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.
Can't believe no one has brought up Minneapolis. I think it would certainly fit well as Downtown/Central Minneapolis neighborhoods have Walk Scores and Transit Scores in the mid 90s, and a Bike Score right at 90 (out of a perfect score of 100).
Well I DID actually live in one of the cities -- for 13 years -- Seattle. But it's too expensive for your budget.
And, given that I lived in Buffalo for 7 years now, and 4 of them without a car, it's TOTALLY possible; I walked (in all weather), or occasionally took the bus, and also used car sharing. In fact I walked 5 days a week back and forth from the very cool Allentown neighborhood where I rented an entire 130 year old house for $800/month to my job at my college; 5 miles roundtrip.
CarShare got me to Target and other spots for like $15 a week.
I also lived without a car in Seattle for 7 out of my 13 years.
If you REALLY want to be "carless" you need to be committed to it, not just when it's comfortable.
And if Chicago is affordable for you - and has good mass transit and walkability (it does) - why are you still not living there?
I'm leaving Buffalo, but mostly because I despise the weather here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffincake
Chicago is actually pretty affordable. I lived there recently. It's definitely cheaper than NYC, Boston, SF and DC. I am looking for advice from people who have lived in or been to the cities they are recommending, please!
Buffalo NY is not a city you can survive in 100% without a car. You will absolutely need a car for certain things. Please no ridiculous responses like this. Haha. Thanks!
The advice doesn't get any better than this! And it's pretty much what I and other posters have mentioned.
Seattle would really not fit the budget proposed, at least in it's most walkable core areas (I lived there for 13 years); they do have excellent public transit, just not a formal subway system. But their busses and light rail are superb! They also offer car-sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
In terms of truly robustly walkable cities that you're searching for, you're really not going to find a super long list. There are many cities that are making strides to improve their walkability, but in terms of a very convenient, day-to-day walkable lifestyle, unfortunately there are slim pickings.
The "Big 6" transit cities of the US include Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago and San Francisco, which also happen to be among the most walkable. Seattle is also highly walkable, but public transit would be a tier below these cities.
When you factor in affordability (every one of these cities would meet your other criteria just fine [with the already noted exception of DC summers]), Chicago and Philadelphia are definitely the most budget-friendly in the walkable/public transit-friendly class of cities.
In terms of truly robustly walkable cities that you're searching for, you're really not going to find a super long list. There are many cities that are making strides to improve their walkability, but in terms of a very convenient, day-to-day walkable lifestyle, unfortunately there are slim pickings.
The "Big 6" transit cities of the US include Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago and San Francisco, which also happen to be among the most walkable. Seattle is also highly walkable, but public transit would be a tier below these cities.
When you factor in affordability (every one of these cities would meet your other criteria just fine [with the already noted exception of DC summers]), Chicago and Philadelphia are definitely the most budget-friendly in the walkable/public transit-friendly class of cities.
Is Philly really on par with cities like Chicago, DC and NY? I keep hearing Philly come up as a city you don't need a car in, but it seems so small to me. It hardly seems to fit in any sort of category with NY, Chicago, DC, SF, Boston. Does it really feel like these cities?
I do have to say, I visited Portland thought it actually did fit the criteria of being very walkable. I stayed in the center of the city, and I could walk to tons of restaurants, bars, a Target, a soccer stadium, etc. The MAX seemed to cover the airport, huge shopping centers, etc. And while buses are generally not my preferred way of transportation, I found their buses to be really easy to use because of Q codes they have at each stop. So I feel like there have to be cities outside of the so-called "big 6" that could accommodate what I want if Portland could.
Is Philly really on par with cities like Chicago, DC and NY? I keep hearing Philly come up as a city you don't need a car in, but it seems so small to me. It hardly seems to fit in any sort of category with NY, Chicago, DC, SF, Boston. Does it really feel like these cities?
I do have to say, I visited Portland thought it actually did fit the criteria of being very walkable. I stayed in the center of the city, and I could walk to tons of restaurants, bars, a Target, a soccer stadium, etc. The MAX seemed to cover the airport, huge shopping centers, etc. And while buses are generally not my preferred way of transportation, I found their buses to be really easy to use because of Q codes they have at each stop. So I feel like there have to be cities outside of the so-called "big 6" that could accommodate what I want if Portland could.
Philly is larger than all but NYC and Chicago
if portland fits than Philly would most definately fit
in terms of smaller places - yes some would probably fit but wont be as large; most would depend on what you want or are looking for
Seattle for example is smaller with a smaller core of where that lifestyle work well but offers a lot for a smaller DT etc.
^ Then we have a new city I never considered. I'll have to plan a weekend there and see what it's all about! Thanks.
Any other suggestions would be great. My personal preference right now still leans heavily toward Chicago.
Chicago and Philly are more affordable than the others (though not cheap in the better parts) Chicago is a little larger than Philly both have significant bad areas and significant nice areas - Chicago a little more of both
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.
Now let's get real!
