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.
Charleston is a beautiful beautiful city but I think Savannah is more acessible for someone of moderate means.
Another place to consider is St Augustine if it isn't too small. It seems to have an eclectic population and it would be an easy bike ride to the beach.
Charleston is a beautiful beautiful city but I think Savannah is more acessible for someone of moderate means.
Another place to consider is St Augustine if it isn't too small. It seems to have an eclectic population and it would be an easy bike ride to the beach.
interesting. I had looked at Jacksonville beach. not necessarily for being walkable, but just an interesting spot to check out. I've seen picture sof St. Augustine and it looks beautiful.
No, not even remotely. Philadelphia, Boston, Wilmington, really any older city on the East Coast or in the older Midwest is just as, if not more, walkable. Granted, some of them have been ruined for walkability during urban renewal but still.
LA is walkable? Really? Atlanta isn't all that walkable compared to the East Coast but yeah, it could probably be done.
As for a big, walkable city outside of the Northeast? Baltimore, MD. Apparently Delaware isn't in the Northeast now (could've fooled me) so Wilmington would fit the bill, too. Very underrated city, and feels much "bigger" than population numbers tell you it is. Since you don't want snowy winters though, I'd recommend some of the Southern cities other people have mentioned, especially cities like Charleston, SC , New Orleans, Savannah, GA , maybe Mobile, AL? , and though Houston isn't walkable, I guess I could see it being mentioned. Oh, and Miami is definitely a good suggestion I think. Also, maybe Wilmington, NC?
Philadelphia has too many dead zones compared to SF. So does Boston. Definitely Chicago has too many dead zones, interstate, and esp breaks to the south and south west with industrial breaks running along the freeway towards NW separating the West and North Sides. Philadelphia, Southwest from center city, across to Camden, and most of south Philly aren't that walkable at all, lots of dead areas. Wilmington isn't really worth mentioning. Baltimore is walkable sure, if you want to get mugged and shop at a convenience store for your groceries and lots of older industrial areas. SF has a larger cohesive fully walkable area with no breaks in development than all those places.
if i miss it, i think i could deal with it. I've had winters for the first 1/4 of my life (assuming i live to be around 100). I certainly can go the next quarter without.
plus i've always had this theory that if i miss snow and cold, i can take a 1 week vacation to Vermont or something, and get my "fix" for the year. Whereas if i live somewhere that gets cold, i'm stuck with it, and at best can only escape it for 1 week on a vacation to somewhere warm.
i totally agree that you can get sick of southern latitudes, palm trees, and sunshine. but i think it only takes a bit of time to get your northern fix!
If you choose CA you're only a few hours away from the mountains where it snows a ton. Lake Tahoe is about a 3-4 hours way from the SF Bay Area and gets tons of snow. The mountains in LA are about 1-2 hours away. The mountains in San Diego about 45 minutes away but they don't receive as much snow as LA's or Northern Ca's mountains.
Philadelphia has too many dead zones compared to SF. So does Boston. Definitely Chicago has too many dead zones, interstate, and esp breaks to the south and south west with industrial breaks running along the freeway towards NW separating the West and North Sides. Philadelphia, Southwest from center city, across to Camden, and most of south Philly aren't that walkable at all, lots of dead areas. Wilmington isn't really worth mentioning. Baltimore is walkable sure, if you want to get mugged and shop at a convenience store for your groceries and lots of older industrial areas. SF has a larger cohesive fully walkable area with no breaks in development than all those places.
The most crucial thing in terms of walkability is not how walkable the entire city is, but if you can easily walk within a neighborhood (that you either live in or access via mass transit) that you happen to be within. Few people ever decide to walk from the Upper West Side to Coney Island after all.
The most crucial thing in terms of walkability is not how walkable the entire city is, but if you can easily walk within a neighborhood (that you either live in or access via mass transit) that you happen to be within. Few people ever decide to walk from the Upper West Side to Coney Island after all.
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.
