I dunno, I think Chicago is certainly more walkable and less car-dependent than SF. Then you have DC, which probably is (substantially more public transit at least) as well, and even cities like Minneapolis which are probably more amenable to walking over a larger area than the actual core, downtown SF area.

SF has ok public transit for the west coast I suppose. But overall it’s quite poor compared to the east coast from DC north, or a city like Chicago.

You can walk and bike in the winter in SF though, and that's a real plus.

Yeah but walking in Chicago in the winter weather?

Honestly, it's not that bad. I find that once I'm properly bundled up, outdoor temps between 20° and 30° are downright comfortable. It's not until about 15° that you get the cold that just seeps in everywhere, and it rarely gets that low in Chicago (at least at any time of day I'd be walking outside).

Boston is also pretty walkable, but I agree that there aren't a lot of options in the US.

High-density and car-hostile != walkable. If walking means that you have to always be watching your step to avoid feces and used hypodermic needles, and you're constantly getting accosted for money or worse, that's at least as unwalkable as the stroads of suburbia.

Philadelphia is surprisingly close to these two IMO.