Originally Posted by
Steely Dan
i don't really decry other cities though.
it's not a city vs. city thing in my mind.
the issue of walkability is much more of an urban neighborhood vs. suburban neighborhood thing.
I see your point, but it seems that even cities proper are walkable/liveable sans car, or not, and suburbs follow suit, e.g NYC and Brooklyn (admittedly a borough I have never visited); Boston and inner suburbs, e,g, Brookline, Cambridge; San Francisco and (?) Berkley,
I referred to Detroit, and its suburb of Southfield as the “City of Towers and Cars,” although Ann Arbor, 40 miles away is a City of Outdoor Rooms." :
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
...Back in the 60’s in the Motor City, I had an “English Racer,’ and longed to tour at about age 14, but then joined the car culture....
In Ann Arbor MI in the 70’s I really realized the utility of bicycles for commuting, and began touring on a five-speed Schwinn Suburban, but soon bought a Mercier as did my girlfriend, later my wife. We toured in Michigan and Ontario…
It seems the "non-walkable" cities are mostly Midwestern, Southern and Sunbelt, and Wesern, though
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
...I think a lot of urban revitalization projects tend to create enclaves as driving destinations to walk around in such large cities like in my native Detroit
When I visited Chicago, I thought Lincoln Park was a walkable/liveable
sans car area though seemingly removed from the downtown.