Does your neighbourhood Pass the Popsicle Test

[M.Dancer]

For a neighbourhood to be considered friendly to pedestrians, planners in the new urbanist school believe, it must pass the "Popsicle test."

Essentially, a neighbourhood must be planned so that an eight-year-old can walk to a corner store without crossing major roads, buy a Popsicle and get back home before it melts.

If little Mackenzie can do that, you live in a neighbourhood dense enough not to rely completely on the car. Which means you may drive less, and you may even take public transit to work, sparing the environment and easing congestion.

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/s...National/2/2/2/

My daughter can go get Sushi, an RESP, Gnocchi, Shoes, Communion, Get Pictures Developed, An Iced Cappocino but she has to cross the street to get a popsicle....

I wonder sometimes about new developments and planned communities...especially in the GTA....how much planning does it take to lay out a couple of hundred homes and not include a corner store?

[August1991]

The key point in that article is the link to this website: http://www.walkscore.com/ where you can rate your home address in terms of its "walkability" to retail shops and other services. (For the record, I scored 70/100 in Montreal.)

I typed in a few other addresses and I wasn't entirely satisfied with the results. Then I noticed this in the article above:

Plans are in the works to refine the calculations and include things such as street width and access to public transit.

IOW, the calculation leaves out many factors such as how pleasant the walk is.

Ultimately, the price of a property tells you more than anything else about how pleasant (or walkable) it is. If people valued walkability, they'd be willing to pay for it.

Nevertheless, thanks for the link Monsieur Dancer.

Edited August 27, 2007 by August1991

[geoffrey]

I wonder sometimes about new developments and planned communities...especially in the GTA....how much planning does it take to lay out a couple of hundred homes and not include a corner store?

Most new Calgary communities have density requirements and some are even built entirely around walking... one you have to park your car some distance from your house and walk up. Very strange, but desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose.

I typed in a few other addresses and I wasn't entirely satisfied with the results. Then I noticed this in the article above:IOW, the calculation leaves out many factors such as how pleasant the walk is.

The results didn't include half of the establishments I often walk to from my place, got a 52. But there was 15 pubs. Hmm.

[Riverwind]

Ultimately, the price of a property tells you more than anything else about how pleasant (or walkable) it is. If people valued walkability, they'd be willing to pay for it.

I was surprised when I put in a few addresses in my neighborhood. The area with the highest property values actually scored close to zero. Areas with lower property values scored in the 50% range. Edited August 28, 2007 by Riverwind

[marcinmoka]

Kudos on the site. I got a respectable 92/100 granted that was by far the dominating factor in choosing said residence.

While this "Popsicle" test is a good idea, I'm curious as to the wider trends which will take place. My parents generation still seems to have a strong attachment to the concept of owning land, even if the property is minuscule and you spend more far more time commuting than you actually do enjoying the land you wished for (thereby being detrimental to "family life")

My generation however, seems to be drifting more towards the urban, condo scene, eschewing car ownership (and thus the rise of Zip cars and such) in favour of living close to the amenities where density is actually considered a good thing.

But will it last? Or will this just fade once kids and the concept of family come into the equation? Afterall, it is no surprise that the dominant pop culture glorifiers of the urbanite life all featured singles (Friends, Sex & City, etc). Yet the idealistic suburban-american dream depictions of the 70's and 80' morphed into this whole "suburbia bashing" culture exemplified by "American Beauty" and "Weeds".

Sherbourne St. could use some serious gentrification. Those crackheads are sitting on some primo property.

Edited August 28, 2007 by marcinmoka

[M.Dancer]

The key point in that article is the link to this website: http://www.walkscore.com/ where you can rate your home address in terms of its "walkability" to retail shops and other services. (For the record, I scored 70/100 in Montreal.)

I got a 60/100 for the forest hill village. But I think they left out some amenities which would certainly affect the quality of life beyond grocery stores....it should the closest park as being 1.35 K away when in fact it's about a 4 minute walk.

It also omitted banks (has the ATM made them irrelevant?), there are 5 banks less than .10K away....

It also omitted under coffee shops the Charbucks and Second Cup ...I wonder if they would have brought the score down....sure enough there's no Timmys and that's a sin.

And finally, it omitted churches, synagogues and schools. And in my mind that's a biggie.

[kuzadd]

My neighbourhood got 60 out of 100, BUT, oddly enough some amenities which are actually closer,grocery stores and two parks, are non-existent, and instead, this 'calculator' chose, other ones further away.

[White Doors]

My neighbourhood got 60 out of 100, BUT, oddly enough some amenities which are actually closer,grocery stores and two parks, are non-existent, and instead, this 'calculator' chose, other ones further away.

hmmm.. sounds strange.. too stange for it to be a coincidence I'd wager.

I smell the CIA afoot..

[AngusThermopyle]

This is great.

It gave my place a score of 15 out of a hundred.

It left out pretty much everything in town, schools, parks, restaurants, stores, bars. Everything.

Must be because I live in a small town.

[scribblet]

It couldn't find my place hmmmm

[jester]

Found my place and I live in the UK now. 16 out of 100.........

[scribblet]

2/100 I picked an older road very close by, we are in a 'new' subdivision, at least it's 7.5 years new.

[AndrewL]

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/s...National/2/2/2/

My daughter can go get Sushi, an RESP, Gnocchi, Shoes, Communion, Get Pictures Developed, An Iced Cappocino but she has to cross the street to get a popsicle....

I wonder sometimes about new developments and planned communities...especially in the GTA....how much planning does it take to lay out a couple of hundred homes and not include a corner store?

In edmonton they build entire neighborhoods of crappy combustible homes jammed way too close together. The residents refuse all services (stores) and all public transport because they say they can drive anywhere they want to go and they will only stay for a couple of years anyway.

It is ridiculous.

Andrew

Edited August 30, 2007 by AndrewL

[jennie]

In edmonton they build entire neighborhoods of crappy combustible homes jammed way too close together. The residents refuse all services (stores) and all public transport because they say they can drive anywhere they want to go and they will only stay for a couple of years anyway.

It is ridiculous.

Andrew

70 out of 100, and I discovered some new things in my neighbourhood!

However, the nearest bar may be only a block away but I am NOT likely to frequent a strip bar!!

[Evan]

My neighborhood kind of passes 60/100. However, it doesn't keep in mind things like the fact that the corner store charges more than 2x as much as the grocery store and should be avoided at all costs. Or the fact that the one time I walked into the small grocery store up on the 'main drag' they were spraying all the produce with Raid and I decided I would never walk in there again.... There are some flaws in the 'google system' to say the least.