most walkable and densest US city other than new york

[DC's Finest]

Oy,

I understand what you are getting at. I wasn't dissing NYC or Chicago. I love both cities. SF, DC & Boston are physically much smaller. And yes there are large walkable swaths of NYC & Chicago that can blanket these cities on the basis of square miles. My point was.... As a whole, it's hard to compare because the cities are very different in physical size. And because they are not the same size, I believe that a higher percentage of SF is more walkable than NYC & Chicago. If we are only comparing Manhattan versus SF, then my whole analogy goes out the window. I grew up in Brooklyn, alot of Staten Island & Queens are not walkable in the traditional urban sense. Same goes for large areas on the far Southside of Chicago.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

Oy,

I understand what you are getting at. I wasn't dissing NYC or Chicago. I love both cities. SF, DC & Boston are physically much smaller. And yes there are large walkable swaths of NYC & Chicago that can blanket these cities on the basis of square miles. My point was.... As a whole, it's hard to compare because the cities are very different in physical size. And because they are not the same size, I believe that a higher percentage of SF is more walkable than NYC & Chicago. If we are only comparing Manhattan versus SF, then my whole analogy goes out the window. I grew up in Brooklyn, alot of Staten Island & Queens are not walkable in the traditional urban sense. Same goes for large areas on the far Southside of Chicago.

I'm in agreement when it comes to percentage. However, I think it's sort of an irrelevant point because what should matter is the absolute amount of walkable neighborhoods (and to the extent they are walkable) rather than the proportions. This could also swing in cities such as Boston's favor as several adjacent municipalities are quite dense and walkable as well. This is also somewhat mirrors the argument people have when it comes to a city's size or influence when we talk of Boston, SF, Miami, or DC being small cities which belie the fact these are functionally much larger and more influential than Phoenix, San Antonio, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, etc. Additionally, this is an especially important point to make since the whole point of walkability is centered on the human scale of things and of what can actually be experienced rather than what can be argued to be statistically correct.

I'd also like to add that SF should get extra points for being walkable and lively year-round due to weather conditions. I think really what's interesting about this forum isn't just people posting statistics (which is great), but being able to collectively interpret them and add new wrinkles to our understanding of them.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

Oy,

I understand what you are getting at. I wasn't dissing NYC or Chicago. I love both cities. SF, DC & Boston are physically much smaller. And yes there are large walkable swaths of NYC & Chicago that can blanket these cities on the basis of square miles. My point was.... As a whole, it's hard to compare because the cities are very different in physical size. And because they are not the same size, I believe that a higher percentage of SF is more walkable than NYC & Chicago. If we are only comparing Manhattan versus SF, then my whole analogy goes out the window. I grew up in Brooklyn, alot of Staten Island & Queens are not walkable in the traditional urban sense. Same goes for large areas on the far Southside of Chicago.

Where in Queens is it not walkable?