U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2013, 05:14 PM
 
344 posts, read 869,137 times
Reputation: 324

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarguy1685 View Post
Anywhere is in southern california you'll find great weather. Living near the beach is expensive of course. SoCal will also probably never have usable public transportation. The state is so big and there is so much to see why would you want to be stuck downtown? Get in your car and head to the Desert, Mountains, forests.

You wont miss it at first but you will eventually miss a real winter and fall. That's part of why I left cali after 25 years to go back to the midwest.
if i miss it, i think i could deal with it. I've had winters for the first 1/4 of my life (assuming i live to be around 100). I certainly can go the next quarter without.

plus i've always had this theory that if i miss snow and cold, i can take a 1 week vacation to Vermont or something, and get my "fix" for the year. Whereas if i live somewhere that gets cold, i'm stuck with it, and at best can only escape it for 1 week on a vacation to somewhere warm.

i totally agree that you can get sick of southern latitudes, palm trees, and sunshine. but i think it only takes a bit of time to get your northern fix!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:53 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
15 posts, read 25,912 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Where is the dispute? SF has a seamless core DT going straight into neighborhoods with no breaks and tight streets and plenty to do. I didn't say biggest or tallest skyline, I said most walkable.
Completely agree with this. You can get anywhere in San Francisco by walking, and will never be bored along the way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 10:53 PM
 
21,218 posts, read 30,435,315 times
Reputation: 19671
Quote:
Originally Posted by poodlecamper View Post
Savannah I wouldn't call a family-oriented type city exactly. My DD and her DH (30's) took a road trip last summer and stopped there. Loved the funky vibe of the place, can't wait to go back. They're foodies, liberal, like going out a lot with friends.
I agree. Savannah has attracted many big city residents looking for a slower lifestyle without a big dropoff in things to do. In case you haven't read it, the book "Midnight In The Garden of Good and Evil" is a must read about Savannah, and gives some insight about the array of personalities living there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 11:03 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,828,779 times
Reputation: 11141
Miami
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2013, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,955,665 times
Reputation: 10561
I'm surprised no one has given you the obvious answer yet.

Basically, the Northeastern cities are walkable because they were built up before the automobile. In contrast, all southern (and southwestern, for the most part) cities but one were built up after automobiles. The historic, walkable core was very small, because the antebellum area probably housed 50,000-100,000 people at most, and many cities (like Houston) destroyed it entirely during Urban Renewal in the 1950s and 1960s.

The one exception is New Orleans. New Orleans is a "real city" - it's full of 19th century (and older) housing, similar to cities like Philadelphia and Boston. It's built on a grid, and the houses are closely spaced. And it probably has a climate closer to what you're looking for in terms of not having winter.

That's really it in the Southeast. Charleston and Savannah have intact historic downtowns, but they may be too small for you. IMHO out of west coast cities only San Francisco feels walkable in an East Coast sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2013, 05:21 PM
 
344 posts, read 869,137 times
Reputation: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I'm surprised no one has given you the obvious answer yet.

Basically, the Northeastern cities are walkable because they were built up before the automobile. In contrast, all southern (and southwestern, for the most part) cities but one were built up after automobiles. The historic, walkable core was very small, because the antebellum area probably housed 50,000-100,000 people at most, and many cities (like Houston) destroyed it entirely during Urban Renewal in the 1950s and 1960s.

The one exception is New Orleans. New Orleans is a "real city" - it's full of 19th century (and older) housing, similar to cities like Philadelphia and Boston. It's built on a grid, and the houses are closely spaced. And it probably has a climate closer to what you're looking for in terms of not having winter.

That's really it in the Southeast. Charleston and Savannah have intact historic downtowns, but they may be too small for you. IMHO out of west coast cities only San Francisco feels walkable in an East Coast sense.
interesting answer. thanks for the insight!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2013, 07:34 PM
 
1,189 posts, read 1,812,529 times
Reputation: 972
Yes. Chicago for one.

If you are talking about the great lake cities as "coastal" then try the rust belt cities. those cities were once some of the densest in the country and still are fairly dense. Cleveland, Minneapolis, St.Louis, Milwaukee are all pretty dense but nowhere near the density of SF or Boston. Atlanta is dense in some places. Overall the rust belt cities are the next densest cities after coastal cities
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2013, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,955,665 times
Reputation: 10561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amercity View Post
Yes. Chicago for one.

If you are talking about the great lake cities as "coastal" then try the rust belt cities. those cities were once some of the densest in the country and still are fairly dense. Cleveland, Minneapolis, St.Louis, Milwaukee are all pretty dense but nowhere near the density of SF or Boston. Atlanta is dense in some places. Overall the rust belt cities are the next densest cities after coastal cities
The OP said besides "coastal" he wanted a city which was somewhat warmer than any in the northeast, which is part of the problem. Although the roads are wider, the Midwest has plenty of "real cities," all of which are cheaper than the northeast, but the climate in essentially all cases is probably slightly worse in terms of winter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2013, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,346,398 times
Reputation: 36094
Lots of them on the Great Lakes. Traverse City, Michigan.

Last edited by jtur88; 01-27-2013 at 10:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2013, 12:00 PM
 
735 posts, read 952,236 times
Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
SF sort of fit??? Yeah... easily. Probably 2nd most walkable city core behind NYC.

I think you could "pull it off" in Atlanta non coastal, LA (7th and 8th biggest subway system) and New Orleans (dense and walkable) if you did your homework if you are looking for something cheaper and warmer.

Your best options are probably SF and LA, but yes they are expensive.
No, not even remotely. Philadelphia, Boston, Wilmington, really any older city on the East Coast or in the older Midwest is just as, if not more, walkable. Granted, some of them have been ruined for walkability during urban renewal but still.

LA is walkable? Really? Atlanta isn't all that walkable compared to the East Coast but yeah, it could probably be done.

As for a big, walkable city outside of the Northeast? Baltimore, MD. Apparently Delaware isn't in the Northeast now (could've fooled me) so Wilmington would fit the bill, too. Very underrated city, and feels much "bigger" than population numbers tell you it is. Since you don't want snowy winters though, I'd recommend some of the Southern cities other people have mentioned, especially cities like Charleston, SC , New Orleans, Savannah, GA , maybe Mobile, AL? , and though Houston isn't walkable, I guess I could see it being mentioned. Oh, and Miami is definitely a good suggestion I think. Also, maybe Wilmington, NC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top