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.
If like to point out part of the premium your paying in New York is for functional public schools and significantly lower crime rates. It’s not just the urban character
I mean, no one is confusing New York City with Mayberry, but yes, on the whole you'll find more functionally livable neighborhoods per capita in NYC.
I also don't think you'll find many upwardly-mobile families sending their kids to any urban public schools outside of "magnet" schools. That's true of all three cities.
Ahh, I get it. Those 2 million cars are just for glamorous weekend getaways.
Yet over 700,000 cars travel through Manhattan daily, and every photo or video feed I've ever seen of the place its jammed with car gridlock.
Then there's also the fact that NYC has easily the longest average commute time in the nation, with their drivers sitting in traffic longer than places like Los Angeles and Riverside:
So apparently its possible to have the largest mass transit system while also being one of the most car-centric cities in the nation.
On the average weekday, Manhattan has a daytime population of approximately 4 million people over 23 square miles. Of course it's jammed with gridlock. Why wouldn't it be?
Even with the theoretical perfect transit system, there will still be people that will prefer to drive. Just because NYC has the best transit system in the US, doesn't mean literally every single person will use it.
On the average weekday, Manhattan has a daytime population of approximately 4 million people over 23 square miles. Of course it's jammed with gridlock. Why wouldn't it be?
Even with the theoretical perfect transit system, there will still be people that will prefer to drive. Just because NYC has the best transit system in the US, doesn't mean literally every single person will use it.
...and it appears that there are just enough of those people to create one of the worst car induced traffic gridlocks in the nation.
I wonder if anyone ever moved to NYC because "don't need a car, NYC Subway", then realized they actually do, and then got stuck in worse daily commuting car traffic than back home.
I'm guessing that happens all the time and we just don't hear about it.
...and it appears that there are just enough of those people to create one of the worst car induced traffic gridlocks in the nation.
I wonder if anyone ever moved to NYC because "don't need a car, NYC Subway", then realized they actually do, and then got stuck in worse daily commuting car traffic than back home.
I'm guessing that happens all the time and we just don't hear about it.
Lots of people move to/live in NYC for a myriad of reasons, including the car-free lifestyle, which is a huge deal to many. Most people in NYC do NOT need a car for daily functions.
I mean, no one is confusing New York City with Mayberry, but yes, on the whole you'll find more functionally livable neighborhoods per capita in NYC.
I also don't think you'll find many upwardly-mobile families sending their kids to any urban public schools outside of "magnet" schools. That's true of all three cities.
A normal middle class person would conceivably send their kid to NYC Public schools. They would not do so in Philly or Chicago. So the difference in rent/mortgage would be be at least partially gobbled by Tuition.
NYC is certainly not the only city where being car free is possible. I did it for a long time here in Boston and my car now primarily serves as a means for weekend escapes. I don't drive around town much at all, and I definitely don't need to. I'd easily do it in Chicago, Philadelphia, DC, or San Francisco too.
But whether or not NYC is "worth" the premium depends on several factors. For starters, income. In your scenario, what is the person/family making? If it's a flat $150k across the board, they can rent or buy quite a bit more for the money in Philadelphia or Chicago - both of which have many walkable neighborhoods and decent public transit. What's more, they'll likely have more disposable income leftover in Chicago or Philly to spend on entertainment/luxuries (or the occasional uber/lyft to supplement transit). So if my salary didn't increase proportionately for NYC, I'd easily pick Chicago or Philly for overall QOL. I'd also factor in preference. I prefer NYC over the other two and I'd stretch a bit more to make it work if my budget had some flexibility.
I left the income part ambiguous but maybe I should have added it.
You're not wealthy, nor are you hurting for money.
Living in NYC probably means a smaller place in a not so trendy part of town. You have your mind set on car free life though, so you could be persuaded that those sacrifices will be well worth it.
I think Chicago has pretty much everything New York has at a fraction of the price. I wouldn’t live in any of these places, too cold, but I would choose Chicago over NYC. Philadelphia is a much smaller city and although Chicago is probably more dangerous overall I found that a lot less of the actual area of the city of Philadelphia is pleasant to be in.
I think Chicago has pretty much everything New York has at a fraction of the price. I wouldn’t live in any of these places, too cold, but I would choose Chicago over NYC. Philadelphia is a much smaller city and although Chicago is probably more dangerous overall I found that a lot less of the actual area of the city of Philadelphia is pleasant to be in.
I'm surprised this isn't a more popular take.
It's really hard to believe that NYC provides 2.5X of what Chicago does as indicated by the cost disparity, mass transit or otherwise.
Lake Michigan looks to be much more integrated into the Chicago package than the Atlantic is with NYC, its hard to even say that NYC has much of an advantage with regards to cultural institutions, and it seems Chicago may even hold a slight edge with its food scene.
For car free life, I would pick a Chicago inner ring suburb, living in a dwelling at least 2X the size of anything I've ever had in CA.
It's really hard to believe that NYC provides 2.5X of what Chicago does as indicated by the cost disparity, mass transit or otherwise.
Lake Michigan looks to be much more integrated into the Chicago package than the Atlantic is with NYC, its hard to even say that NYC has much of an advantage with regards to cultural institutions, and it seems Chicago may even hold a slight edge with its food scene.
For car free life, I would pick a Chicago inner ring suburb, living in a dwelling at least 2X the size of anything I've ever had in CA.
Yeah the big benefit of New York is that it’s in the northeast so you have easy access to lots of different places, but I really can’t think of anything that NYC itself has that Chicago doesn’t, aside from Broadway.
This is not one of them. You can live in a central neighborhood in Chicago, with immediate access to the L, buses, and more than enough walkability for daily function.... Gym, grocery stores, bars, coffee shops, etc.
I think this sums it up best.
Chicago and Philadelphia both have car-free friendly neighborhoods. You can live in one for a fraction of the price of most neighborhoods in NYC. The question is, are the other draws of NYC, such as amenities, career, vibrancy, nightlife, etc. enough to justify the cost? It is true that almost everywhere in NYC is car-free friendly, whereas in Chicago and Philadelphia you have to be more intentional about neighborhood, or compromise on some quality of life factors to make it work.
MarketStEl is right that in Philadelphia, if you are open to taking the bus, it opens up even more neighborhoods to car-free living. But those of us who experience motion sickness can struggle. And the bus is definitely not as efficient time-wise.
Fwiw, I love my car-lite lifestyle in Philadelphia. I really thought about giving it up when I moved here, but the places I've worked vs. lived would have made it pretty inconvenient (like I said, to make it work here takes a lot more intentionality or just luck). Plus, I really love a good road trip. But, I don't use my car daily. I sometimes bike to work, and I almost always take the train when going into Center City. It reduces the wear and tear on my car, gas, parking fees, etc. And it makes a night out with a few drinks safer.
Something that really pleases me when I visit NYC is public transit frequency. In Philadelphia, many of our lines you've really gotta time. I love the regional rail in my neighborhood, but it comes just once an hour, even during peak ridership. It really impacts lifestyle/convenience. I was just visiting NYC the other day and caught late night trains from Brooklyn to Penn Station. It was so nice how quickly both trains arrived, even at that hour. In Philadelphia, our subway lines frequency is much better than regional rail, but we've only got two real subway lines, neither of which run to my neighborhood.
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.
