The Most and Least Walkable Neighborhoods in Brooklyn

04/13/2012 12:24 PM |

Brooklyn + walking. Sorry, it was the best I could do on short notice.
  • Brooklyn + walking. Sorry, it was the best I could do on short notice.

Cobble Hill and Brooklyn Heights are the most walkable neighborhoods in Brooklyn, according to Walk Score, which “measures” walkability. The website bases its “walk scores” on the amount and accessibility of amenities: “the more amenities (restaurants, movie theaters, schools) you have around you, and the closer they are, the higher your grade,” Slate explains. New York City is the most walkable out of the 50 recently surveyed: its average walk score is 85.3 (out of 100), which surely would have been higher if not for unwalkable Staten Island.

In Brooklyn, Cobble Hill and Brooklyn Heights both had scores of 98. Boerum Hill and Downtown Brooklyn both scored 97; DUMBO, Carroll Gardens, Gowanus, and Park Slope tied with 96.

The least walkable neighborhood in New York (not counting Riker’s Island) is Breezy Point, likely for its remoteness, although it is mostly comprised of paths not wide enough to drive a car down. (Doesn’t safety count?) In Brooklyn, the least walkable neighborhoods are all in the south: Bergen Beach is the lowest, with a score of 58. After that, Mill Basin with 62, Gerritsen Beach with 71, Canarsie with 74, and Manhattan Beach and West Brighton at 77. (Except we don’t consider “West Brighton” a real place.)

Follow Henry Stewart on Twitter @henrycstewart

[photo]

7 Comment

  • Telling. Quite telling. Is there any way to look at the totals if “restaurants” and “bars” are removed from the equation? It’s interesting where Williamsburg ranks on this list even with its insane concentration/explosion of “tavern economy” [elevating its rank]. I apologize for the indulgence of citing an article in which I appear
    ["A Voice of Williamsburg's Past, Warning Against Change" D. Gonzalez, http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/…]
    but note my arguments in the comments section about the relationship of Williamsburg to brownstone Brooklyn as to “walkability”:

    “…the disposable income…by agents of gentrification in Williamsburg [circulates] through its

  • I pause to wonder concerning the blog of D. Gonzalez. It seems to concern itself with economic issues instead of WALKABILITY……che cosa significa

  • This doesn’t have an economic valence? Of course it does. “Walkability” evokes “destinations” as well as “paths.” And it has an ironic valence as well, since it belies the growing distance between community residents and the economy welling t/here. What destiny/ies lay in Williamsburg outside her tavern economy? If you remove that tavern economy from the equation, it’s certain that Williamsburg’s “walkability” stumbles.

  • On another seemingly unrelated note, Williamsburg’s high ranking in this regard, while lacking in the significant and durable cultural institutions previously observed, confirms also another argument that is also apparently “not economic” and apparently “irrelevant”: the mysterious “undercount” of North Brooklyn by US Census is indeed a “walkability” issue, as posed in another self-indulgent comment:

    “Much if not most of the population that overwhelms the senses on Bedford Avenue and eveywhere on the weekends is TRANSIENT, and yet seems to leave a deep and profound psychological impression that populations have exploded. There is only so much of the 1% in the world!”

  • By the way, before loosie-goosies erupt, I read and understand that Williamsburg is supposedly ranked in the forties on the list, but scores 93 out of 100 and many of the ranks are equivalent.

  • downtown brooklyn representing!

  • Got a kick out of Breezy Point being listed. I suspect this is due to the fact that there is one grocery, 2-3 restaurants and no movie theater or school. However, due to the fact that more than half of Breezy is on “the walks,” EVERYONE walks everywhere. The definition of “walkable” apparently needs some revision.