretty interesting:
http://leebyron.com/how/2008/07/13/m...san-francisco/
It basically uses one of those "walkability" sites and uses a heat map to show the more walkable areas.
What is curious is that it tends to follow density maps to some degree, but not entirely. I really want to take a look at the exact methods used by the walkability sites - some areas surprised me and I'd like to figure out why.
Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.
Congratulations on being the number 1 walking city (according to a reort that is supposed to be released today).
I've spent hours looking up addresses all around the country. Of course its only approximate, but it is interesting and sort of related to reality.
My Boston is only number 3.
I think the heat map idea would work better in cities not typically known for walkability. For example, there isn't much difference in San Francisco between an area with a score of 80 and an area with a score of 100 - both are going to be extremely walkable (the Inner Sunset neighborhood of SF somehow only scores in the 80's, despite it being what I would call a quintessential walkable area - grocery stores, scores of restaurants, streetcar running through it, dense 2-6 story zero lot line housing throughout, immediate access to a huge urban park, etc, etc). I'd be curious to see a place like Houston, for example, where I hear a lot about new development that is building more "urbanish" areas, and a map like this would clearly point them out to someone not familiar.
Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.
Quote
