First of all, the author basically contradicts his own conclusions by mentioning that housing in the suburbs is extremely overbuilt -- thre is enough supply to last a decade without building another house, according to him. Oversupply means lower prices. Therefore, the entire difference in price betweeh suburbs and in-city housing might be explained by the glut of housing in the suburbs, and have nothing at all to do with "walkability."

Also, how has the number of single people, or couples, without children changed over the past 15 years? People without children are more likely to want to live inside a city, while people with children are probably more likely to prefer a single-family home with a yard.

"Walkability" is just the latest code word, or fad. People have always liked to live near parks. Does anyone think this is something new?

Another factor is that commutes have likely gotten worse over the past 15 years, so that it takes longer now to commute to the city from the suburbs than it did 15 years ago, placing a greater penalty for living in the suburbs if you work in a city.

I don't think "walkability" is any more important today than it has ever been. People have always liked to live in places that are convenitent to the places they like to visit. What is new about that?

If no more houses were built in the suburbs, or condos in the City in the next ten years, people such as Mark would be unemployed, along with legions of carpenters, painters, landscapers, refrigerator manufacturers and more.

This trend to fad words and planner geek-speak has got to end. My grandmother, who was born in 1904, walked nearly everywhere she could, because she had no car, because she could not afford it. She did her laundry in the sink too, and dried her clothes on a line in the backyard, because she could not afford a washer or dryer, even in the 1970's. "Walkability" is suddenly trendy, because we are so wealthy we can re-brand frugality.

"Walkability", where everyone has enough money for expensive coffee drinks, and spare time to linger in a coffee cafe. Hmmmmmmm.

Ditto Lincoln; if it's shorter and quicker to walk it's also shorter and quicker for everything else, cars, transit, bike.

The metric cited, Walk Score, is certainly a useful tool to compare residential neighborhoods for their proximate amenities. But it may not capture all the reasons families invoke when they decide where to live. And the resulting demand and home value may not be easily ascribable to walkability.

In the case of my home since 1991, on Seattle's Phinney Ridge, Walk Score gives it a 66 (out of 100) rating and says it's a "Somewhat Walkable" neighborhood. I think this is a fair assessment. Since 1996, my home's appraised value has increased 172 percent (not adjusted for inflation) even with a big decrease when the housing bubble burst. It still has not recovered its 2009 value.

But let's definitely keep analyzing, while being careful not to draw premature conclusions.

How could an accurate "walk score" give a neighborhood such as Phinney Ridge only a score of 66? Deductions for all the steep hills?

Are sanctuary cities walkable?

But what "Lincoln" misses in the comment above is that my Ballard neighborhood is FULL of families with kids and yards -- and also a fantastic WalkScore. I raised my own family in the suburbs (Issaquah) so I know what that old truism that families want 'burbs. But now that I'm an empty-nester I can tell you that my new Ballard neighborhood is packed with young families eagerly buying every house around me when a sweet old Norwegian grandmother passes away. This is a real generational shift.

Ballard is nice and flat. But losing terrific family housing stock to up/down townhouses with midget garages and teeny, dark yards. When there are no more sweet old Norwegian grannies left, where will the families with children choose to live?

Crazy 8 Ball says "Don't Bet On Seattle".

The New York Times embarrassed itself with that article. It's a classic example of the difference between correlation and causality. There are simply too many variables in the real estate equation to support the conclusion they drew.

By the way, as a long-time Times reader and subscriber, I'm becoming increasingly concerned by the obvious decline in their scope and quality. At least on the weerkends, the Wall Street Journal blows the Sunday NYT so far out of the water that the two publications are barely even comparable.

The tone of this article is " Nobody wants to live in Redmond anymore, in those 3000 square foot houses, three car garages, large yards and good schools. No, people want urban density. Everyone wants to live on Capitol Hill."
There was no mention that the difference in cost per square foot largely results from a change in the mix. In 1996, Capitol Hill had a much smaller population. It has become more dense, with a lot of studios and one bedroom condos and apartments added. Smaller places often command a significantly higher cost per square foot than larger places.
Walkability is a wonderful thing, but this is comparing apples to oranges.
It's not like people don't want to live in Redmond. They do. Lots of families like the safety of the neighborhood, the low crime rate, and the good schools. Houses in Redmond are currently selling just as fast as on Capitol Hill.
Yes, some neighborhoods in Seattle do have families and good schools, but Seattle as a whole has seen a big decline in children. Hence smaller living spaces and higher price per square foot costs.

From the NY Times op-ed which inspired Hinshaw's story:

(Disclosure: I am the president of Locus, a coalition of real estate developers and investors, and a project of Smart Growth America, which supports walkable neighborhoods and transit-oriented development.)

Does Crosscut require or invite its writers to make such disclosures? I for one value the insights of those who are willing to disclose such relationships, and mistrust those who hide them.

I have repeatedly asked how Roger Valdez makes his living, and who pays him. Dead silence from both Valdez and Crosscut.

and thank you for doing so. I would like to know the answer, as well.

The dude has popped up all over the place: Sightline, Seattle Transit Blog, here, Publicola. And he seems to be one of the mayor's best buddies. But no one ever says exactly who is stuffing his wallet. Given his influence on government policy and practice, I think we deserve to be told. If Crosscut had some ethics, they'd demand the answer and publish it.

I just distrust and dislike anything called "Smart" anything.

Smart Growth my hind end.

Mark,
Some would disagree that Capitol Hill is walkable, due to the higher crime rates, traffic, and air pollution compared to the suburbs. Indeed, the perception of walkability is subjective and based on one's personality. For example, I consider my distant suburban neighborhood very walkable, since we have no traffic due to the low population density (one acre estates and lots of open space).

From my perspective, Capitol Hill is walkable and bikable, but is an unpleasant place to walk on many streets, due to smart growth towers, narrow sidewalks, narrow streets, potholes, and resulting escalating traffic density and air pollution.

Furthermore, when I walk or bicycle, I want to get away from everyone, and do not want to encounter others while outdoors. I want parks and open space, along with separate grade bike paths. Fortunately, Capitol Hill residents have Volunteer Park, The Arboretum, etc.

Therefore, one person's smart growth walkable neighborhood with lots of activity like Capitol Hill is a deterrent to a home buyer who desires traditional lots on acreage or quarter acre lots such as Redmond or Bellevue.

Furthermore, there is very little convincing evidence that walkability will reduce vehicle trips, except in small college towns (See below), and in very high density environments such as Manhattan or downtown Seattle with 30 story condo towers.

However, the PSRC *suburban* density goals in (the PSRC regional urban growth centers, and, in others areas upzoning thanks to transfer of development rights from the Dept. of Commerce, are not high enough to generate the higher walkability percentages (and, also transit use) found in New York City, for example.

In addition, people prefer shopping at big box stores, rather than the corner grocery store that is more expensive.

Therefore, given the reality that people will always drive down from Capitol Hill to Costco, Target, and Home Depot, then to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and limit CO2 emissions, we should focus on hybrid cars, electric cars, and separate grade bike paths that move people faster than sidewalks.

Or, reduce restrictions on big box stores, and build multi story Targets with elevators and escalators, in smart growth areas such as the Seattle city limits (similar to West Hollywood and Berkeley).

Also, the Sparks Marina (in Sparks, NV near Reno) has big box stores next to a residential area, and it's all fairly low density due to the marina. Not sure how it's doing now, as I haven't been there in 3 years.

Nevertheless, smaller cities with lower densities and exceptional investments in bike infrastructure, have seen the percentage of cyclists and pedestrians increase to double digit percentages in small college towns such as Corvallis, Oregon and Ft. Collins, Colorado.

I'm all for more sidewalks and bike paths, however, it will never significantly decrease automobile use due to the preference for big box stores, and crime and air pollution in areas such as Capitol Hill or even Redmond (and, Redmond is getting more congested due to new 6 story smart growth towers downtown).

Disclosure ??? I do not like increasing density and air pollution with smart growth, except for its emphasis on walkability and bicycles. It is important to provide opportunities for cycling and walking for the elderly, the disabled, and individuals with MS, FMS, Epilepsy, Aspergers Syndrome, and others who can't drive but who are more fit than the rest of us since they bike everywhere.

However, the reality is that people prefer driving to big box stores and homes with yards. And, light rail is too expensive. Corvallis, Fort Collins, and other college towns have proven that double digit percentages of cyclists and pedestrians can be achieved. Therefore, to effectively compete with the auto, the Seattle area could choose to assess these Oregon and Colorado markets, that have higher rates of people walking and cycling to work.

Maybe achieving double digit percentages will only work in small college towns?

ACS - Census Cycling, Pedestrians - Corvallis, Ft. Collins, Boulder, etc.
http://smartgrowthusa.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/corvallis-oregon-smart-growth-commuting-in-united-states-2009/

I think Valdez works for Hinshaw.

The architect, I presume? What does he do when he's not trashing anyone who isn't vibrant? Empty the trash?

Ha! Good one.

If walkscore were based on reliable data, we might have a conversation. However, an audit of my closest Seattle Urban Village reveals a 50% error rate in number of parks, bus service availability, bike infrastructure, living amenities (restaurants, grocery stores, medical services, etc), and almost every possible metric has significant errors. Can't take it seriously.

Responding to Tom9, two, o.k. maybe three, points.

First, the preference to drive to Costco is not natural but created by cheap gasoline,cheap land, and someone in the family not working. Those criteria are changing, so we should see, eventually, changes in preferences. For example, factoring in the cost of two gallons of gasoline and an hour(?) commute each way, it doesn't look as clear that you'll be saving much.

Your preferences for not seeing people when you walk is fine and I share that at times and head for Lake Washington Blvd. or Seward Park, but I can also walk to restaurants, food markets, post office, dry cleaners, coffee shops, or transit to everything else. More importantly, I can walk to see and visit neighbors, relatives, friends, and acquaintances--and I do so on a regular basis. It's not an either/or but a both/and kind of walkability.

Third, those folks in Redmond have 2+ kids, who someday will have to live somewhere with their families, and I'm guessing, by a look at the macro economy, it's not going to be in a 3000sq.ft. home in Redmond. Where will they go?

The preference to drive to Costco is created by 'someone in the family not working'?

Huh? Silly me. I thought it was because I could load up and buy a month's worth of freezer food, and other household supplies at a big discount because I was buying quantity. Which saves a lot on my fuel consumption and use of personal time.

I don't like to see people when I walk. I walk to enjoy nature and silence. But, hey, I love Costco, so maybe I'm just a different nut.

@bkochis:

If every decision in life were oh-so rational that "economic" theory explained our lives. But we're not and economics doesn't explain much, frankly. Trips to Costco may actually be more environmentally sound than walking to your neighborhood grocer (aside from the import costs of many items for sale at Costco). Buying large quantities of staples is far better than multiple trips to the grocer and frankly, better financially. My local green grocer is extremely expensive, prohibitive, in fact, if I were living on the financial margins.

Second, I am really struck by the belief that empty nesters and retirees will chose to move to a denser environment. I grew up in this city, lived in NYC for awhile, and frankly, feel I represent another over-looked segment, which are people nearing retirement who loathe the densities and homogeneity of our urban areas. From my cohort of friends and neighbors, the discussions are focused around seeking smaller, more accessible, less expensive (and less hip) locales to enjoy our remaining days ( enjoy seeing old brick buildings that smaller towns have preserved and not the omnipresent nail salons and UPS stores in the faux Post-War modern style that has taken over Seattle). Ashland, Bend, Walla Walla, Sedona, Medford and many other similar sized towns seem to be on the list. Accessibility to the out of doors, culture, medical facilities, are important factors, and that used to be in Seattle until we became so large it's impossible to get to Pill Hill without either taking an hour bus ride (and I live near there), or paying exorbitant amount for parking, it takes over an hour to even get to Tiger Mountain (great walkability), and taking a bus to evening cultural events is not something you're going to coax an older single woman to do...

The walkability score is just a real estate marketing scam.

The headline: "Urban walkability: the new driver in real estate values"

The reality: this is a marketing ploy called an "Assumptive Close".

Urban walkability is a myth, and in hilly Seattle, not very valid among those who have hip, knee or other physical ailments that make walking difficult. Not everyone is hip and 20-something, or wants to spend all their time and disposable cash in a coffee shop or bar.

Does the writer of this article not understand that in Redmond there is ample vacant land on which to build, and that on Capital Hill there is zero vacant land on which to build?

And that our region has grown exponentially since 1996, therefore creating even more demand in the high-demand areas with limited supply such as exists on Capital Hill?

The following paragraph tries to portray 'walkability' as the reason, but it is simply not correct, not even close, no matter how you wish to tweak the data you present. "The research included the Seattle area, which reflects national data. For example, a neighborhood in Redmond was compared with one on Seattle's Capitol Hill. Both had average home values in 1996 that were the almost identical. Now in 2012, the average value per square foot in Capitol Hill is $300, while the Redmond average is $200 per square foot. During the 15-year period, the Seattle neighborhood's home values increased by almost 80 percent, while the Redmond values increased by less than 25 percent."

Responding to Common1sense and KAM:

Thanks for your comments and I agree that being alone can be a good thing, when you're walking or driving to Costco. However, I was emphatically not reducing the issue to economics, but to human relationships--with friends, strangers, relatives, fellow citizens--exactly what people used to have in Ashland, Sedona, Walla Walla, etc.

Secondly, stocking up with stuff from Costco is not environmentally friendly when you consider the costs of getting here from China, Mexico, South America, etc. It might seem immediately cheap to you, but it's enormously costly to get it here--the poor in the developing world pay the cost that you don't.

Isn't it odd that an architect is writing about property values? Crosscut should find an appraiser, or perhaps a representative of the Assessor's office, to educate us about real estate values. Or do the appraisers all want to write about architecture?