Good walk-able cities, with public transit in the US. (state, crime rate, compare)

[ckhthankgod]

Buffalo, Ann Arbor, New Haven, Albany, Lansing/East Lansing, Rochester, Cleveland, Madison and Eugene, among others. These are cities with relatively decent public transportation/ridership, where a decent amount of people walk or bike to work in terms of mid sized/smaller cities.

[Uhthaya]

Never been to San Francisco, but I heard that the cost is off the charts. My parent loved the placed in the 90s and tried to move there , but they could not afford to live there. If the cost of living isn't as bad as people make it out to be, it seems like a great place to live.

[Uhthaya]

Originally Posted by FL_Expert

You like Lisbon, but don’t like San Francisco? That is puzzling to me because they have a number of similarities. Lisbon has higher taxes, more crime, and is overall just grittier. San Francisco obviously costs way more, but on paper it’s really the better city between the two and you don’t like it? I think you need to take a step back and think on what qualities you really value.

Never been to San Francisco, but I heard that the cost is off the charts. My parent loved the placed in the 90s and tried to move there , but they could not afford to live there. If the cost of living isn't as bad as people make it out to be, and if I can afford to live there, it seems like a great place to live.

[Uhthaya]

Originally Posted by Prickly Pear

It's unfortunate that no US city compares to anything in Europe. Europe really does have fantastic cities and towns. In theory, the US is big enough to offer both, but all cities in the US are built the same, which is really sad.


New Orleans is the only city I've been to that comes close. New Orleans has old world design (because most of it is an old city) without the US suburbanization that has taken over the last century as New Orleans just wasn't that popular over all for the past 100 years, in comparison to other places. In these other places they had it, but tore them down for freeways or corporate campuses. Ask St Louis about that last one. New Orleans has some of the best food around too.



Boston is the only other city in the US that has some Old World design to it and even then it's Boston's inner ring and only there. Not even Boston's downtown. But I've also never been to Boston



A lot of the cities others mention are still heavily American in their neighborhood design, even the more walkable ones. They have very large buildings instead of a bunch of smaller ones, the latter helps walkability while the former still prevents it. The older neighborhoods in Philly also have that.


Really it's Boston and New Orleans only for old world design. The rest has been redesigned and destroyed for America's suburban design. Even other dense cities like Chicago and NYC are not Old World design even if they are walk-able with public transit. They lack small buildings in a row with no setbacks that make it easy for people to walk between blocks, or in between shops and apartments, without traversing car-scale buildings taking up entire blocks while on foot. Even big based skyscrapers, even though they are tall and dense, don't help walk-ability They don't have good pedestrian interaction.

I live in the woods 2 hours out side of Boston and I hated it. Any where outside of the city of Boston is just as un walkablity as anywhere else. The commuter trains weren't very good as well. The city of Boston it self was also way to expensive as well.

[Muinteoir]

OP, if you want to live a walkable city with good public transit, "good food/culture" in the US, you're going to live in a city that has at least one of the disadvantages you mention. Heck, taxes fund public transit, and I can bet that taxes are higher in both Montreal and Lisbon than most urban US cities.

If you are really set against the cities you've already mentioned, I'd suggest looking into, as others have:

Philadelphia
Boston
DC
Pittsburgh
Seattle
Minneapolis
Cleveland
Cincinnati
New Orleans

The first 4 or 5 are going to do better in the walkability and/or transit department, whereas the latter few may have fewer of the things you dislike, whilst maintaining some ability to be car-independent.

Originally Posted by Prickly Pear

[Cut mine]

A lot of the cities others mention are still heavily American in their neighborhood design, even the more walkable ones. They have very large buildings instead of a bunch of smaller ones, the latter helps walkability while the former still prevents it. The older neighborhoods in Philly also have that.


Really it's Boston and New Orleans only for old world design. The rest has been redesigned and destroyed for America's suburban design. Even other dense cities like Chicago and NYC are not Old World design even if they are walkable with public transit. They lack small buildings in a row with no setbacks that make it easy for people to walk between blocks, or in between shops and apartments, without traversing car-scale buildings taking up entire blocks while on foot. Even big based skyscrapers, even though they are tall and dense, don't help walkability They don't have good pedestrian interaction.

What you're saying about Philadelphia is not true. It is a "rowhome city," and therefore much of it, especially outside of Center City and University City, is attached 2-to-3 story rowhome mixed used/residential areas --- as you say, "a bunch of smaller ones." The streets in Philadelphia tend to be narrow, and are quite often one-way, which makes traversing them as a pedestrian convenient.

What we have, that Boston and New Orleans do not, is a grid design. This can make it a bit easier to navigate as a vehicle, but not necessarily any worse to navigate by foot.

[whereiend]

This type of living is desirable, hence why these cities are expensive. Philadelphia, Chicago, and (the not Manhattan parts) NYC are probably the most affordable cities with this criteria.

Those cities in Europe are also expensive, if adjusted for the job opportunities they have.

If I were you I'd go to NYC.

[AshbyQuin]

I'll probably catch flack for this, but I'll also add Baltimore.

[Uhthaya]

Originally Posted by nadnerb

It's not really that puzzling that one would prefer Lisbon to SF. Lisbon has (arguably) more pleasant weather, better architecture, better infrastructure, and better nightlife. It's also a straight up bargain compared to most western European and American cities.

If you're okay with a colder climate, Pittsburgh is an excellent choice. It's affordable, compact, and has a lot of interesting, unique neighborhoods to explore.

The cost of living is just to high in SF is just to high. The great thing about my time in Lisbon was that the weather was great, getting around was easy, and I eating some of the best food I had ever had. I had this all while saving money. I don't think I can afford the same life style in SF. I also heard that California had some the most worse Covid lock down in the country.

Pittsburgh seems like an interesting place, though I have never been before. Are there thing to do in Pittsburgh during winter like skiing or biking? I lived in New Hampshire and I find that winter not to be bad if there things to do.

[SonySegaTendo617]

Originally Posted by Prickly Pear

Really it's Boston and New Orleans only for old world design. The rest has been redesigned and destroyed for America's suburban design. Even other dense cities like Chicago and NYC are not Old World design even if they are walkable with public transit. They lack small buildings in a row with no setbacks that make it easy for people to walk between blocks, or in between shops and apartments, without traversing car-scale buildings taking up entire blocks while on foot. Even big based skyscrapers, even though they are tall and dense, don't help walkability They don't have good pedestrian interaction.

HARD disagree, where you said Chicago and NYC aren't as urban as Boston and New Orleans. Are you fregging kidding with that comment? Yes there are a few exceptions of Chicago neighborhoods that aren't as walkable(i.e. Edgebrook, Altgeld Gardens), but the vast majority of Chicago neighborhoods seem walkable to me. Do a google search for neighborhood walk scores in Chicago, if you don't believe me. And at least have a few CTA and/or Pace(Chicago suburbs) bus routes (even Edgebrook and Altgeld Gardens), going out to those areas. Also, I get the sense the majority of NYC neighborhoods seemed walkable, from the ones I either walked through in real life on a past trip, or google street viewed.

It's mainly areas of the US developed post World War II, that aren't as walkable. See like Deerfield, IL, Vernon Hills, Lincolnshire all in the 'North Shore' Chicago suburbs as examples of what I mean. Or Schaumburg as well, though I commend them for trying to create some bike paths within that suburb.

I'd also agree with another poster that Pittsburgh and Cincinnati seemed pretty walkable, but thankfully the cost of living isn't insane unlike say DC or Boston.

[mojo101]

New Orleans has street car,and the bus.
if you live close to campus -Loyola or Tulane,you can walk into campus and join their health club,watch free movies,concerts and coffee shops
street car takes you to down town and cross the street you are in French Quarter ,mingle with the tourists.