WALKABLE pedestrian-friendly areas of MASS outside of Boston (Worcester, Springfield: middle-class, rent)

[Tiger Beer]

Having lived in NYC (very walkable and pedestrian-friendly)...and BOSTON of course...and seen photos of places like ITHACA, NY...also seems very walkable and pedestrian friendly.

It seems the theme is cities that were PRE-AUTOMOBILE. Mainly, walkable and pedestrian friendly. You're able to easily walk out of your house and go rent a movie or eat at a restaurant without having to get into your car to do so.

Where parts of Massachussets would be like that? I'm gonna guess Boston for sure...Harvard...both expensive though!

How about other towns like Framingham, Lowell, Worcestor, Springfield? Are they anything like that, or are most of those towns more builtup after the auto industry?

[western mass and love it]

i think Northampton is a walkable city .

[lrfox]

The entire Boston area is chock-full of walkable areas. Obviously, the entire core part of central Boston (Back Bay, Fenway, South End, Financial District, Leather District, Theatre District, Chinatown, North End, Beacon Hill, Bullfinch Triangle, etc... possible exception, West End but it's a small enough area to walk TO the walkable areas) is VERY pedestrian friendly and pedestrian scaled. Much of Cambridge is quite walkable... Harvard Square, Central Square, I guess you could make a case for Kendall Square, Porter Square, Teal Square, Inman Square, etc; as is Somerville (Particularly around Davis Square). Outliying Boston Neighborhoods such as Coolidge Corner, Washington Square, Center Street in Jamaica Plain, and much of Brookline (actually a separate town, but very much part of Boston's urban fabric) are very walkable and on mass transit routes.

Further outside the city (but still part of Boston's metro area), Newton Centre is very walkable as is central Winchester, Central Woburn, parts of Malden, Diamond District Lynn, Revere Beach, Central Watertown, and Quincy Center. All of these areas are relatively walkable and many (most, actually) are on some sort of mass transit line (either subway or commuter rail... buses to most) to the core of Boston.

Now, as we start to get outside the immediate Boston Metro, you can find nice walkable town and city centers, but given the lack of mass transit to many of these places (i'll list which ones do and don't have it), it is pretty hard to live without a car. On the North Shore, you have Marblehead (no transit except bus to Boston... an uncomfortable ride at that), Salem and Beverly (both on the commuter rail) which have very walkable neighborhood and town centers. These are some of the more charming larger coastal towns in Massachusetts. Further North, Gloucester, Rockport and Newburyport have nice walkable cores. All three are on the commuter rail and while Gloucester has its fair share of grit, it's actually a gorgeous town and far from a dangerous place. Rockport is small, but quite pretty. Newburyport has a beautiful town center.

South of Boston and on the Cape, Hyannis has a walkable town center. It's far from Boston and not on mass transit centers, but it's a nice, not completely touristy community on Cape Cod. Provincetown and Chatham are walkable, but they tend to be VERY quiet in the fall winter and spring. P-Town has a very large GLBT community. Middleboro Mass. has a nice little town center. It's also right on the commuter rail line to South Station. Middleborough has seen better days but it's not terrible and it's very affordable. Bridgewater has a nice walkable town center too and is on the commuter rail.. Same with Stoughton, though Stoughton's center gets busy with traffic during rush hour. It's nice, but not as walkable as the others.

West of Boston, Places like Norwood, Franklin, and Lexington have nice walkable centers as well as commuter rail access. Northampton, as has been mentioned before is VERY nice. It's in the Western portion of the state, but it's a gorgeous place. Westfield has a walkable core as does North Adams and Pittsfield. Framingham isn't a bad town, but high traffic along route 9 and a relatively small town center makes it tough to be a pedestrian there.

Now, I saved the most debatable topic for last. The smaller, "gateway" cities (including the ones you mentioned). Most would contend that these cities are too rough around the edges for them. In order to be happy in any of these cities, you would need to find a niche and know excatly what you're getting into. Almost all of them have some bad neighborhoods and some of them have some good ones. Some of these cities are in better shape than others.

You mentioned Lowell, Worcester and Springfield. Lowell is nice around the city center and there are some nice neighborhoods nearby. It's certainly walkable downtown (it's a planned industrial revolution city... it predates the automobile). Worcester is walkable around the city center too. I like Worcester, it's not a bad town, but there are places to avoid. Springfield is a bit less walkable, but the core of the city developed pre-auto and is walkable enough, though some will argue that it's dangerous to walk around downtown Springfield after dark (while there are many rough spots in Sprinfield, I've never had trouble downtown).

Haverhill and New Bedford have walkable downtowns and the city centers have seen marked revitalization in recent years with new shops, restaurants, galleries, etc. I would live in New Bedford or Haverhill near the city center as long as I didn't have to put a child through public schools in either city (because they're terrible). You can find great value on homes in these cities and they are quite walkable. Haverhill has Amtrak and Commuter Rail in the city center and a project is underway to bring commuter rail to New Bedford. Taunton is walkable downtown too.

Some cities in MA without very walkable centers (they're not terrible either, just not great), I would say Fall River, Brockton, Attleborough, Fitchburgh, and a few others.

Hope this was helpful.

[missionhill]

Walkability for whom? The poor always walk, or take public transportation. When we say "walkable" we usually mean pleasant walking for people who don't have to walk. Holyoke, for example, was very walkable 40 and more years ago because there were things to walk to: department stores, specialty stores, movie theaters, banks... The sidewalks are all still there to be walked on but the establishments are gone as are the middle-class people who patronized them. Plenty of people still walking in Holyoke but they're not the types who engage in conversations about walkability. Next town to the north (Northampton), a completely different result: a town now famous for walking because the walkers all have lots of choices about where and when to walk and they have so many nice things to walk to.

[lrfox]

^Good point, missionhill. Any place can become walkable out of necessity, just like any place can lose its reputation of being walkable because there are no destinations to walk to.

Walkability-in the sense used in these discussions- is a reference to a combination of the ease and enjoyability of being able to walk around a certain area. In my opinion, a walkable area is an area where walking is not necessarily the only option, but the most attractive option. This makes central Boston and places like Northampton, Newburyport, Hyannis, Salem, etc "walkable." It's not the only option, but it's probably the easiest AND most enjoyable.

[NewEnglandMetroWest]

Have you checked out the web site, www.walkscore.com.

Just put in an address and you will be able to what is within walking distance.

[brightdoglover]

Remember, there is a town called Harvard that is quite rural.Harvard Univ. is in Cambridge.

[DreamworksSKG]

Winchester and Wakefield Come to mind as walkable communities :-)
with walkable downtowns

[katemorrigan]

Amherst is an excellent walkable community, with almost-free buses all around the town. Downtown has several nice restaurants that are easy to get to, and there's a small cinema in the middle of town. If you're willing to hop on a bus, you can get to the mall in Hadley with the larger cinema, or into Northampton where there's more dining and nightlife options.

Springfield, while somewhat walkable, sucks. Seriously.

[LizBee]

I agree with the Irfox's comment about walkability being tied to other commuting options. That's actually the shortcoming of Walkscore in my opinion - it doesn't factor in public transportation options.

Two towns come to mind aside from ones that have been mentioned - Melrose and Concord - at different ends of the price spectrum. Melrose has a great downtown, a lot of residential neighborhoods nearby with good sidewalks, and three train stops for the commuter rail to Boston. A good part of Concord and West Concord is walkable to downtown with commuter rail stops in both centers. Neither are that far from Boston.