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.
Interesting article, with some great insights into NYC life:
"But for Manhattan residents who would otherwise spend hours on public transit to get to a sandy shore like at Coney Island, the park’s beach is providing a rare amenity."
Of course, you can hop on the Expo Line in downtown Los Angeles and be at one of the most popular tourist beaches in the world in 45 minutes, but I guess we're not supposed to notice things like that.
If I"m reading these correctly, it looks like NYC is just playing catch up with places like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh in terms of waterfront activity.
^someone has an axe to grind with NYC.
I think it's a fair debate to compare Chicago and NYC waterfronts. I get that Manhattan is surrounded by water, but they're rivers (and one of them is the East). I get farther afield you have the ocean, but it's not proximate by any degree and NYers saying it is might be a bit disingenuous, unless perhaps you're in southern areas of Brooklyn, perhaps Queens. Yes, it's accessible, but not easy to get to.
Frankly, and if you're being honest, not sure how this compares to 25+ miles of open parkland sitting smack on a *Great* Lake (an inland sea), with Chicago's central business district being part of that stretch, with beaches a mere walk from skyscrapers. All of this accessible easily from most neighborhoods (and many suburbs). There's also a very attractive river running right through the heart of it. Yes, NYC has a nice and improving waterfront, but it ain't Chicago.
I"m glad NYC is finally getting around to making their waterfront into an amenity, but I don't think that will matter as Chicago has a great lake beach right off of their downtown.
Thanks for helping make my point with your post by bringing up a harbor (lol), something that doesn't really rate as a leisure/recreation area anywhere in the world no matter how big. I'm sure watching cartage being offloaded is thrilling, but I guess its just the old school "cali" person in me that prefers traditional waterfront activities like surfing, swimming, paddleboarding, kayaking, etc.
Loading and unloading cargo from ships is also a "traditional waterfront activity" in a working seaport.
New York's natural harbor made it an important seaport early on, and the spaces that are now being turned into parks and beaches on Manhattan's waterfront once had piers where both passenger lineres and cargo ships docked. An unprotected oceanfront or lakeshore is usually not a good place to put such facilities, which is why Los Angeles' working port is located on the landward side of an island at the city's southern tip.
And cargo and passenger ports were more important to a port city's economy than recreation. The only reason we're now seeing these parks and beaches pop up along the Hudson and East riverbanks is because all the seaport activity has migrated to Newark Bay in northern New Jersey (Elizabeth Seaport).
Something similar has happened here in Philadelphia, where containerization has allowed the working ports on the Delaware River to become concentrated in three specific locations while the old piers along the Center City waterfront have become apartments, parks or public gathering places. (As of now, no plans to build in-city beaches exist because just about everyone can drive or hop on a bus or train that takes them to much better beaches along the barrier islands off New Jersey, an hour or so away.)
This has been an interesting thread to follow. As a former resident of the northern New Jersey burbs of NYC in the early 1990s, I am gasping at reading about the apartment rental costs there now. The same applies to many metros in the US.
As an American retiree for the past 5 years, I've spent about half the time living in Germany (car-free with bicycle and public transport pass). My nice apartment in a city of 250K residents costs just 650 USD or Euro (US dollar is at par value to Euro now), and that includes heat, hot water, trash, power, TV and high speed internet, and it is fully furnished and equipped! Also very quiet, and 10 minutes walk to downtown. It is the lowest cost city to live in Germany due to the abundance of vacant apartments to rent (vacancy rate is about 10%). The city has train or light rail running in 7 different directions from the city center. I am a one hour train ride to two large cities, Leipzig and Dresden. Berlin Airport is a 2 1/2 hour train ride with just 3 stops along the way, and Berlin city center is 15 minutes more. Prague is about 3 hours by train.
I have plenty of things to do here in Chemnitz, and also the region is great for bike riding. The train system allows bikes to be rolled aboard in designated train cars, so I can take a train trip in one direction and ride my bike home in the other direction. I can be out of the city area in a relatively short time or distance on my bike, and into forest or rural farm terrain. The Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge) are just south of the city, full of interesting and beautiful towns in terrain that looks somewhat like parts of eastern Pennsylvania.
There's a German fellow who posts frequent threads about the superiority of German urban planning and design in this forum. He has had several posting handles over time; his current handle is Donnerwetter. A lot of apologists for the way we've built our suburbs since World War II clash with him; I share his views about how we should be building our suburbs but also take him on when it seems to me he says that America can simply adopt what the Germans do wholesale. But what you say here backs his position up.
I think this question is an easy no. It's not that NYC isn't worth living in. You can make an argument to pay over 2x than you would to live in Chicago. However there is no serious way that you can justify that on the basis of public transportation. To make that argument you would need love living in NYC over 2x as much as living in Chicago. Chicago has a great public transit network, and even if you think it's worse, it's certainly not worth doubling your mortgage over. I could see your point if this was NYC/Chicago vs. LA. But the two against each other... hell naw.
Who said this? There are several cities where one can truly live car-free... Chicago and Philly are two of them. Add Boston, DC, San Francisco, and if including Canada, Toronto and Montreal.
I think it comes down to whether someone finds a good number of options in Chicago and Philly being sufficient, versus seemingly endless options in NYC.
Comparing any other US city to NYC will clearly feel "limited" by comparison, but you're still getting access to dozens of neighborhood options to live carless or "car-lite" in Chicago and Philadelphia, as they're both Top 5 urban cores in the US. And I think to most people, having that number of options does suffice for that purpose alone (as evidenced by the poll results).
I think it would also depend on how sensitive you are to distance. I've encountered a few posters over the years who've said they're willing to walk 25 minutes to a bus stop, then transfer buses, and then walk 10 minutes to a train. This might be a bit of hyperbole, but the point is that there are plenty of posters who are willing to do things that sound crazy to me. For this type of person, Chicago or Philly would definitely be more than sufficient since they are already willing to walk 2 miles and catch 3 different buses in Phoenix, Charlotte, Atlanta or wherever.
I am closer to the opposite end of the spectrum. If there's no subway within 5 minutes walking distance of any given location, then I'm going to have a car. So if you're lazy like me, and not willing to put in as much effort to live car free, then the extra cash to live in Manhattan could very well be worth it, assuming a car free lifestyle is something you very much value.
Manhattan is probably the only place in the U.S. that's nearly 100% self-contained, meaning that it's quite possible you may never even leave the island for years and never have need for a car other than for out of town trips. It might be the only place in the country, if not the world, where the car ownership rate among millionaire households is in the single digits.
There is a movement on Tik Tok of 18-25 year olds saying how much better their experience is living in Chicago over New York and one recent video from this morning cites their reasons as "It does everything New York does, but better! Without the burnout too..."
Id say about 2/3 to 75% of the comments on the video agree.
So for us younger people, we value Chicago over New York. I will agree with this.
I think it would also depend on how sensitive you are to distance. I've encountered a few posters over the years who've said they're willing to walk 25 minutes to a bus stop, then transfer buses, and then walk 10 minutes to a train. This might be a bit of hyperbole, but the point is that there are plenty of posters who are willing to do things that sound crazy to me. For this type of person, Chicago or Philly would definitely be more than sufficient since they are already willing to walk 2 miles and catch 3 different buses in Phoenix, Charlotte, Atlanta or wherever.
I am closer to the opposite end of the spectrum. If there's no subway within 5 minutes walking distance of any given location, then I'm going to have a car. So if you're lazy like me, and not willing to put in as much effort to live car free, then the extra cash to live in Manhattan could very well be worth it, assuming a car free lifestyle is something you very much value.
Manhattan is probably the only place in the U.S. that's nearly 100% self-contained, meaning that it's quite possible you may never even leave the island for years and never have need for a car other than for out of town trips. It might be the only place in the country, if not the world, where the car ownership rate among millionaire households is in the single digits.
I think since the emphasis of this topic is on the premium paid for a car free life, then it should be noted that living within a 5 minute walk of a tmajor ransit station is generally going to be quite a bit cheaper in Chicago and Philadelphia than in NYC/Manhattan. It's a bit more limited in that the thirty minute or less trip threshold including transfers including use of buses gets a bit affected by having to go to the Loop first to transfer to things unless there's an easy bus ride or you're going away from the Loop on the line you're living next to, but it's still quite a bit of things you have access to. I'll also add that I find biking in a pretty big chunk of Chicago to be pretty good which gives you a lot of area you can easily cover in Chicago for when you're not heading towards the Loop or you're going at a diagonal of sorts from the grid (which would then involve at least one bus transfer though the buses in Chicago aren't bad).
I think since the emphasis of this topic is on the premium paid for a car free life, then it should be noted that living within a 5 minute walk of a tmajor ransit station is generally going to be quite a bit cheaper in Chicago and Philadelphia than in NYC/Manhattan.
That's true but that's only one half of the equation. The other half is the accessibility of transit in the areas you need to get to.
I am admittedly lazy and do not like to walk long distances unless it's for leisure. So the idea of living within a 5 minute walk of a train station, but not having a station within close walking distance of 99% of the people/places I visit, is not appealing. Being 100% car free is not that big of a deal to me, but if it were, I could see how living in Manhattan for the transit alone could be "worth it."
But this is a 100% subjective evaluation, of course, so it's impossible to say whether the cost is worth it or not. For some people, they might find Manhattan to be a bargain considering the wealth of transit options and walkability. This isn't really something you can argue about with people. It's like arguing whether wining and dining the "10" every weekend is "worth it" compared to Netflix and chill every weekend with a 7.
That's true but that's only one half of the equation. The other half is the accessibility of transit in the areas you need to get to.
I am admittedly lazy and do not like to walk long distances unless it's for leisure. So the idea of living within a 5 minute walk of a train station, but not having a station within close walking distance of 99% of the people/places I visit, is not appealing.
Two things I would add:
1) transit hours/headways are generally better in NYC with express trains/multiple lines serving a single station.
2) the neighborhood itself will generally have a lot more amenities. A 20 min walk in NYC will give you a access to a lot more than a comparable walk in any other city.
That's true but that's only one half of the equation. The other half is the accessibility of transit in the areas you need to get to.
I am admittedly lazy and do not like to walk long distances unless it's for leisure. So the idea of living within a 5 minute walk of a train station, but not having a station within close walking distance of 99% of the people/places I visit, is not appealing. Being 100% car free is not that big of a deal to me, but if it were, I could see how living in Manhattan for the transit alone could be "worth it."
But this is a 100% subjective evaluation, of course, so it's impossible to say whether the cost is worth it or not. For some people, they might find Manhattan to be a bargain considering the wealth of transit options and walkability. This isn't really something you can argue about with people. It's like arguing whether wining and dining the "10" every weekend is "worth it" compared to Netflix and chill every weekend with a 7.
Yep, so I made the caveat'd that with the rest of the post about what's actually within reach by mass transit and keeping in mind time for potential transfers. A lot of Chicago's greatest hits are close to transit so that's good at least so I think it's possible the vast majority of things, and most likely including your job, is within easy transit reach and then you'll need to splurge for rideshare or rental for a small minority of things--which you'll possibly also have a lot more money for given the differences in cost of living especially rent. It can be a pretty reasonable trade-off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
Two things I would add:
1) transit hours/headways are generally better in NYC with express trains/multiple lines serving a single station.
2) the neighborhood itself will generally have a lot more amenities. A 20 min walk in NYC will give you a access to a lot more than a comparable walk in any other city.
Chicago's city transit system (CTA) has good frequency and pretty good hours, and with the money potentially "saved" in comparison, you might actually be able to afford a neighborhood with more things within a 20 minute walk in a dense Chicago neighborhood than the equivalent amount of money would get you in NYC. So there are some potentially reasonable trade-offs in favor of Chicago and Philadelphia. As BajanYankee points out, you're not going to get as high of a "peak" for that 20 minute walk and what's available if money was no object, but it is a pretty sturdy concrete object for the vast majority of people so there's a bit of weighing multiple factors where I can see some pretty reasonable arguments for Chicago and Philadelphia over NYC.
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.
