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.
That French cities are more "walkable" than their American counterparts is a pretty obvious "yes".
The only French city I visited during my 2012 trip to Spain was Hendaye. It was interesting, since immediately away from the marina area were houses and cars and just a general scene that I could not imagine being out of place in affluent suburban Southern California. Very different from the adjacent Spain (San Sebastian/Hondarribia). I tried to find a parallel on the Spanish side but had no luck.
Criteria seems to favor French cities if we are taking "walk-ability" more important than GDP and Income.
I don't think the GDP and income difference is large enough to matter enough, French cities have generally high living standards and the median income difference may not be that big. There's fewer bad areas, though French cities have their issues as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
But people should not overly glamourize that lifestyle which does comes with its share of challenges as well.
Perhaps some are glamourizes that lifestyle, others are actually familiar with getting around without a car, for years. It's obviously harder for families, but European cities have their more car-friendly areas and suburbs, though car ownership is more expensive. One car per family partially makes up for ti.
As for the OP, the largest French metros (exculding Paris) are roughly 1.6 million (Marseille and Lyon). Perhaps they might feel like Philly or Boston shorn of their newer suburbs, no clue. I think the smaller size would still be noticeable, no idea. Some of the southern French cities look quite a bit more crowded than older American cities that are not NYC. Some of the northern ones (Nantes, Lille) look like mostly rowhouses, perhaps similar to parts of Philly.
I don't think the GDP and income difference is large enough to matter enough, French cities have generally high living standards and the median income difference may not be that big. There's fewer bad areas, though French cities have their issues as well.
Perhaps some are glamourizes that lifestyle, others are actually familiar with getting around without a car, for years. It's obviously harder for families, but European cities have their more car-friendly areas and suburbs, though car ownership is more expensive. One car per family partially makes up for ti.
As for the OP, the largest French metros (exculding Paris) are roughly 1.6 million (Marseille and Lyon). Perhaps they might feel like Philly or Boston shorn of their newer suburbs, no clue. I think the smaller size would still be noticeable, no idea. Some of the southern French cities look quite a bit more crowded than older American cities that are not NYC. Some of the northern ones (Nantes, Lille) look like mostly rowhouses, perhaps similar to parts of Philly.
This is what I'm trying to get at, I don't have enough experience with the French ones to know. Would living in Lyon for example give you a bigger city/feel to live in explore than somewhere like Boston or Philly, or even the nice parts of Chicago, or would it be/feel smaller. Even though these French places look smaller on paper, can they match up to the U.S. bigger ones. I've been to a couple of them but wasn't paying attention enough for these things.
Perhaps some are glamourizes that lifestyle, others are actually familiar with getting around without a car, for years. It's obviously harder for families, but European cities have their more car-friendly areas and suburbs, though car ownership is more expensive. One car per family partially makes up for ti.
.
I've tried both.
I do think the easiest place to live from a practical perspective is a new world suburb in a medium-sized city.
That is, until the medium-sized city becomes a much larger city, and then starts to choke on the traffic because of course a city once it reaches a certain size tends to become unsustainable from a transportation demand perspective if everyone drives everywhere.
I do think the easiest place to live from a practical perspective is a new world suburb in a medium-sized city.
That is, until the medium-sized city becomes a much larger city, and then starts to choke on the traffic because of course a city once it reaches a certain size tends to become unsustainable from a transportation demand perspective if everyone drives everywhere.
That's only if the medium size city is based around the car. It seems like your practicality and easiness is all about traffic and car congestion. So why build around the car in the first place. Cars should get priority below mass transit, pedestrians and bicycles, but in most of the U.S., cities put priority of cars far above the other 3.
As an American, I would give up on this one - France wins this on beauty alone. French cities have their minuses, but are just too damn gorgeous for any American city to compete.
U.S. cities win on convenience and economy, but we have a long ways to go to match the urban experience even medium French cities provide.
As an American, I would give up on this one - France wins this on beauty alone. French cities have their minuses, but are just too damn gorgeous for any American city to compete.
U.S. cities win on convenience and economy, but we have a long ways to go to match the urban experience even medium French cities provide.
Agree.
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.