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 06-21-2013, 11:20 AM
 
1,243 posts, read 1,597,372 times
Reputation: 1073

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
And I have been to Boston and Philly many times, while I live in Chicago and Chicago is more walkable than both over a larger area. I am familiar with all these cities. Most people think that only the northside is walkable which is completely untrue and I have shown that for people not familiar with the city. Chicago isn't far ahead of these cities in walkability, but it's slightly ahead.
To sum up this argument on walkability, Philadelphia's and Boston's core and other peak urban sections are more walkable than Chicago's core and other peak urban areas due to the very narrower streets in Philadelphia and Boston which in result are more pedestrian friendly environment than Chicago. However, Chicago's walkable areas cover over a larger area than both cities because it is a more expansive city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2013, 11:31 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,176,306 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayp1188 View Post
DC and Boston are probably the only other cities to choose to live in without a car. Transit is pretty good and both, and owning a car in both would be a nightmare. Chicago has great transit, the best aside from NYC in my experience, but I would choose to own a car there since it's not that much of a hassle to own a car there as long as you're not parking downtown.

Plenty of people live car free in SF and Philly, but I personally wouldn't. Transit may be good by American standards, but it's still a bit lousy in both. I'm glad I had a car when I lived in SF, because BART isn't useful for most of the city proper and Muni is horrendously slow. Transit was only slightly better in Philly. Also, like Chicago, owning a car in either of these cities is not bad at all as long as you're not parking downtown.

Portland has a nice transit system, but I would never even consider living there without a car since there are too many areas not serviced well by transit. And for that reason, few people in Portland actually live car-free. Same goes for other cities with decent transit such as LA, Seattle, Minneapolis, Baltimore, etc. These are cities where it's easy to use both a car and transit.
Though I would argue two points on this. Sans the central part of Boston having a car is not an issue (same with Philly or SF) and probably even easier in most of DC actually. And secondly the areas served well by PT in Philly likely comprise as large a population (to either of the others). If forced I would choose the Boston systme over Philly but they are not that far apart. A large part of the PT issue in Philly is sort of two fold for numbers, its underutilized to capacity and this is largely due to where the jobs are. CC and Philly in general under performs in terms of city job concentration to the others sadly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2013, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,472,879 times
Reputation: 5401
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
To sum up this argument on walkability, Philadelphia's and Boston's core and other peak urban sections are more walkable than Chicago's core and other peak urban areas due to the very narrower streets in Philadelphia and Boston which in result are more pedestrian friendly environment than Chicago. However, Chicago's walkable areas cover over a larger area than both cities because it is a more expansive city.
I think that pretty much sums up what I've been saying to marothisu.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2013, 01:25 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,176,306 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
To sum up this argument on walkability, Philadelphia's and Boston's core and other peak urban sections are more walkable than Chicago's core and other peak urban areas due to the very narrower streets in Philadelphia and Boston which in result are more pedestrian friendly environment than Chicago. However, Chicago's walkable areas cover over a larger area than both cities because it is a more expansive city.

Somewhat fair but also think saying "more" in the absolute is probably a little bit of an overstatement. Maybe a more intimate walking experience, not sure it's tangibly different. Walking in the core of Chicago is quite enjoyable just that scale is bigger, same can really be said for a lot of Midtown relative to Boston etc.

Its not as if there is issue walking on the Mag Mile or in the Loop or Streeterville for that matter, actually quite the contrary, its more a slightly less initmate experience to me (neither good nor bad)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2013, 01:28 PM
 
178 posts, read 237,806 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
To sum up this argument on walkability, Philadelphia's and Boston's core and other peak urban sections are more walkable than Chicago's core and other peak urban areas due to the very narrower streets in Philadelphia and Boston which in result are more pedestrian friendly environment than Chicago. However, Chicago's walkable areas cover over a larger area than both cities because it is a more expansive city.
I would agree with this, too. The East coast cities (and arguably SF proper) are built more pedestrian-oriented than other parts of the U.S. So, for example, when you compare Boston to Chicago, Chicago has more walkable areas in terms of square miles (because it's bigger) but Boston is generally more walkable (as a %).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2013, 11:26 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
5,302 posts, read 8,102,022 times
Reputation: 2136
I lived in Greater DC. The city proper is very walkable and has good access to public transit. The surroundings suburbs of Maryland and Virginia (and Jefferson County, WV) are for the most part, sprawl, where you will need a car. The homes next to the metro in the suburbs are very expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2013, 11:35 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
5,302 posts, read 8,102,022 times
Reputation: 2136
New Orleans is a good city for not having a car. Decent public transit, but also very walkable. Interestingly, it seems most cities that aren't sprawling tend to have the worst weather for walking in-the wind-chill of Chicago, snow of New York City, sultry weather of New Orleans, mist of Portland. Whereas the mild climate of San Diego or LA is perfect for walking in, yet these areas rely on cars and driving. Very strange...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2013, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Both coasts
1,582 posts, read 4,291,769 times
Reputation: 1447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr View Post
Whereas the mild climate of San Diego or LA is perfect for walking in, yet these areas rely on cars and driving. Very strange...
Not quite. Much of LA is smoggy and hot- significant part of the year. I remember once taking public transit in the San Fernando Valley during a summer and it was not pleasant whatsoever. 100 degrees.
It can be in the 80s for most of the year in LA. Add the unsavory characters often surrounding you at a desolate bus stop among the smog and heat- and it's not quite as pleasant as taking the zippy subway in Chicago or even taking the bus in Seattle (much safer environment) imo.

However- it is overall just the difference in mentality (which therein affects the local transit system development). Southern CA has the typical Sunbelt mentality to public transit. It changes once you hit Palo Alto. That's one of the clear regional differences within the country- mentality re: public transit- South vs. North.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Logan Square, Chicago, IL
16 posts, read 12,409 times
Reputation: 22
I've lived in Chicago for 9 years, 4 of them without a car. It is very, very easy to live in many parts of this town without an automobile. CTA trains/buses, bike, and walking get me around town with absolutely no problem. On the odd event that I need a motor, there's always Lyft or zipcar. But that's a huge rarity. You can get all over this town without a car very easily. Honestly, I know way less people with cars than I do people who don't have cars.
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