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.
Honestly I agree with 1 and 2 on this list for the criteria and LA is a wildcard as is many times and more difficult to quantify, for Example Santa Monica is pretty far from DT yet a great and walkable area as one example.
To me I think Philly gets dinged here. You have to remember that although the city has more than its fair share of downtrodden areas on the whole there are as many if not more people living in upscale/desireable areas when compared to Boston (it is a much larger city) from that perspective they are likely equal and potenitally Philly may even surpass Boston on this metric though it is also far outpaces Boston on undesireable areas by a large margin. Just going by some simple math I can get well over 500K people living in areas of Philly that are both walkable and fairly to highly desireable (depending on how loose the desireable factor you could argue another 200K or so to somewhere between 700-800K, though i would probably say between 500-600K on this criteria for Philly). I think the large negative areas actually diminish the perception of the city where there are many desireable areas that exist in the city.
I do think SF does outpaces Philly though (not Chicago) as a large portion of the city is highly desireable and mostly walkable.
You make some good points here - I could see Philly moving past Boston and LA.
It would also be interesting to combine SF/Oakland/Berkeley and consider it as one entity for this topic. It would certainly lower the percentage of livable/walkable non ghetto, but would add a significant amount in the absolute.
You make some good points here - I could see Philly moving past Boston and LA.
It would also be interesting to combine SF/Oakland/Berkeley and consider it as one entity for this topic. It would certainly lower the percentage of livable/walkable non ghetto, but would add a significant amount in the absolute.
True...you could maybe include the northern part of Daly City as well, where it runs along Mission street, though that area and the excelsior district in SF, which it borders/melts into, is borderline "ghetto", at least by some people's definitions. It has sort of the same kind of thing going on as the Mission district, but to a lesser extent. Basically it's a middle/working class area with good density, amenities, public transit, etc, but with a decently strong ghetto element mixed in that contributes a little too much violence to the area overall for me to honestly consider it completely "non-ghetto". A lot of south/east SF is like that.
Boston and its immediate suburbs probably have the greatest number of contiguous low-crime and dense/ walkable neighborhoods. All of the city north of Tremont meets the criteria, as well as the lower South End, parts of South Boston, parts of East Boston, parts of Jamaica Plain, and Brookline, Cambridge, as well as most of Somerville. Even further out in certain suburbs like Wellesley and Arlington and even Lexington you can make do without a car.
Berkeley and parts of Oakland Hrrm... I suppose if they are connected by quick BART they are doable. I've been to both I just don't know how daily life would function there and how often most people in Berkeley are actually in SF Proper. Maybe a lot, maybe a little, I dunno.
rah I think a qualification would be to use your best judgement. I.E. a transplant moving there who is used to "city life" but not necessarily city life in your city and might be caught off guard. Could you honestly recommend them moving into X neighorhood, or not. You wouldn't want their initial experience in your city to involve that. I see most of the sketchy areas as chances a native would take...know the area better, possibly an investment, or possibly just lived there for a generation or two.
Boston and its immediate suburbs probably have the greatest number of contiguous low-crime and dense/ walkable neighborhoods. All of the city north of Tremont meets the criteria, as well as the lower South End, parts of South Boston, parts of East Boston, parts of Jamaica Plain, and Brookline, Cambridge, as well as most of Somerville. Even further out in certain suburbs like Wellesley and Arlington and even Lexington you can make do without a car.
Based on your thinking, Chicago would then really dwarf Boston with walkable, livable neighborhoods, since if you take the train north beyond the walkable North Side, there are a host of safe north shore communities all the way up to Lake Forest where you really could do with out a car. If you go west, there are a number of walker friendly suburbs, from Brookfield through Hinsdale and ending in Downers Grove, where the same applies. So what's your point?
You make some good points here - I could see Philly moving past Boston and LA.
It would also be interesting to combine SF/Oakland/Berkeley and consider it as one entity for this topic. It would certainly lower the percentage of livable/walkable non ghetto, but would add a significant amount in the absolute.
Well, Oakland's walkable neighborhoods run the gamut from 'up and coming' all the way to downright posh.
There is actually a large cluster of well-to-do/livable/decent walkable neighborhoods that radiates from Downtown to the north and east. I would actually throw in pretty much all of downtown but didnt in the list below.
Neighborhood, Population, Per Square Mile
Neighborhood, City, Population Per Square Mile
Gold Coast Neighborhood, Oakland 29,212
Adams Point Neighborhood, Oakland 26,632
Ivy Hill Neighborhood, Oakland 22,689
Merritt Neighborhood, Oakland 19,957
Grand Lake Neighborhood, Oakland 16,716
Chinatown Neighborhood, Oakland 16,554
Oakland Ave/Harrison St Neighborhood, Oakland 15,980
Cleveland Heights Neighborhood, Oakland 13,354
Civic Center Neighborhood, Oakland, 12,856
Old Oakland Neighborhood, Oakland 12,280
Dimond Neighborhood, Oakland 11,836
Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood, Oakland 11,798
Upper Laurel Neighborhood, Oakland 11,117
Fairview Park Neighborhood, Oakland 11,032
Bushrod Neighborhood, Oakland 10,987
Laurel Neighborhood, Oakland 10,973
Lakeshore Neighborhood, Oakland 10,736
Upper Dimond Neighborhood, Oakland 10,626
Shafter Neighborhood, Oakland 9,264
Glenview Neighborhood, Oakland 8,896
Temescal Neighborhood, Oakland 8,303
Trestle Glen Neighborhood, Oakland 7,206
Rockridge Neighborhood, Oakland 7,702
Pill Hill Neighborhood, 6,298
Uptown Neighborhood, 3,991
Jack London Square/Waterfront Warehouse/ Loft District, Oakland 3,109
There are many others that I would consider as well. Maybe I'll make a map.
ALSO, I could also connect Oakland's nice walkable neighborhoods to Berkeley all the way to Albany as they do connect.
18M a map would be nice but no rush. I'd like this to be an urban neighborhood thread...Possibly a de facto thread on the subject. I think this is mostly what most of us want anyway, at least us "city" folk. Great on the stats, do you happen to have the total square miles on those areas also? If not, no big deal.
Well, these are all walkable, close to transit, most have high population densities except for lofts and warehouses which generally have lower densities, and are either posh,better than decent or decent, --and many of these neighborhoods are trendy, flush with yuppies and artists, have restaurants that are mentioned in Michelin's restaurant guide for SF one even with a Michelin star, and so forth.
Quote:
Possibly a de facto thread on the subject. I think this is mostly what most of us want anyway, at least us "city" folk.
Well, I was responding to rolandojenkins who made a pertinent point.
As to the 'city' folk thingy, that's what I initially thought this thread was originally about-CITY, but it seems many neighborhoods that are considered suburban by Manhattan standards are being thrown into the mix such as the comment about an area of Chicago larger than San Francisco being livable/walkable?
Sure its nice, but is that area wall-to-wall "CITY"? I dont think so. Far from it.
It would help if you defined your criteria.
Quote:
Great on the stats, do you happen to have the total square miles on those areas also? If not, no big deal.
As to the 'city' folk thingy, that's what I initially thought this thread was originally about-CITY, but it seems many neighborhoods that are considered suburban by Manhattan standards are being thrown into the mix such as the comment about an area of Chicago larger than San Francisco being livable/walkable?
Sure its nice, but is that area wall-to-wall "CITY"? I dont think so. Far from it.
You don't think population density of greater than 20k/sq mile counts as "city"?
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.
' all the way to downright posh.
