Top 10 Most Attractive Walkable Mid-Size Cities (live, cost, crime, Boston)

[macalan]

What would you consider the Top 10 most attractive walkable, "human scale", small, mid or large sized cities that have lots of amenities (sports, shopping, restaurants, theatre, etc.), a good economy, relatively safe (not a lot of murders or gun crime), good infrastructure (offer some level of public transit), easy to get around, greenery (trees and parks), moderate COL and have a "personality" and a central "core" (rather than sprawl)?

My favorites I've been to so far:

Denver
San Francisco (was ages ago, so don't know if it's the same)
Boston
DC
NYC
Providence
Annapolis
Portsmouth, NH
Newport, RI
Burlington, VT
Portland, ME
Greenville, SC


My least favorite (for no particular reason, just didn't "click" with me, probably because I didn't spend enough time there):

Minneapolis
Dallas (too big and sprawling)
Louisville
St Louis
Asheville
Philly
Memphis
New Orleans (was lots of fun - once - but never felt entirely safe there)
Savannah (liked it the first time, but safety's an issue and going back it feels gritty)

Could take it or leave it:

Charleston, SC - I live here (not from here) so maybe I'm jaded. It's ok for what it is. A bit limiting. Safety has gotten worse, nice for a day trip sometimes and great architecture and walkability)

[ckhthankgod]

Cost of living alone knocks off half of the first list.

[ggplicks]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

Cost of living alone knocks off half of the first list.

I'd say 3/4 of it. All those big cities he listed are among the most expensive in the nation? Moderate cost of living in SF, NYC, Boston, Denver? lol

[bus man]

Parts of San Francisco are very UN-walkable, due to the steep hills. And yeah, about that COL . . .

Annapolis is what first popped into my head when I saw the thread title, and I see that you've included it. Frederick, MD also has a nice, walkable downtown. Nashville might work for what you're looking for. Knoxville might too.

[creeksitter]

Knoxville has public transit to get to the shopping areas but to get to anything beyond grocery/hardware/dollar store you'd have to ride through (gasp) sprawl.

[Citykid3785]

I'm surprised that Greenville is in your top list, and the Twin Cities in your bottom list. Based on your criteria, those two would be reversed for me.

There are dozens of reasons to not like the twin cities (namely weather/politics/passive-aggressiveness), but greenery & parks, urbanity, public transit, moderate COL, amenities & strong economy are not among them.

[skintreesnail]

You should give Philadelphia another chance; it's well known for most of the criteria on your list. The really narrow streets make for a very human scale experience. A few of the other cities on your list don't really excel in the COL area, like Boston, DC, San Francisco and NYC. For small cities I'd throw Lancaster PA in the mix; very compact and walkable with a lot to do for a city that size. Buffalo is a nice one too, though much more car oriented. There are many walkable neighborhoods though.

[OyCrumbler]

I think Milwaukee would be a decent entry for the list. New Haven's also been improving.

[Duderino]

A number of the "top" New England cities you've listed--like Newport, Burlington, Portsmouth and even Portland--are also incredibly tourist or retirement-oriented, which makes a big difference as far as practical day-to-day living.

In other words, those cities are nice for a day/weekend trip, but I'd never consider them super livable for the average working person. A huge difference from far more well-rounded mid-sized "legacy" cities like Cincinnati, Milwaukee or Pittsburgh.

[manitopiaaa]

I found Denver insanely boring when I visited. It was like Seattle but without all the stuff. My favorite part was probably the airport (not some pun about leaving, but there's some interesting 'post-apocalyptic' art all throughout.

Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Richmond to me are the clear winners not on your list.