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.
San Francisco - good PT but also relatively small and compact. Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, DC would fight for the remaining 4 positions and then there is a huge drop off for the rest. I'm not even sure why Denver or Portland or Miami are on this poll.
Last edited by SpringSnow; 12-19-2017 at 06:40 AM..
San Francisco - good PT but also relatively small and compact. Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, DC would fight foe the remaining 4 positions and then there is a huge drop off for the rest. I'm not even sure why Denver or Portland or Miami are on this poll.
I would say Boston would be my #1. I actually think it is more walk-able than NYC although the T has sucked lately and is really showing its age.
I agree with you other assessments as well, although if you own a bike, Portland and Seattle might not have as much transit, but they are perfectly reasonable to get around them without a car.
I would say Boston would be my #1. I actually think it is more walk-able than NYC although the T has sucked lately and is really showing its age.
I agree with you other assessments as well, although if you own a bike, Portland and Seattle might not have as much transit, but they are perfectly reasonable to get around them without a car.
I don't see that. More compact and village-y yes, more walkable no. Its hard to compare the entirety of NYC to any city, but if you are just comparing Manhattan, no city in the US comes close except in walkability/ car free living but Chicago.
Then I would say San Fran, Boston, and Philadelphia are the next in line. Philadelphia's downtown I think is third after NYC and Chicago for car-free living, but Center City (downtown) is rather small, and a lot of the regions jobs are in the burbs. You could take public transit, but I wouldn't call it easy living.
It's Boston, followed by a very very close Chicago/San Fran, followed by Philadelphia.
When it comes to walkability, Boston and San Fran are identical, offering a tad more walkability than Chicago. I do think the MBTA/Commuter and the El/Metra are more effective than Bart/Caltrain/Muni. The Metra express trains are awesome. So for that, I call Chicago and San Fran a draw.
Ease of getting around with a car? Boston would be dead last.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,181,377 times
Reputation: 2925
^^I don't even know about that. True, the urban form is fantastic, but San Francisco is famous for its hills. Guess it depends on your perspective, but I can see how those steep hills can be an impediment for those in poor shape (and even those in great shape in certain situations). A walk from Midtown to Lower Manhattan, or Center City to University City seems that it would be far more pleasant in good weather conditions than a commensurate tourist walk in San Francisco.
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.
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.
