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.
Chicago and Philadelphia are two of a handful of American cities where a car is not required, and often a burden depending on the neighborhood you live in. Living without a car in Cleveland, Indy, Cincinnati, Louisville, STL, KCMO, and Milwaukee would be a poor quality of life IMO. You'd be stuck to your inner urban neighborhood, never able to easily experience anything away from downtown. I lived in Louisville. Downtown has some cool bars and restaurants, but there are not many nice places to live downtown yet, there are still major job centers in the outer neighborhoods and suburbs, the grocery shopping options in downtown are VERY limited, and the only good shopping is in the out neighborhoods of the city.
Pittsburgh is the only city you listed that I could see it being possible to live in without a car. Still not with the ease of Chicago or Philly though.
Agreed. I was just in East Liberty in Pittsburgh yesterday, you can walk to basically everything you need (clothing retail is limited) but a new 1 bedroom is way over $1000 a month, as a new one bedroom starts at 1500 a month.
smaller than the ones you mentioned, but very urban due to its location on an isthmus is Madison...which is a fantastic city, home to both the state capital and the Univ of Wisconsin. Very progressive city in a beautiful setting. Its downtown core is particularly dense, set between two lakes.
If Madison had the type of climate that people thought inviting, it probably would be a lot bigger than Austin is today.
Pretty much anything "Rust Belt" or Interior Northeastern/Midwestern would fit.
Some specific places in this regard that come to mind are the Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY area cities, Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, York and Harrisburg in PA. All have rowhouse neighborhoods.
Agreed. I was just in East Liberty in Pittsburgh yesterday, you can walk to basically everything you need (clothing retail is limited) but a new 1 bedroom is way over $1000 a month, as a new one bedroom starts at 1500 a month.
Yeah the thing about Pgh is you do have options, even if some are less desirable options. Due to its history, the city has quite a bit of old outdated apartments that can be a relative bargain for people who don't mind that. New stuff, yeah anywhere in a good urban neighborhood is going to be well over 1,000 for a 1 bdrm. But for someone who doesn't have a car, that may be pretty easily affordable.
Affordable meaning overall cost of living at or below the national average. It seems like just about every 'affordable' US city resembles Wichita far more than NYC. The closest thing to a city that is both "urban" and afford is Cleveland, Oh and St Louis, Mo. And perhaps Detroit.
The Rust Belt cities are still among the most structurally urban cities the United States has to offer.
Of all these, I think Pittsburgh is far and away the winner in both affordability and urbanity.
There are more "big time" attractions in a smaller area in Pittsburgh city than there are in San Francisco.
Pittsburgh is a national mass transit leader in it's class of mid sized metros. They built a great light rail system even after a massive population loss.
Having grown up all around Pittsburgh city and MSA, I can't think of a single neighborhood that looks like the typical "new" sun-belt suburb. Wherever you are, there's going to be at least a hill, river, creek, probably a business district too.
Last time I checked, there are still sub 100K residences for sale all around central and east Pittsburgh.
For the majority of American history the rust belt cities (Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee) have pretty much met or usually exceeded the level of urbanity found on the coasts. Amenity and institution wise, they are still at that level.
So to answer the question I would start with Pittsburgh and Detroit (which is still basically an alpha world city in some respects).
Living without a car in Cleveland, Indy, Cincinnati, Louisville, STL, KCMO, and Milwaukee would be a poor quality of life IMO. You'd be stuck to your inner urban neighborhood, never able to easily experience anything away from downtown.
Both Cleveland and St Louis have rail transit service so the premise of being "stuck" isn't really valid. The others might not have rail service but urban bus service is pretty extensive and by no means limiting one to certain areas. Americans by/large seem allergic to bus service as if it's beneath them for some reason but the reality is it is a very effective (and cost effective as well) method of getting around an urban environment.
There's a good indicator of an urban city....white collar workers on buses.
Yeah exactly. I was drinking at a bar in San Diego last year and recommended the MTS bus to a guy next to me at the bar, he said something like "retired warrant officers don't ride city buses" or something like that. I can't believe people think like that.
I own a car, which I consider a personal hardship. I spent over $1000 this year on nonsense just to keep it legal and current. I look forward to riding the bus, and get stressed and frustrated when I have to drive myself somewhere.
The Rust Belt cities are still among the most structurally urban cities the United States has to offer.
Of all these, I think Pittsburgh is far and away the winner in both affordability and urbanity.
There are more "big time" attractions in a smaller area in Pittsburgh city than there are in San Francisco.
Pittsburgh is a national mass transit leader in it's class of mid sized metros. They built a great light rail system even after a massive population loss.
Having grown up all around Pittsburgh city and MSA, I can't think of a single neighborhood that looks like the typical "new" sun-belt suburb. Wherever you are, there's going to be at least a hill, river, creek, probably a business district too.
Last time I checked, there are still sub 100K residences for sale all around central and east Pittsburgh.
For the majority of American history the rust belt cities (Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee) have pretty much met or usually exceeded the level of urbanity found on the coasts. Amenity and institution wise, they are still at that level.
So to answer the question I would start with Pittsburgh and Detroit (which is still basically an alpha world city in some respects).
Yeah, also Baltimore and Philly were rust belt (some say they still are), and also very urban and lower cost of living than their relatively nearby cities not associated with heavy industry Like NYC and DC
There's a good indicator of an urban city....white collar workers on buses.
Not sure if that's supposed to be a snotty remark or not. If so, clearly you're not familiar with cities in general. I have seen many white collar workers on buses in NYC and DC for example as many better neighborhoods while central core aren't necessarily convenient to rail stops or conducive to owning a car.
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.
