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 12-06-2014, 09:47 PM
 
306 posts, read 593,287 times
Reputation: 174

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Chicago and Philly are more affordable than the others (though not cheap in the better parts) Chicago is a little larger than Philly both have significant bad areas and significant nice areas - Chicago a little more of both
Yes, I loved Chicago very much when I lived there, but I have never been to Philly. I'll definitely check it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2014, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
6,312 posts, read 6,969,122 times
Reputation: 3503
Yep, Philly is your one glaring omission for big city living. There are a number of other cities that could work, but clearly based on your tolerance they probably aren't quite good enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle19125 View Post
Can't believe no one has brought up Minneapolis. I think it would certainly fit well as Downtown/Central Minneapolis neighborhoods have Walk Scores and Transit Scores in the mid 90s, and a Bike Score right at 90 (out of a perfect score of 100).
HAHA, no more ridiculous comments like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2014, 09:55 PM
 
306 posts, read 593,287 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectmaximus View Post
Yep, Philly is your one glaring omission for big city living. There are a number of other cities that could work, but clearly based on your tolerance they probably aren't quite good enough.
I've been to Buffalo NY and you absolutely need a car. That guy said he used car-sharing to go to Target, which is still using a car. I specifically want to only rely on walking and public transportation - that is it - so his comment was ridiculous because that task is impossible without a car. If you need a car to go shopping at Target, that city doesn't fit my criteria. I was pretty clear about walking and public transpo, no bikes or cars. That was the premise of the entire thread.

Philly was a good idea I hadn't considered. Open to others. Thanks in advance!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2014, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Durham
660 posts, read 810,965 times
Reputation: 520
Default Philly is not small!

Philly is not small -- unless you think 1.5 million people IN THE CITY and 6.5 million IN THE METRO area is small. Again, you cannot afford the cities you compare it to, and would be lucky to afford Philly. And YES, I lived there (I was actually born and raised in that area).

Census: Philadelphia population grows again, but rate slows

Again, you mention Chicago being affordable and offering what you want, but never discuss WHY you don't want to be there, and if you think Portland could work, why not go there? I think your budget would be do-able there, depending on the neighborhood (I've been there dozens of times) and have friends who live there.

I'm not really sure why I'm still offering you advice given your rude DM to me, but I guess I like to be helpful, though you basically shoot down any realistic advice you are given; it has to have the perfect walkability and mass transit and fit your budget; like multiple others have mentioned the list is not long.


Quote:
Originally Posted by muffincake View Post
Is Philly really on par with cities like Chicago, DC and NY? I keep hearing Philly come up as a city you don't need a car in, but it seems so small to me. It hardly seems to fit in any sort of category with NY, Chicago, DC, SF, Boston. Does it really feel like these cities?

I do have to say, I visited Portland thought it actually did fit the criteria of being very walkable. I stayed in the center of the city, and I could walk to tons of restaurants, bars, a Target, a soccer stadium, etc. The MAX seemed to cover the airport, huge shopping centers, etc. And while buses are generally not my preferred way of transportation, I found their buses to be really easy to use because of Q codes they have at each stop. So I feel like there have to be cities outside of the so-called "big 6" that could accommodate what I want if Portland could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2014, 10:00 PM
 
306 posts, read 593,287 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor46 View Post
Again, you mention Chicago being affordable and offering what you want, but never discuss WHY you don't want to be there, and if you think Portland could work, why not go there?
I never said I don't want to live in Chicago. I do. Same with Portland. I would gladly move to either of those cities tomorrow. But I don't want to limit myself as I look at relocating if there are other cities I should consider. I'm not rejecting the cities I mentioned in my original post, just looking for others like them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2014, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
6,312 posts, read 6,969,122 times
Reputation: 3503
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffincake View Post
I've been to Buffalo NY and you absolutely need a car. That guy said he used car-sharing to go to Target, which is still using a car. I specifically want to only rely on walking and public transportation - that is it - so his comment was ridiculous because that task is impossible without a car. If you need a car to go shopping at Target, that city doesn't fit my criteria. I was pretty clear about walking and public transpo, no bikes or cars. That was the premise of the entire thread.

Philly was a good idea I hadn't considered. Open to others. Thanks in advance!
I get what you're saying, but I mentioned your tolerance in reference to

1) how much you're willing to be limited by walking everywhere. There are plenty of cities, and even small towns, where you could conduct your daily business on foot. But would you want to be confined to that same area day-in and day-out? You decide.

2) what kind of public transit you're willing to put up with. Most mid-level or larger cities have comprehensive public transit but it can be rather inconvenient. Jacksonville, which has the largest land area in the continental US and has one of the worst transit networks, still allows you to cover a large portion of the metro by bus. But some 45-min drives can be 4 hours by bus, and some 10 min drives can be over an hour by bus. Obviously that is beyond inconvenient. But there is a gray area in between where you will find cities like LA, Seattle, and Minneapolis, or even Dallas and Atlanta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2014, 10:41 PM
 
306 posts, read 593,287 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectmaximus View Post
I get what you're saying, but I mentioned your tolerance in reference to

1) how much you're willing to be limited by walking everywhere. There are plenty of cities, and even small towns, where you could conduct your daily business on foot. But would you want to be confined to that same area day-in and day-out? You decide.

2) what kind of public transit you're willing to put up with. Most mid-level or larger cities have comprehensive public transit but it can be rather inconvenient. Jacksonville, which has the largest land area in the continental US and has one of the worst transit networks, still allows you to cover a large portion of the metro by bus. But some 45-min drives can be 4 hours by bus, and some 10 min drives can be over an hour by bus. Obviously that is beyond inconvenient. But there is a gray area in between where you will find cities like LA, Seattle, and Minneapolis, or even Dallas and Atlanta.
1) Well, the point is I'd walk for most things on the day-to-day where I live and/or work, but use public transportation to leave the immediate area on non-regular occasions, which brings me to...

2) This is really where I am looking for the expertise of other people. My preferred form of public transportation would probably be some sort of rail system, but in Chicago and Portland I actually stuck to the buses. It worked well because the buses went to all the places I needed to go to and came quickly. But a bus system that will require transfers to get across town, doesn't run frequently to accommodate a lot of passengers, or is not augmented by a secondary form of public transportation is going to be limiting in and of itself, you know what I mean? If I can walk to do most things, I will only need public transportation occasionally, that would help.

The culmination of 1 and 2 is I am definitely looking for consolidated, dense cities where walking and public transportation work well. A city that's too spread out or has pockets rather than one main center is probably not what I want. In Chicago, I'd probably live in or around The Loop. In Portland, somewhere between downtown and the Pearl District. In D.C. I lived around Dupont/downtown. And so on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2014, 05:55 AM
 
5,691 posts, read 8,758,435 times
Reputation: 4911
Quote:
is not augmented by a secondary form of public transportation is going to be limiting in and of itself, you know what I mean?
I think it is more limiting to restrict yourself to cities with train transportation.

You could consider finding a neighborhood that has what you need in close proximity and not worry about transport being frequent to the rest of the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2014, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
6,312 posts, read 6,969,122 times
Reputation: 3503
So the obvious ones are obvious, and it sounds like many of the second-tier could work too. Portland, Seattle, LA. If you work in the right neighborhoods then Atlanta, Minneapolis, St Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Cleveland, Dallas, Miami, and Charlotte all have large walkable areas that can suit day-to-day needs and rapid transit that can connect you to certain other parts of the city when necessary. My apologies if there are a few other cities I overlooked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2014, 08:24 PM
 
56,595 posts, read 80,890,793 times
Reputation: 12500
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffincake View Post
I've been to Buffalo NY and you absolutely need a car. That guy said he used car-sharing to go to Target, which is still using a car. I specifically want to only rely on walking and public transportation - that is it - so his comment was ridiculous because that task is impossible without a car. If you need a car to go shopping at Target, that city doesn't fit my criteria. I was pretty clear about walking and public transpo, no bikes or cars. That was the premise of the entire thread.

Philly was a good idea I hadn't considered. Open to others. Thanks in advance!
Look up Elmwood Village, Hertel Avenue/North Buffalo and perhaps Allentown, among others.
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