[masonic]

First of all, SF doesn't really qualify. How many live in a neighborhood where their workplace, medical, grocery, and social needs are all walkable to/from?

Car-ownership-hostile != "walkable". Using Lyft/Uber isn't "walking".

Anyway, as to your question: parts of Sacramento, Auburn, Carson City, Eugene, Bend, and Boise all qualify, and that'slimiting to cities I know firsthand. Other cities that I hear this from others include Salem, SLC, ...

Much depends on what you consider to be "normal adult lifestyle". If one's definition of that includes walking through waste and needles to the Folsom St. Fair, SF probably does have a monopoly there.

[burlesona]

I think your bar for walkable is lower than mine. Yes there are other places where you can take a nice walk, but I’m talking about living without caring or noticing that you haven’t driven a car in weeks.

Things that I do within two blocks of the flat I live in:

- get groceries

- go to a bakery

- go to one of three coffee shops

- go to one of ten or so restaurants

- go to a comic book store

- go to a game store

- go to a pub

- get my hair cut

- go to the dentist

My two kids, both under school age, at this point can safely walk with me to any of these activities, and, except for the dentist, they often do and quite enjoy it.

I could walk a bit further, but usually bike, and occasionally take transit, to my office, and to literally everything else in my life except the following:

- Trips out of town

- An occasional visit to a Lowes on the other side of town

That’s the bar I’m aiming for.

Note 1, I’m not talking about Manhattan. There’s almost nothing over three stories for several dozen blocks around me, this is all just really ordinary small/medium scale stuff from circa 1900.

And note 2, you asked how many people “really live like that,” and as best I can tell in San Francisco the answer is somewhere between 50 and 90% of the ~million residents. (I don’t know how good every neighborhood is, and I think some are less convenient than mine, but mine is pretty ordinary for SF.)

[joshuamorton]

SF has decent public transit. Disliking public transit is fine, but ignoring it is something else entirely. Muni and Bart do make it possible to get around most of SF without walking or using uber/lyft.

And, given where I live, my medical, grocery, and a significant chunk of my social needs are truly within walking distance. The only one that isn't is work, and that would be accessible via public transit if I was willing to compromise on commute times a bit (or if I changed employers/offices).

Carson City has 4 bus routes serving 150 square miles, San Francisco has close to 100 serving less than 50. Those aren't remotely comparable.

[masonic]

  Disliking public transit is fine,

... and is something I didn't write, nor feel.

The parent comment asserted walkability. If your environment is walkable, that means you don't need transit/carshare for everyday needs.

  Carson City has 4 bus routes

Again, walkable means walkable without transit. My father lived there with daily needs within walking distance. SF is not only not the "only" walkable city, SF isn't generally walkable overall for all everyday destinations (especially hilly streets).

[joshuamorton]

Walkability in the city-planning sense is defined by "lack of need for a car". Improved public transit improves walkability (see the walkability scores on pretty much any site ever), as does mixed use development.

Carson City has a walk score of 34 (although apparently there's a 4 block area in downtown that gets up to the mid 70s). SF has an average of 86. My apartment scores 99. Like I said, there isn't a genuine comparison to be had.

[crazygringo]

Exactly this. New York City is the very definition of a "walkable" city because you walk to the subway, stand on the subway, walk to work.

Not because you live within walking distance of work, which almost nobody does. That definition of "walkable" would be so tiny to render it almost meaningless.

[masonic]

  Muni and Bart do make it possible to get around most of SF

Possible? Yes. They serve most attractions in SF. Not feasible to most of SF, not by a long shot. Look at your transit options between southern Sunset and Dogpatch, for example.

BART cuts one diagonal swath through the SF core only, and it doesn't even connect directly to Caltrain in SF county. It's hardly the Underground.

[joshuamorton]

> Look at your transit options between southern Sunset and Dogpatch, for example.

L transferring to the KT? It doesn't even require a bus.

>BART cuts one diagonal swath through the SF core only, and it doesn't even connect directly to Caltrain in SF county. It's hardly the Underground.

Indeed, I'm not suggesting transit in SF (or the bay area as a whole) is perfect. Far from it. But compared to anywhere else west of the Mississippi (and most of the places east of it), there's nowhere better.