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.
public transportation wouldn't be walking though now would it?
that is why i voted sf and boston
they are both small and compact
I don't get this - public transportation is a key factor of walkability. If people are taking public transportation to their destinations then there are not huge desolate parking lots and garages around which destroy walkability. Additionally, public transportation is synonymous with areas of high density, which generate more pedestrian traffic and stimulation as you walk around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
NYC has more walkable AREAS, once you get where you are going. to a lesser extent chicago is the same way. A lot of walkable hoods, but you'll need some form of transportation to experience them all. SF and Boston, if one wanted, you can pretty much just walk around
Having grown up in and around San Francisco, and now living in New York, I feel that New York (Manhattan) is much more walkable. Obviously, San Francisco is one of the most walkable cities in the U.S., but Manhattan is very compact, mostly flat and has more street activity as you walk around. Even side-streets are pleasant walking environments, whereas in San Francisco side streets there are often rows of garages. On the other hand, I think generally the outer boroughs of New York (other than a few areas in Brooklyn and Queens) are slightly less walkable than San Francisco. The outer borughs of New York are still pretty walkable - much more so than the average American city.
I found DC to be extremely walkable (at least when the weather was pleasant), and think it deserves very high marks. (but again, like all cities, not every neighborhood or part of the city.) I think I walked more (and as a non-driver, I walk a lot to begin with) in SF than in DC or any other city we've lived in, but part of that is because SF's muni is so bad. It's often simply faster to walk up some streets, even the less interesting, less pleasant ones, than take take a packed bus that moves along at glacial speed. I agree that the walking is better in Manhattan than in many parts of SF, though. SF is a fantastic city for strolling or for living, but I find a longer walk through Manhattan to be more interesting and energizing.
I found DC to be extremely walkable (at least when the weather was pleasant), and think it deserves very high marks. (but again, like all cities, not every neighborhood or part of the city.) I think I walked more (and as a non-driver, I walk a lot to begin with) in SF than in DC or any other city we've lived in, but part of that is because SF's muni is so bad. It's often simply faster to walk up some streets, even the less interesting, less pleasant ones, than take take a packed bus that moves along at glacial speed. I agree that the walking is better in Manhattan than in many parts of SF, though. SF is a fantastic city for strolling or for living, but I find a longer walk through Manhattan to be more interesting and energizing.
I completely agree with your last sentence.
I also think DC deserves high marks, as does parts of Chicago.
A lot really depends on which neighborhood and what you are walking to. As stated earlier walking from midtown to Queens is a bit of hike, or hills in SF etc. but overall these seem like the top 7 (no particular order all good for walking) based on my experience in the donwtown/core of the cities
Philly
NYC
Boston
Baltimore
DC
Chicago
SF
Some othere would be NOLA and Charleston
Seattle and Portland seem like they would be high but I havent spent enough time to know
Miami South Beach also seems like it is very walkable
Last edited by kidphilly; 06-02-2010 at 10:51 AM..
Frankly, that site has been posted many times before and many people including me find it not too accurate.
Denver is actually quite walkable; it's relatively flat, the weather is usually good enough to be outside in, it rarely rains for more than 10 min. straight, and there are a lot of neat neighborhoods with "things to do, places to go".
I don't get your point. NYC has lots of walkable areas as does Chicago, but who says you have to walk between them? The whole point of walkability is to be able to walk to all the places you need to go withing an area. I live a a high walkability neighborhood, but I have no reason to walk across town to other walkable neighborhoods.
really? If I were in NYC I would be exploring lots of neighborhoods and could think of tons of reasons. also this thread has been done a few times before...i have some custom comparison maps but they are at home.
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.