Name a European city that is NOT good for walking...
 

It seems there are many European cities that are good for walking, but surely there must be some which are not. In my experience, I never found Berlin particularly good in that aspect. It's spread out, not very attractive (other than around Tiergarten), and filled with construction sites. Give it another 10 years and things will be better.

Lisbon is only for the very fit. This is especially so in the Alfama which is the oldest and historically most interesting part of the city. To get those shots you want you'll be scampering around like a mountain goat, but they're worth it.

London. It's huge, spread out humid and dirty.

Vienna....very spread

London is an excellent city for walking and exploring, none better in my experience. Provincials like Sheila only travel to London to have their prejudices confirmed. Don't listen.

Similarly, I think Berlin is great to walk around in! Not attractive? That's a matter of personal opinion. The city has lots to offer and on foot is the greratest way to see them.

we have been walking all over Vienna as well... I guess choosing a hotel that is centrally located will help the ones who don't fancy walking really much ! <BR>

George, <BR>Everyone is entitled to express their opinion,( without being insulted.) <BR>nancy

All cities in Europe, since they're not laid out in any sort of logical grid system (like US cities), are great for walking. Some Americans, though, aren't "good for walking" . . . like my parents (who are getting on, to be fair) . . . <BR> <BR>I told them to walk at least an hour every day for the month before their big trip. They didn't. The Tube and the Metro alone tired them out, what with all the steps . . . <BR> <BR>Reference the Skinny Europeans thread! <BR>Just my 2cents . . .

Nancy: the truth is never an insult.

Nancy, <BR> <BR>Please ignore George. He is a small-minded person who can't express his opinion without belittling others.

Depends upon what makes you cranky: <BR>I find Italian cities often have poor street signage, so it's hard to find an address; on the other hand, the cities are so interesting, who cares? Paris streets are well-signed (the numbering system drives me nuts; #31 is NOT opposite #30) but cars are parked on the sidewalk and many of the sidewalks and narrow streets are brick or cobblestone (aka anklebusters). For things to see and experience while you walk? Small parks with benches to take a load off? The plethora of metro stops when you can't take another step? Paris can't be beat for a 'walking' city. So it's all in what you find an inconvenience vs reward... <BR> <BR>I agree with susan re that many people aren't regular walkers, so when they hit the cities (it can be New York, Las Vegas or Paris), "it's too hard to walk". I'll never forget the trip to San Francisco with 3 women (who are young enough to be my daughters, two of whom 'work out' at a health club several times a week) and climbing the hills - I was huffing and puffing after a couple, but still going strong - and I looked back to see the girls doubled over and gasping for air at the foot of the last hill. I'd nominate Milan as a city not good for walking, because I found it boring, but I'd bet those three girls would nominate San Francisco!

I can too! I apologize for my remark however, which has clearly caused offence.

Venice. At least if you mean really exploring on foot, and not just walking from one watertaxi stop to the next. Venice seems to put its best face towards the water. On foot I found myself wandering through a maze of dull, gray, narrow alleyways - usually leading to a dead end or a drainage canal with no crossing.

Wow! An honest-to-goodness apology on Fodors. Very classy, George! <BR> <BR>I wasn't a fan of walking around London, for the dumbest of reasons. I tip-toed about all the time in constant fear of looking the wrong way while crossing the street and becoming road kill.

As a not good walking city, I nominate Lausanne, unless you have strong legs. <BR>If your legs are in condition for up hill and down, then the assessment changes very quickly. The view over the lake and of the surrounding hills is excellent. <BR>So in that respect, Lausanne, although a lot smaller, is similar to San Francisco. But scenically, it is better than most of the cities named. <BR>I never was bowled over with Munich as a scenic place to walk about in. But after a few gulps of a local beer, who cares?

On London: Imho, London's great for walking just to see what there is to be seen, but not as good for walking as transportation, since as others have noted it is very spread out. <BR> <BR>I read someplace that much of Paris (presumably not including the Bois de Boulogne and etc.) would fit inside the Circle Line of the London Underground. Don't know if that's true, but it does convey the difference between those cities.

As the original poster on the thread asking about good walking cities I find it interesting that many cities on that thread are found here, also. I guess that demonstrates differences of opinion/preferences. Unfortunately, it also causes me some doubt as to which cities really are good walking cities...

Al, <BR>Umm, I humbly nominate Lugano: too spread out, buses too expensive, best pedestrian areas are *away* from the lake. <BR> <BR>s

My wife and I go to Germany and Austria in a few weeks. She as never been out of the US before. <BR> <BR>In my opinion, any city that allows you to safely learn and share the cultures of others, will always be a good walking city.