Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Yeah - there is a downside of that accessibility, and that is that the central urban parts of Boston are just not that large. It doesn't offer itself up to "endless exploration" the way vast cities like Chicago do.
I would imagine that going between neighborhoods in Chicago would be an "El-based" affair, while in Boston it is more on foot.
|
I would definitely agree with that...which is why Boston is "America's Walking City" haha. Both sides have their advantages. SF, Boston and DC offer a lot in a little area, which boosts access. Chicago, LA, and NYC offer a lot over a lot of area...which makes it tougher to navigate by foot, but can give you more places to explore (as you alluded to).