Luigi

I simply MUST disagree with Dave! Of all the cities in the world, I would say Venice is the MOST explorable on foot. In fact, if you truly want to see the real Venice, rather than the part that 96% of all tourists see, you have to go back into the "maze of dull, gray, narrow alleyways". <BR> <BR>When I guided a group of friends around the city in March, I took VeniceWalks and used it as our guide. We saw many, many places and fascinating churches, museums, etc, that the "day trippers" completely miss. We ate with the locals, drank at wine bars with Venetians on their way home from work, etc. The only way there was on foot! <BR> <BR>Just my opinion, of course, but I was so shocked by Dave's I had to post. Unless of course you were just trolling Dave, in which case, you got me!

Sheila

Thanks for robust defence. Just out of interest, I didn't think I needed it because I assumed that george was either from London and winding me up or that he was American and did not understand how offensive the word "provincial" is to the average revolting Scot. <BR> <BR>However, thanks for the apology which is appreciated anyway, george

Maira

London. It's huge, spread out humid and dirty. <BR> <BR>(Sounds familiar?)

Al

Funny, I was sure someone would nominate Naples. Maybe it has improved since I first set foot there 50 years ago.

lola

Positano (ok, not a "city") is not good for walking, unless you are a mountain climber. I *love* to walk in London--the neighborhoods, the architecture, the variety from one street to the next, the antique shops, the chatter I can understand, the tabloid newstands with their outlandish headlines, the familiar landmarks (the unfamiliar)....

howard

I'm with Luigi when it comes to Venice and all the London defenders. Both are among the best for walking. Frankly, I don't see how one can enjoy any city, locally or abroad, unless he/she walks, walks and walks.

Thyra

I tend to agree with the previous poster, however I had a really tough time walking around Rome. Am I the only one, it didn't help that it was really hot, but even with a decent map I had difficulty finding things and ended up frustrated. It seemed to me like parts of Rome were great for walking, but overall it was my least favorite walking city. This does not suggest that I didn't like Rome, that was just my experience.

Santa Chiara

Funny, the responses. I choose cities based on their walkability. I am going to the Amalfi coast this weekend, precisely so I can walk. And when I lived in the U.S. my favorite vacation destination was San Francisco, chiefly because of the walking (and hiking) opportunities. For me, the beauty of Europe is the multitude of cities that are so walkable. I have yet to find one that is not walkable and enjoyable, including the one first mentioned, Berlin. And for London, when you get tired of walking, you can always hop on the oh-so-convenient public transportation.

Art

After reading all of the interesting posts here and the favorite walking cities thread, I believe that the more that you like a city the more walkable it is and the less you like the less walkable it is!!!! <BR>Art <BR>

E II R

Who walks?

scigirl

Naples! It isn't actually bad for walking until you try to cross a street. The traffic is terrifying and operates on rules that are not apparent to non-Napolians (Napoliese?). I was there this spring. My husband and I were frozed outside the trainstation terrified of crossing the 8 or so lanes of zooming honking careening traffic and unable to figure out how to reach our hotel without getting killed. After being there a few days we figured out that we could linger at corners until a native was crossing and run along besides them. If you are able to stay on the sidewalk and avoid large streets Naples is actually pretty nice for walking.

scigirl

er, thats 'frozen" not frozed..

Bob Brown

I like frozed. It may not be in the dictionary, but it should be. It accurately describes the situation. <BR>I was that way in London because I am <BR>strongly left eyed. I could not break <BR>myself of the habit of looking left first before crossing the street. <BR>That is not the way to look in that city, or any place in England, Scotland or Wales. So when I came to an intersection, I frized. <BR>I think we can add a new verb. <BR>froze friz frizzen. <BR>If Atlanta was in Europe, it would be a candidate for the no walk city.

Walter

I'd also say Naples and add Athens as cities where you can easily become "road kill". Like "scigirl" I also wait for a local in Naples to cross the street with, I usually wait for a beautiful woman they seem to be able to stop the traffic dead with just a glance. London but *only* after leaving a pub and forgetting they're driving on the wrong side of the road). Regards, Walter <BR>

John

Rotterdam. Not the whole place, but on balance... <BR>Birmingham. Oy. <BR>Moscow. Oy gevalt. <BR>

becky

I second the poster who spoke of Lisbon <BR>as being difficult to walk in - hills & "bumpy" sidewalks (i.e., tiled & with quite a few holes). 'Don't know how women with high heels manage. <BR> To the poster who keeps looking left in London, 1 of the neat things about Dublin (a very walkable city)is that, at sidewalk crossings, there are signs with arrow & admonition to "look to the right." Boy, did that help!

traveler

It's Neopolitans, scigirl.

harzer

It's 'NeApolitans' traveler, unless you were referring to the city of Noples in Southern Dalmatia.

tina

Rome in the dark without a map and not speaking Italian <BR> <BR>Actually, substitute "Rome" and "Italian" with city/language of choice, and you have the perfect unwalkable city!