The value of the footpath
As a city girl, I traded increased density for walkability. My house has a walkability score of 92 percent. I find it a perk to living here. I think it has value.
So, I was pleased to see walkability validated by CEOs for Cities.
“A new analysis from CEOs for Cities reveals that homes in more walkable neighborhoods are worth more than similar homes in less-walkable neighborhoods. The report, “Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S. Cities” by Joseph Cortright, analyzed data from 94,000 real estate transactions in 15 major markets provided by ZipRealty and found that in 13 of the 15 markets, higher levels of walkability, as measured by Walk Score, were directly linked to higher home values, according to CEOs for Cities's press release.The study found that in the typical metropolitan area, a one-point increase in Walk Score was associated with an increase in value ranging from $500 to $3,000 depending on the market. The gains were larger in denser, urban areas like Chicago and San Francisco and smaller in less dense markets like Tucson and Fresno.”
Then I read the report... Where does Boston fit in? As far as the writers of this report are concerned, it doesn’t. The cities in the study were all in warmer climes, except Chicago. None were in the mid-Atlantic or Northeast.
Another report released this month, "Effects Of Walkability On Property Values And Investment Returns," did address Boston. There, the data showed a mismatch between supply and demand, with not enough properties with good walkability scores available.
Walk scores take into account access to grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, movies, bookstores, libraries, clothing stores, hardware stores, schools, and more. I wish they included mass transit options; I think that’s a big omission.
According to Walk Score, Boston ranks third, nationally, as a walkable city. Here’s a map showing the best walking neighborhoods in Boston. First place goes to San Francisco; but I would rather walk here than on those hills!
The last Friday of every month is Walk/Ride Friday. Although I don’t get to the events, I do use my car less. It’s pretty hard for me, in my car-centered job, but I do what I can.
Do you think that walkability matters for home value? How about easy access, in general, to shops and libraries and schools?
Where’s the best walking places to live? Which cities? Which areas in the suburbs?
Comment
Permalink
Email
Interesting......I'm curious if another contributing variable to the home values in walkable neighborhoods has to do with limits on growth (sprawl). In other words, as you look at cities like Manhattan, San Fransisco, even Santa Barbara, you'll find that homes are scarce, thus more expensive. You'll find that parking regulations and fees make driving prohibited, thus forcing people into mass transit or walking. I'm just thinking outloud but it seems to me that if you regulate or tax driving and building you can also acheive a walkable coomunity with more expensive housing. It may not be the way people WANT to live, but the way they've been FORCED to live.
Don't remind people of this! My wife and I rent a crappy apartment in Somerville near Davis Sq. and would love to be able to buy a crappy place in the vicinity before we're old(er) and gray(er). In all seriousness, WalkScore.com is one of the first things I consult when a new listing that might work for us comes on the market. Almost without question I don't bother with a house with a score less than 70. 92 is pretty awesome.
The down payment saving effort continues while (hopefully) bogus interest rates and tax credits retreat . . .
Thanks, Rona, for another fine post of incremental value. I would guess that there is a 10-20k premium on being within 5-10 minutes of a T stop, but maybe I'm erring on the high side.
In the market and always check the walkscore. Maybe vying for the same places as 'reduce media' above!
I also agree - checking for public transport comes right after walkscore.
Isn't that what google maps and drive-by's are for? I'm going to trust my own eyes more than some website. Plus, you're right. A 'walkability' rating that doesn't factor in access to public transportation seems pretty pointless to me.
Well, I don't own a car, so walkability and public transportation are important for me. But I have found that since most people are not willing to give up their cars, parking is also important. I would expect that there must be some push and pull between the walkability of a place and the ease with which people can find parking. I would not be surprised to find that the two wash out unless one or the other is extreme.
Of course, this may change if the cost of driving becomes prohibitive or if people begin to embrace the concept of car sharing (Zip Car, etc.). If you can have a car when you need it without having to own the responsibility and expense of its care and upkeep (or having to find somewhere safe to put it when you're done with it), what's not to like?
In my old very walkable neighborhood, I used to live a few doors down from several rambling old Cambridge Victorians that were renovated to the teeth and sold for $2-$5 million to newly-urban suburbanites. Once moved in, none of the residents ever set foot on the sidewalk again. One only exited the house through his garage door--in his Jag. I actually heard one woman say how "lovely" it was to live near the T, though she would never use it herself. Another older couple commented to me that they they didn't like to "waste" money on restaurants. And so, walkability has become another checklist item that overleveraged buyers have to have, even if they don't use it, much like gourmet kitchens where the only appliances that see any use are the microwave and the telephone.
Perhaps instead of all crowding into the same walkable neighborhoods, we should try to make our own neighborhoods more walkable. In many parts of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Arlington, Newton, and other inner towns, you really need a car for daily errands and evening entertainment. Sadly, a lot of these places used to be walkable, once, with surface trolleys nearby and local stores other than nail salons and copy shops. But NIMBYism drove out small retail establishments, a classic case of cutting off one's nose.
I don't know how important walkability is to others, but it is important to me. I won't even look at a house in a neighborhood with no sidewalks, and I'd pay a premium to be close to the downtown/shopping area of my town. Unfortunately I don't have the leisure to walk to do all my errands, but I do enjoy having someplace safe to walk my dog in the evenings and being able to walk my kids to a playground.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Recent Posts
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com