Legs Dimin'

Would you pay more for walkability? Should you? 7

walk signThe Truth About ... via flickrForget letting your fingers do the walking: A study released today shows that homebuyers are letting their wallets do the walking, paying more for homes in neighborhoods where you can get around without wheels.

Conducted by CEOs for Cities, the analysis looked at 94,000 real-estate transaction in 15 markets across the U.S., from Fresno, Calif., to Arlington, Va. Researchers found that in 13 of the markets, housing values were higher in more walkable neighborhoods. (What about the other two markets? In Bakersfield, Calif., no correlation was found; in the other, which starts with Las Vegas and rhymes with Armageddon, housing values were lower in walkable neighborhoods.)

Using data from Walk Score, the study found that houses in hoods with above average walkability commanded $4,000 to $34,000 more than those in hoods with average walkability. Characterized as the first to put a dollar value on walkability, the study could be big news for municipal leaders and mere mortals alike, said CEOs for Cities head Carol Coletta: “These findings ... tell us that if urban leaders are intentional about developing and redeveloping their cities to make them more walkable, it will not only enhance the local tax base but will also contribute to individual wealth by increasing the value of what is, for most people, their biggest asset.”

But wait, you’re saying (as one staffer did at our news meeting this morning): Couldn’t this connection just be due to the fact that walkable areas tend to be metro areas, and that makes them more expensive in general? The smarties behind the study are all over that:

Using an economic technique called hedonic regression, we estimate how much market value homebuyers implicitly attach to houses with higher Walk Scores ... Our statistical approach controlled for key characteristics of individual housing units (their size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, age and other factors), as well as for the neighborhoods in which they were located (including the neighborhood’s income level, proximity to the urban center and relative accessibility to employment opportunities). After controlling for all of these other factors that are known to influence housing value, our study showed a positive correlation between walkability and housing prices in 13 of the 15 housing markets we studied.”

They had me at hedonic regression.

For me, the question is: Should we have to pay more for the privilege of being able to walk to a grocery store or school or post office or local pub? Walking—which the study terms a “largely unmeasured and grossly under appreciated component of the urban transportation system”—is good for our health and good for the planet, not to mention good for things like car-insurance premiums. Should such a set-up be available only to those who can afford it? Our old friend Clark Williams-Derry over at Sightline offers this take:

What the CEOs for Cities study shows is that there is a real and measurable pent up demand for homes in walkable neighborhoods. For decades, sprawl apologists have argued that low-density suburban development was somehow “natural,” because it’s what homebuyers “prefer.” By now, though, it’s clear that many homebuyers are willing to pay a premium for walkability. The real problem is that the demand for walkable homes exceeds the supply—which pushes up the price.

To me, that argues for policies that are designed to increase the supply of homes in walkable neighborhoods. That’s good for affordability, good for reducing transportation costs, and a great way to help more people add walking to their daily routines.

Katharine Wroth is a senior editor at Grist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Daniel Saltman's avatar

    Daniel Saltman Posted 12:11 pm
    18 Aug 2009

    Homes with high walkablilty are higher because most of them are located in urban areas and urban areas always command a higher price.

    Permalink

    1. diana_l Posted 12:32 pm
      18 Aug 2009

      It is stated in the article in the 5th paragraph:By using regression, they controlled for the "proximity to the urban center" and the regression output still showed a positive correlation bt walkability and housing prices. 

      Permalink

  2. Andrée Zaleska's avatar

    Andrée Zaleska Posted 5:06 pm
    18 Aug 2009

    I have paid dearly to remain in the walkable city neighborhood of my choice--Jamaica Plain in Boston: 3 house-purchases over the last 15 years averaging 50-75k more than a similar house would cost in neighboring Roslindale (which is not on the subway). The savings has been to my nerves, in being able to have only one family car and drive it only 7k miles/year. I have acquired a tough, cyclist's road-rage in that time--but good calves as well.To buy a house in a neighborhood that is not only walkable, but properous, with good schools, was impossible. Around here that would be Brookline, with condos around 500k.No regrets--JP is home.

    Permalink

  3. walterk Posted 7:30 pm
    18 Aug 2009

    I grew up in a very walkable, urban, working-class East Coast neighborhood in the 80s.  My family (and I assume most of the other residents) lived there mainly because they couldn't afford to live in/commute from the suburbs.  While I support the walkification of sprawlier areas where the wealthy have traditionally enjoyed living, I kind of have a problem with wealthy YUPPIE-types who've discovered "walkability," (and its correlative "community") as they call it, to be the latest health fad -- good for THEMselves and THEIR environment (I'm suprised their isn't some iphone app called "My Comunity" or iNeighborhood).For the 2nd half of the 20th century, poor Americans paid LESS to live in the cities' undesirable, dense cores.  Growing up, many of my poorer neighbors didn't even own cars.  But working-class people are being priced out of their cities and into the suburbs where they NEED to own automobiles and purchase gas for commuting.  So while wealthy liberals living in Greenpoint, Brooklyn can feel good about how it isn't THEY who are spewing greenhouse gas emissions each morning on their commutes, they are  essentially forcing the burden onto others less financially equipped for the task. It alliviates their iConscience, but does little to solve the problem, since someone else must now move into the exurbs they no longer want.

    Permalink

  4. Christine_E Posted 6:34 pm
    19 Aug 2009

    This actually looks like a win-win to me. Home values in walkable communities increase, while housing stays more affordable in those same areas. At least that's my take on research the Center for Neighborhood Technology has been doing on housing affordability.CNT's Housing + Transportation Affordability Index (http://htaindex.cnt.org) looks at housing and transportation costs in 55 (soon to be 300+) metro areas across the US. And even though housing costs are higher in walkable, transit-rich neighborhoods, when you account for the reduced transportation costs, living in those places is still more affordable. CNT's research shows the drive-till-you-qualify approach is particularly tough for working families, who may end up in outlying communities, spending as much as half their household budgets on housing and transportation.This shift toward walkability has benefits with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, too, according to CNT: Per household emissions are lower in "location efficient" neighborhoods. 

    Permalink

  5. davemc49 Posted 10:31 am
    23 Aug 2009

    I tried the Walkability index for my address and agree that the overall score is a pretty good match, but that there are some individual data items that are either a bit inaccurate or out of date (some new restaurants not listed and some closed businesses listed).But being an avid cyclist, my hope is that there will be either another Web site for "Bikeability" or an added option on the current "Walkability" site.  Many of the businesses listed for my address are perhaps too far for a walk, but are within an easy biking distance.

    Permalink

  6. johnelsden Posted 6:46 am
    25 Aug 2009

    I grew up in a transit-rich walkable neighborhood during the 1960's, where I could walk for two minutes to get some milk.............take the MBTA (Boston) to see a Red Sox Game.................I think there was less correlation then vs. now with transit and home prices, since my dad bought our house in the early 1950's for $5,000..............now valued at $300K (with improvements)................ 

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement