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.
I think people are too hard on Houston when it comes to walkability; I walk all the time in Houston and besides the crappy sidewalks; walking here isn't bad or impossible. I think it's more of the mentality than actually how the city is built that holds it back. Inner loop Houston has many sidewalks [just crappy], but development is dense and compact enough to were residents can walk or use public transit to get to them. The street aren't too wide and everything you need can be found within close vicinity.
The biggest fear is motorist who aren't use to pedestrians and how to deal with sharing the streets with them and also the mentality of not having a car and taking the bus usually associates you with a bum.
Seattle, Portland, and Chicago - no other city I've been to comes close in terms of what the OP is asking about.
Although, in Chicago, it's very easy to get by without a car - while in Seattle and Portland its not too difficult, but not quite as easy.
Also, I know it's not part of the question, but the worst cities to drive in are NYC, San Francisco, and Boston.
That's sort of true for Portland and Seattle. More so for Portland but traffic isn't that bad if you stay off the highways during rush hour and can get around by surface streets--Seattle can get jammed on the freeways due to chokepoints coming over the bridges or on the I-5 corridor. Parking isn't that hard to find(despite what people who live here and haven't lived elsewhere complain about). But both cities have a lot of their attractions within a pretty small area, so it's doable to walk from say Upper Queen Anne or Capitol Hill down to the southern end of Seattle's downtown.
Chicago was the first one to came to mind for me though, as it's always seemed pretty easy to get around either by car or by public transit/foot traffic.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,315,088 times
Reputation: 3062
I'd say Chicago has a pretty good balance between walkability and driveability. Many neighborhoods, especially on the North Side near the lake, are extremely walkable to the point where owning a car is not necessary to enjoy a first-class lifestyle. As for driveability, flat terrain coupled with wide streets set at right angles to each other in a nearly perfect grid pattern makes the city very navigable overall. Also, there is plenty of "big box" type shopping -- suburban-style stores set back from the street with large parking lots -- in many areas inside the city limits for those who prefer to drive on errands.
Public transit is also very good, too -- both buses and trains -- probably second only to NYC, certainly within the top five nationwide.
Miami Beach (especially the west side of South Beach) fits this description perfectly. It's VERY walkable yet still convenient to drive. Almost everything I need in my daily life is accessible by foot, by a short bike ride or a very short drive in the car (mostly for grocery shopping). I find all methods of transportation available to me to be equally convenient. It's driving off the beach when the headaches begin!
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.
