As someone alluded earlier, Boston is probably more "walkable" overall than Chicago.

While anywhere you land in Chicago will generally be walkable (with varying degrees of safety, I guess), it doesn't have quite the intimate scale of a place like Boston, such that getting around between areas of the city can feel a bit intimidating as far as distances.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by keakdasneak

Member since Dec 2006

7137 posts

Posted on 12/22/22 at 12:52 pm to Y.A. Tittle

quote:
While anywhere you land in Chicago will generally be walkable (with varying degrees of safety, I guess), it doesn't have quite the intimate scale of a place like Boston, such that getting around between areas of the city can feel a bit intimidating as far as distances.

No one is expecting an entire city to be walkable. You have public transit to connect dense neighborhoods.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by BluegrassBelle

RIP Hefty Lefty - 1981-2019

Member since Nov 2010

99471 posts

Posted on 12/22/22 at 12:57 pm to Y.A. Tittle

quote:
As someone alluded earlier, Boston is probably more "walkable" overall than Chicago.

While anywhere you land in Chicago will generally be walkable (with varying degrees of safety, I guess), it doesn't have quite the intimate scale of a place like Boston, such that getting around between areas of the city can feel a bit intimidating as far as distances.

And it’s worth noting that Chicago at least kind of forces you to walk with parking costs/availability. I never used my car the whole trip. It stayed parked at the hotel.

The flipside of a good walkable city though is they typically have excellent public transportation.

This post was edited on 12/22/22 at 12:59 pm

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board