Is your community walk friendly? Many green homes flunk the walkability test.

There's an interesting piece up at USA Today about green homes that flunk the walkability test and whether or not LEED should consider walk-friendly aspects in their rating system.

I know LEED is not set up to assess community aspects like it is set up to assess home aspects, but in my opinion I think walkability is a big deal. If the only place you can walk to from your very eco-friendly home is the driveway (to your car) you have to think that it offsets some of the green benefits since you do have to drive everywhere else.

Plus plenty of studies show that kids and adults all benefit from green spaces, and that includes health benefits and green spaces seem to come along with places that have decent walkability scores (although not always). For example, my address only has a walkability score of 38, which is really low when compared to my city overall (94). This is because you can't walk to any stores. However, you can walk to green spaces, a few bus lines, and even the Max (our above ground rail transport) so IMO walkability is fairly decent - i.e. you don't have to always drive. Plus I picked this neighborhood because it's right by my son's school thus making my drive time super short. With this in mind I think we need to take walkability scores with a grain of salt.

If you're a US resident you can learn your walkability score at Walk Score.

What do you think? Should LEED consider ease of walking in the community? 

The walk score for walkability considers the following...

• A center: Walkable neighborhoods have a discernable center, whether it's a shopping district, a main street, or a public space.
• Density: The neighborhood is compact enough for local businesses to flourish and for public transportation to run frequently.
• Mixed income, mixed use: Housing is provided for everyone who works in the neighborhood: young and old, singles and families, rich and poor. Businesses and residences are located near each other.
• Parks and public space: There are plenty of public places to gather and play.
• Pedestrian-centric design: Buildings are placed close to the street to cater to foot traffic, with parking lots relegated to the back.
• Nearby schools and workplaces: Schools and workplaces are close enough that most residents can walk from their homes.

When I lived in Downtown Portland, OR, I had this. However, I think that's the only time in my life I had total walkability. Everywhere else I've lived has been spread out. The reason I think the walk score is a little flawed though is because one, Russ is right, cities are too spread out so public transport should maybe be considered. Secondly my version of walkability is influenced by green/natural spaces. When I lived in Humboldt, I lived in a tiny town right off the beach. There was just a post office, one school, and one restaurant in said town, so nothing too useful to walk to, BUT Cedar (my son) and I could walk right to the beach each and every day. The town also had almost zero traffic (it was on a peninsula) so you could also walk all over the town safely - from the bay to the ocean. We took huge walks daily which to me seems like walkability. 

I wish we did live somewhere where we could walk everywhere, but to make that possible nowadays you really need to live smack in the center of a thriving city which brings up other issues such as traffic, population, trash, etc.

I think they need to consider green spaces more.