[alephnerd]

Chicago, DC, Boston, SF, Philly (depending on "international"), Portland (walkable but not really international - it's just 90s-2000s white Americans doing 90s-2000s white American stuff, you'd think Kurt Cobain still roams the earth)

Though if you want affordability, that leaves Chicago and Philly.

NYC sucks in that sense though, as a lot of industries that are conglomerated in NYC haven't ensured salaries keep up with those in High Finance and Tech

At least Boston has relatively affordable suburbs and Bay Area level wages, DC has plenty of federal jobs that pay competitively, and SF has the larger tech industry (which is still going great despite a couple high profile layoffs)

[homefree]

Miami? I was impressed with Miami when I visited. Lots of high rise residential housing, sane political governance, nice downtown, and pretty walkable.

[alephnerd]

It's almost impossible to use public transit outside of Brickell.

Miami-Dade is very sprawly, like Los Angeles.

This is unsurprising as Miami is a relatively new city that expanded post-WW2, like LA.

The cities I listed above were already fairly high density before the automobile was invented

[homefree]

I explored Brickell and Miami Beach, comparing to LA is unfair imo, that’s like comparing to “Bay Area” instead of SF.

[alephnerd]

Your right.

It's even worse than LA. The LA metro has better connectivity across the city of LA than Miami Metrorail does in Miami.

> I explored Brickell and Miami Beach

Did you walk or take public transit to Little Havana or Little Haiti?

[tipsydoo]

IIRC Miami was the worst on a list put together by CityNerd of large cities with a high (housing+transit)/income ratio. I can't access YT at the moment so feel free to correct.

[forthwall]

Miami is walkable in some parts, I personally feel it’s as walkable as LA, walkable neighborhoods but big moats between them (not just the bridges)

[homefree]

Yeah, though I think Bay Area is similar - LA is huge and more equivalent to compare to Bay Area (SF + Oakland + Peninsula + San Jose), than just SF itself.

Also more comparable populations that way too.

[forthwall]

To be clear; what I mean LA as in LA city not the county. LA and Miami are similar in they have some neighborhoods that are walkable (the most popular parts), but the majority of them are not and they’re not very walkable between the two. Little Tokyo is walkable but then there’s a gap between there and downtown, then you have a huge Hollywood stretch then a huge gap around ktown if you go between them. Miami has the same issue, Brickell is walkable but as soon as you leave it has a bunch of impassable areas to go to downtown, same as if you were to leave wynwood. The worst part of Miami city’s unwalkability is once you leave those neighborhoods it pedestrian hostile like Shendahdoah or Little Havana.

SF and NYC do have neighborhoods like this, but those occupy very tiny portions of those cities comparably to Miami.

[Keyframe]

Well, there's weather though.

[micromacrofoot]

boston suburbs aren’t walkable though, if you’re not remote you’ve got a minimum 40 min commute each way

[alephnerd]

True, but a burb like Tewksbury is a bit more affordable than a similar burb in NYC like White Plains or Piscataway when factoring salaries and taxes.

Same way most people in the NY Metro live in less walkable boroughs or suburbs.

And it's the same story in any other "international" city - be it London, Tokyo, Paris, etc