« China Fact of the Day | Main | Questions which are rarely asked »
Seth Roberts writes to me
That's a good way to put it: quality of walking opportunities. Reduced or enhanced because I don't read the language? I'm not sure.
I say enhanced. More generally, I see Paris and Buenos Aires as the two cities with the highest quality of walking opportunities. Not many cities in Asia do well on this score, mostly because of congestion and pollution. Los Angeles is an underrated walking city and Sao Paulo used to be; maybe it is too dangerous now.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 11, 2008 at 12:54 PM in Travels | Permalink
Comments
Buenos Aires is fantastically polluted and filled with killer cars. I would not rate it highly as a walkable city, although YMMV. When I was there a couple years back, I would spend the day walking around the city and then get back to the hotel feeling like shit and with a weird kind of ringing sinus headache that I have never experienced before or since, caused by breathing concentrated diesel fumes all day.
Also, many of the sidewalks are oddly thin considering the amount of foot traffic, and the porteñ@s walk like maniacs at top speed, occasionally forcing the dawdling tourist (admiring the retro-futuristic decaying urban fabric) into traffic or dogshit. It's walkable city if you're on top of your game, but not for the faint of heart.
Posted by: David at Jul 11, 2008 1:10:39 PM
How about Vienna? It's much more concentrated - inside the Ringstrasse - than Paris.
Posted by: Jim at Jul 11, 2008 1:16:01 PM
How about Vienna? It's much more concentrated - inside the Ringstrasse - than Paris.
Posted by: Jim at Jul 11, 2008 1:16:12 PM
How about Vienna? It's much more concentrated - inside the Ringstrasse - than Paris.
Posted by: Jim at Jul 11, 2008 1:16:22 PM
My faves in Europe were Stockholm and... Venice.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jul 11, 2008 1:29:36 PM
I agree with Tyler on BA. I found it quite walkable. I was there on business by myself and walked almost everywhere from my hotel at Plaza San Martin. On the first day I was there I had a nice walk down Florida Ave(?) and then on to San Telmo. This was 6-7 years ago though so maybe things have changed.
How about Munich? My wife and I had numerous delightful walking tours through the old city and the English Gardens. Lors to see and much of it closed off to cars.
Posted by: eccdogg at Jul 11, 2008 1:43:22 PM
I would suggest Amsterdam is near the top, but for all of the bikes. Having to watch both car lanes and heavily used bike lanes takes some time to get used to. Otherwise, the canals and cafes make it very walkable.
Posted by: Jake at Jul 11, 2008 1:43:41 PM
As the Missing Persons pointed out way back in the 80's, nobody walks in L.A.
Posted by: Sisyphus at Jul 11, 2008 2:32:43 PM
I can report that Montreal is a nice walking city as long as your hotel is in Le Vieux Port, and Lisbon is a nice walking city if you enjoy getting lost and stumbling across wonderful hole in the wall restaurants (as I do).
Posted by: Peter at Jul 11, 2008 3:19:38 PM
I would second Peter's comment that Montreal is North America's best walking city, at least in summer. No worries about crime or pollution, lots of cafes with terraces in the summer, relatively even level terrain in downtown (unless you head up to Mont Royal Park). You can walk south from the downtown core to the old city in <15m, or alternatively you can go north and visit the heart of the plateau neighborhood adjacent to downtown in <15m. Most of the cultural interests worth seeing are within walking distance of downtown.
Alternatively, it's probably North America's worst walking city in winter.
Posted by: Shaun M. at Jul 11, 2008 3:56:29 PM
How about Vienna? It's much more concentrated - inside the Ringstrasse - than Paris.The first district has a population of only 6000. It is about tourism, boutiques, prestigious lawyer's offices, bars and coffee shops. This is hardly a model for an entire City, but more of a statistical outlier. Parts of Vienna are very walkable. Some less so, especially the soviet style post 1960 housing complexes.
It is difficult to make an assessment as a tourist. Paris seemed pretty walkable to me. But i didn't visit the banlieue, so how could I compare?
Posted by: Ethnic Austrian at Jul 11, 2008 4:09:38 PM
I agree with Buenos Aires. Probably one of the best walking experiences you can get.
I live in Sao Paulo, and it is safe, still, to walk during the daylight, at least in areas of general interest. For my part, I mostly walk, alone, to the places I need to go, and have not have any problems so far. I hope my sense of security is not based on anedoctical evidence.
Posted by: Lucas Novaes at Jul 11, 2008 5:20:45 PM
I nominate Budapest for walk-ability.
Posted by: Varangy at Jul 11, 2008 5:32:58 PM
Tokyo is Walkable, and much smaller than most people would imagine. I found the most interesting out of the way stores this way, including a strange military outlet selling Nazi paraphernalia outside Akihabara.
Posted by: Meden at Jul 11, 2008 6:03:56 PM
I found Kuala Lumpur surprisingly walkable.
Posted by: Dave Bridgeland at Jul 11, 2008 6:26:17 PM
Agree on Buenos Aires, although I lived there about fifteen years ago; I suspect that much of the micro-center hasn't changed THAT much. (As an aside, Buenos Aires is [or was] a fantastic and crazy bus city.)
I'd also nominate Sevilla and Lisbon as two good walking cities
Posted by: Kent at Jul 11, 2008 7:36:17 PM
I think one thing that makes cities more walkable is good public transportation. Then you can easily get from one walking district to another. Or home w/o a car.
San Francisco and Prague are excellent waking cities in my experience. It helps that both are small, and both have lots to see/do.
-MM
Posted by: MM at Jul 11, 2008 8:34:39 PM
How about London?
There are even a walking tours for economists!
http://www.ifs.org.uk/famous_economists/walks.php
Posted by: Leonardo at Jul 11, 2008 8:44:04 PM
Tyler,
doesn't this kind of be the question? You are against government intervention. How do we get these great walking citites (or interesting cities in general) without a heavy government hand. Been to Dallas or Houston lately?
Posted by: RobbL at Jul 11, 2008 10:31:18 PM
Walkability, it seems to me, has to do with having a balance of familiarity and unpredictability. The city has to be familiar enough to allow your mind to wander and reach what Julio Cortazar (an avid walker of Buenos Aries and Paris) calls an "ambulatory state", a privileged relationship between the city and us, the walker and walked. The city should also offer some unpredictability, to surprise us, to keep us waiting for that corner we have never seen and had always been there.
Posted by: londenio at Jul 12, 2008 2:23:04 AM
Boston. You can walk across the city in about twenty minutes, and the length of it in thirty. Then you can take the T back.
Amsterdam is very walkable, even with bicycles.
I've walked in Mumbai, from Mahim to Byculla (in two stages on different days, but the whole way). It's hot, humid, noisy, and crowded, but I still enjoyed it.
Posted by: Russell Nelson at Jul 12, 2008 2:31:55 AM
Agreed. There are some fantastic walking opportunities in Paris (I might be slightly biased). Unfortunately, combine that with a highly-effective public transport system and you end up with most people never taking advantage of them.
As far as big cities go, Paris is comparatively small - there is absolutely no need for those big shiny open-roofed sight-seeing buses.
Posted by: Chris at Jul 12, 2008 7:25:23 AM
Tyler refers to Los Angeles as 'an underrated walking city'. As an LA resident, and one who loves walking around, I'm curious to know what was meant by that comment. Unfortunately, I don't actually think it's even remotely possible to survive in Los Angeles without a vehicle, and walking to most places is completely out of the question. However, if there are fantastic walking opportunities that I don't know about, I'd love to hear about them. So what makes LA an 'underrated walking city'?
Posted by: at Jul 12, 2008 8:04:10 AM
I was just in Buenos Aires and agree it is a really terrific walking city, though not for the faint at heart. Some points worth noting:
--on some days it is very clean, some days very polluted; possibly depends on the time of year
--dog poop is definitely a problem
--it can get extremely crowded, especially on the subway, but also on the streets
--cafes everywhere make it easy to stop when you get tired
--many winter days are quite pleasant and you can sit outside
--Time Out guide for B.A. was terrific (Thanks Tyler!); I think a new (2008) edition just came out
On a separate note, Montreal is a great biking town as well; there is a wonderful canal easily accessible from downtown. We started int he French Quarter.
Posted by: Frank at Jul 12, 2008 11:01:28 AM
doesn't this kind of be the question? You are against government intervention. How do we get these great walking citites (or interesting cities in general) without a heavy government hand. Been to Dallas or Houston lately?Suburban Sprawl is the result of a heavy governement hand in the form of restrictive zoning regulation, not of laissez faire. Scrap the zoning regulations and introduce road pricing and laissez faire would soon lead to densification and increasing walkability.
Posted by: Ethnic Austrian at Jul 12, 2008 12:05:38 PM
