Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Montreal versus Boston versus San Francisco: Most vibrant/lively/pedestrian active city?
Some factors to consider when you're ranking them; volume of traffic, major cross-sections, major arterial streets with traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian and/or transit), best infrastructure for walkers, most amenities accessible to walkers (as in restaurants, stores, public gathering areas, venues, stuff like that), most lively greenspace areas (urban city parks and other green-spaces), late night vibrancy (if applicable), highest volume of transit usage, most bike friendly and active, and finally density and daytime density concentrations.
Are we not counting winters? Because SF is the obvious year round choice imo. Although I suppose Montreal still has a shot since 'late night vibrancy' is a category.
Are we not counting winters? Because SF is the obvious year round choice imo. Although I suppose Montreal still has a shot since 'late night vibrancy' is a category.
Montreal's overall vibrancy remains quite active during Winter. The focus of the vibrancy shifts underground to Montreal's Underground City for those that no longer would want to walk and shop and eat at surface level streets.
Having spent considerable time in all places, I actually think SF is actually the worst in terms of pedestrian because the geography and the wind tunnels make the walks kind of tough, especially downtown, and the MUNI sucks.
Boston is very walkable, but the public transportation is also not great.
I've only been to Montreal on vacation, but it was very walkable.
Montreal's overall vibrancy remains quite active during Winter. The focus of the vibrancy shifts underground to Montreal's Underground City for those that no longer would want to walk and shop and eat at surface level streets.
I voted San Francisco. I think the year-round comfortable climate makes it the most vibrant and walkable. All three are excellent in this regard. In order I would go 1) San Francisco 2) Montreal 2b) Boston (almost a draw between the last two).
Honestly, Montreal has some of the my least favorite streets in the cbd (wide, full of cars) and wait times as a pedestrian at intersections are obnoxiously long it seems, but the underground city is neat (and helpful in the winter although it's a bit daunting as a tourist), the old city is obviously wonderful, they have the best bike lanes of the bunch, and many of the non-central neighborhoods are pedestrian friendly and urban.
Boston has, in my opinion, the most engaging and fun to stroll pedestrian friendly streets of the bunch. I find neighborhoods like the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, etc. more pleasant to walk than any place in the other cities (Montreal's Old City is architecturally stunning, but the sidewalks are narrow, in rough shape in many places, and congested- it's also a smaller chunk of the overall city than Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and the North End) with the big caveat being the weather. While there are always people walking the streets, Boston can be the opposite of "pleasant" to walk around in the winter. April-October/November are mostly nice, but December-March are tough (especially if snow banks pile up) and if it's over 85 and humid in the summer, it can be equally as unpleasant. Montreal is colder, but again, it has the underground city and the snow removal is markedly better than Boston. That's where I give Montreal slight edge over Boston.
The winner, San Francisco doesn't just not get as cold, it stays pleasant year-round. The hills can be challenging at first, but they offer incredible views (unmatched by the other cities), and San Francisco seems so connected with the outdoors. It's a great place to walk. For those in the Northeast who haven't been, picture late-September/early-October days year round. No humidity, cool (even crisp) mornings and evenings marked by 70s during the day. Year round. It's perfect outdoor weather. San Francisco lacks the crooked quirky ancient streets of Boston or Montreal's old city (in fact, I'd say it has some of the least pedestrian friendly boulevards of the three, but those are well out of the city center and few and far between), but it's compact, and the density of neat cafes, restaurants and shops combined with the ideal weather and stunning scenery makes it a pedestrian's dream. There's always a good volume of pedestrians. It's a city that just draws you outdoors. For me, San Francisco is the clear winner in this debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
