Best Walking Cities
 

These are the best walking cities according to Grand Circle Travel, April 2006 from a poll taken:
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. Prague
4. Edinburgh 5. Vancouver 6. Rome
7. London 8. Amsterdam 9. Boston
10. Dubrovnik 11. Barcelona 12. Cracow
13. Melbourne 14. Berlin 15. Toledo
16. Tallinn 17. St. Petersburg
18. San Diego 19. San Antonio
20. Hong Kong

Toledo, Ohio? Never would have guessed!

Hmm. I'd definitely have Prague up in the top 3, along with Hong Kong, and maybe Edinburgh, followed by Amsterdam and Rome-but not Venice.

Uh . . . New York, maybe?

As Fodor's puts it: "New York is, above all, a walker's city."

I just walked my way through most of Venice for the last week and have to agree with it as #1. But then, without a boat you don't have much choice! Paris, London and Edinburgh I also agree about.

San Diego??

Definitely agree with Venice. But where is Copenhagen? I'd put it second, ahead of Paris.

Where is Zurich?

I can understand why San Francisco is not there - too hilly, perhaps?

The reason I don't put Venice up in the top tiers is because you HAVE to walk, you have no choice! And it's often a bit difficult to go up and down different types of bridges, where the steps are not in good repair, or are under construction, and you are concentrating so hard on making sure you don't lose your way-that it's not really conducive to "strolling" a city, as I think of it, and enjoying the sights along the way. (this is not to say that I don't love roaming all over Venice-but I have a different concept in mind when I think good walking cities).

Now, the area around the San Marco waterfront, heading down to Arsenale and Giardini IS a delightful stroll, but overall, I wouldn't put it in the top 5- I would, however put Prague as number 1-Prague is a fantastic city to stroll from the Castle, to Charles Bridge, to the astronomical clock and on to Wenceslas Square, it's hard to beat the sights or the views.

must be san antonio, ibiza, not texas.

I'll go along with that, mostly...

1. Venice
2. Paris
3. Montreux/Vevey
4. Prague
5. Lugano
6. Dubrovnik
7. Sitka
8. Bratislava
9. Santa Barbara
10. Vienna

walkinaround- I am pretty sure it is San Antonio, TX. One could never live there without a car, but visiting on foot is wonderful! We always leave the car and walk it.

I am a little disappointed not to see Stockholm, which was a surprisingly wonderful walking city. It is huge, but wonderfully accessible.

Hamburg, Munich, and Vienna belong on the list.

San Diego??? No way.

Could it be the Toledo in Spain?

laclaire...if you can't LIVE in the city without a car, then i don't think it is deserving of a top place.

i've been to SA and i'm sure it got on the list because of the river walk...a pretty feature but more of a shopping mall of restaurants than a real area where one could live, shop, walk, work, etc...all on foot. and the little public transport is not really used.

not arguing, but i do think it is laughable.

and i do agree on stockholm.

most (if not all) US cities are at a disadvantage with the turn on red laws. this is a menace to pedestrians. i am aware that walkers have the right of way but:
1. drivers do not act like it and expect to just go...usually without even stopping to check for walkers.
2. a queue of cars pushing at you as you cross is hardly pedestrian friendly and increases the stress level of walking.

the actual behaviours of the drivers is more important than the law in this case.

I assume the criteria includes lots of interesting things to see in a small space.

Venice would be number one for me - the lack of traffic noise is a real bonus! I'd add Seville, Perugia and Stockholm. Rome, yes it is indeed walkable, but the traffic is a bit of a problem. What about Florence?