Study Reveals World’s Most Walkable Cities

[Quixote]

Walkability is a function of both urban design and access to amenities (public and private; necessary and luxury). When laid out like that, Paris is the holy grail... and it's not even close. You have 2.2 million across a 42-square-mile expanse, and everyone is within like 6-7 minutes of a Metro station. And unlike most of Greater London, NYC (minus Manhattan and the best parts of Brooklyn), and certainly SF, Chicago, Philly, Boston, DC, etc., no large sections of the city feel sparse or remotely more or as equally accommodating to vehicles as pedestrians.

[dc_denizen]

I don’t agree. The long nearly identical Parisian blocks are wearisome for pedestrians

The uniformity of the blocks , while pretty , is a bit monotonous

London and New York have better fine grained urbanity and much more variety than Paris , and it makes ones walking a bit more enjoyable

[Crawford]

I think the Haussmann-era boulevards are arguably not that walker friendly. They're too wide and traffic-choked, and they're loud and polluted with the endless drone from the diesel motorbikes. Still better than the early 20th century Roman boulevards, though, which are truly unpleasant.

However, the pre-Haussmann Parisian streetscape is as good as it gets. And that's most of Paris. And I enjoy long strolls on the Haussmann-era boulevards late at night, when traffic is minimal.

[JManc]

Like NY and London, you just use subway entrances to sidestep (and go under) large boulevards and busy streets in Paris. Never had any issues there.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I don’t agree. The long nearly identical Parisian blocks are wearisome for pedestrians

The uniformity of the blocks , while pretty , is a bit monotonous

London and New York have better fine grained urbanity and much more variety than Paris , and it makes ones walking a bit more enjoyable

In what world, what universe does New York have more fine grained urbanism than Paris? In New York every street is wide and exactly the same, full of grids of identical repeating blocks like a typical US city.

I mean this is just pure delusions. Wide and traffic choked describes every single road in New York.

[dc_denizen]

Lol, never been to the village or manhattan below midtown it seems

New York has skyscraper architecture from 130 years , brownstones , Art Deco , modern , beaux arts , apartments , highrises , midrises , lowrises ..

The variety (like London ) is incredible

The problem with central Paris is the boulevards all have the same architecture and all look the same. The federal district in dc suffers from a similar problem

[The North One]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Lol, never been to the village or manhattan below midtown it seems

New York has skyscraper architecture from 130 years , brownstones , Art Deco , modern , beaux arts , apartments , highrises , midrises , lowrises ..

The variety (like London ) is incredible

The problem with Paris is the boulevards all have the same architecture and all look the same

New York has little remnants of the old city left, I'm aware. But that does not apply to the other 95% of the place.

To say you don't like monotonous architecture in Paris is one thing, but what you said about urbanism was just wrong. And Haussmann's renovation is some of the best urban planning on earth. Paris was an awful slum shanty-town before it happened.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Walkability is a function of both urban design and access to amenities (public and private; necessary and luxury). When laid out like that, Paris is the holy grail... and it's not even close. You have 2.2 million across a 42-square-mile expanse, and everyone is within like 6-7 minutes of a Metro station. And unlike most of Greater London, NYC (minus Manhattan and the best parts of Brooklyn), and certainly SF, Chicago, Philly, Boston, DC, etc., no large sections of the city feel sparse or remotely more or as equally accommodating to vehicles as pedestrians.

Paris is pretty car friendly for urban Europe. Its backstreets are full of curb cuts and hidden garages. Still, the overall urban fabric is among the best in the world.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Walkability is a function of both urban design and access to amenities (public and private; necessary and luxury). When laid out like that, Paris is the holy grail... and it's not even close. You have 2.2 million across a 42-square-mile expanse, and everyone is within like 6-7 minutes of a Metro station. And unlike most of Greater London, NYC (minus Manhattan and the best parts of Brooklyn), and certainly SF, Chicago, Philly, Boston, DC, etc., no large sections of the city feel sparse or remotely more or as equally accommodating to vehicles as pedestrians.

Yes, but I don't think it's fair to compare Paris to London or NYC. The city of Paris is more analogous to Manhattan or Central London. In that context, Paris is good, but it's not that spectacular. And it doesn't hold up well against Manhattan.

(If you really want to argue, I'd say Paris is somewhere between Brooklyn and Manhattan on the urbanity scale.)

[dc_denizen]

Anyhow Barcelona has the best combination of walkability and architecture in Europe

Paris tore down its equivalent of the gothic quarter. And I like the square blocks of leixample more than Haussmanns long boulevards

[Minato Ku]

The pre-haussmann streets are still dominant in Central Paris
Haussmann just dug streets though existing districts but it didn't destroys the whole districts.

Here a view of the Sentier district, north of Les Halles.

Actually the large Boulevard in the north is also pre-Haussmann, the Grands Boulevards are where was the former wall of Paris until the end of the 17th century.
The large street (Rue Reaumur) in the south is an Haussmann planned street (even if tis part was built later).
The big boulevard on the east (Boulevard de Sebastopol) was built during Haussmann.
The central two narrow diagonal streets (Rue de Clery and Rue d'Aboukir) are the result of the former wall built in 14th century and demolished in the 17th century.
The wider diagonal street on the left (Rue Montmartre). is just the irregular path of the historic way linking Paris (Les Halles) to Montmartre. It wasn't part of Paris until 1860 when Haussmann enlarged the city limit.


Plan Paris Bonne Nouvelle Reaumur by Minato ku, sur Flickr

It's not nearly as comparable as Washington DC when it comes to regularity.

Plan DC 12th 13th 14th E F H by Minato ku, sur Flickr
The two previous pictures are at the same scale.


Also note that what is facing the street in Paris is just a part of the story, there are other buildings hidden behind.

Plan Paris Bonne Nouvelle/Poissonniere by Minato ku, sur Flickr


Rue des Jeuneurs by Minato ku, sur Flickr

[dc_denizen]

I think that's a little bit apples to oranges

DC's equivalent neighborhoods to the middle fine-grained one would be

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

whereas the somewhat monotonous Parisian boulevards I was mentioning would be

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...14!4d2.3522219

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...14!4d2.3522219

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...14!4d2.3522219

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...14!4d2.3522219

does this look pedestrian friendly? this is like walking around the Mall on DC.

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8649...7i16384!8i8192

basically vast areas of Paris (while beautiful and absolutely urban) look exactly the same. not a criticism necessarily, but it's a feature of the city nonetheless and differentiate it from chaotic London and certainly New York.

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8746...7i16384!8i8192

That area south of Pigalle and the hill up to Montmartre is indeed some nice fine grained urbanity, some of my favorite parts of Paris. that, and the 14th.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I don’t agree. The long nearly identical Parisian blocks are wearisome for pedestrians

The uniformity of the blocks , while pretty , is a bit monotonous

London and New York have better fine grained urbanity and much more variety than Paris , and it makes ones walking a bit more enjoyable

London has a pretty uniform scale, although more varietal vernacular. Central London can feel sparse in many areas because of the townhome (e.g. "flats") neighborhoods; Greater London overall feels much more diluted because it is so sprawling.

With NYC, Manhattan's largely regular grid and numbered street system makes the pedestrian experience less interesting, and the fringes (1st-2nd, 8th-10th Avenues) aren't enjoyable at all. Let's not even invoke Brooklyn, let alone Queens.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Paris is pretty car friendly for urban Europe. Its backstreets are full of curb cuts and hidden garages. Still, the overall urban fabric is among the best in the world.

You just provided a link to an example that is the exact opposite of what I would call car-friendly. I don't see any of the large curb cuts or subterranean parking garage access you speak of.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, but I don't think it's fair to compare Paris to London or NYC. The city of Paris is more analogous to Manhattan or Central London. In that context, Paris is good, but it's not that spectacular. And it doesn't hold up well against Manhattan.

(If you really want to argue, I'd say Paris is somewhere between Brooklyn and Manhattan on the urbanity scale.)

How does Paris not "hold up well" against Manhattan? Paris is twice the size of Manhattan (a sizable chunk of which is Central Park, so not all of the 23 square miles are urban landscape), has much better rapid transit coverage, and combines the grandeur + intensity of Manhattan and the intimacy + spontaneity of Central London... all over an enormously contiguous 42-square-mile expanse (Central London only covers about 10 square miles) uninterrupted by highways or wide railway ROWs.

London as a whole is actually not that car-unfriendly, and the same can be said for NYC to a much lesser degree. I read an article in the NYT a few months back about how the MTA was planning to install dedicated BRT lanes in Queens and the pushback that proposal received from business owners, one of whom said something to the effect of, "This is Queens. People here drive." And it only takes a quick examination of Queens on Google Street View to see that most of it is pretty accommodating of vehicles. Hell, you don't even have to go far into Brooklyn to find pockets that feel sparse and littered with what are obviously private vehicles.

I don't know what the numbers are (nor do I care to take the time to look them up), but I would not be at all surprised to find out if 20-25% of all NYC households owned a car.

[JManc]

The hidden 'garages' in Paris were actually from the horse and carriage era and retrofitted for modern parking. Most people still rely on cars and Paris does a pretty good job accommodating without sacrificing urbanity. with Same thing with San Francisco with what looks like garages retrofitted/added to older/ pre-war houses and apartment buildings.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

How does Paris not "hold up well" against Manhattan? Paris is twice the size of Manhattan (a sizable chunk of which is Central Park, so not all of the 23 square miles are urban landscape), has much better rapid transit coverage, and combines the grandeur + intensity of Manhattan and the intimacy + spontaneity of Central London... all over an enormously contiguous 42-square-mile expanse (Central London only covers about 10 square miles) uninterrupted by highways or wide railway ROWs.

You don't seem particularly familiar with any of these three cities. Like you don't even understand the basic layouts and comparative differences.

Paris doesn't have a larger core than London, and certainly doesn't have a larger core than NYC. Paris proper absolutely has highways and wide railway ROWs. Like massive rail yards. The largest park in Paris proper is nearly 3x larger than the largest park in Manhattan.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You don't seem particularly familiar with any of these three cities. Like you don't even understand the basic layouts and comparative differences.

Paris doesn't have a larger core than London, and certainly doesn't have a larger core than NYC. Paris proper absolutely has highways and wide railway ROWs. Like massive rail yards. The largest park in Paris proper is nearly 3x larger than the largest park in Manhattan.

Who said anything about cores, and what does that have to do with walkability?

In the end, you, me, and pretty much everyone else here feels confident in judging other cities based on what Google Street View shows us. So I don't need to be schooled on the "basic layouts" of three prominent world cities when all I can do and, all I did do, was reference Google Street View from the start. I will admit, I didn't catch that Bois de Boulogne was in Paris proper; and I'm willing to walk back my rail yards comment.

Back to what I was saying:

Paris is 42 square miles of mostly fine-grained urbanism. Almost all narrow streets, no setbacks, very few curb cuts, and a Metro station within a 6-7-minute (certainly 10) walk of anywhere you want to drop the Google Street View guy/gal. It's dense, beautiful, and vibrant throughout, with nowhere that I can find feeling like a lonely, sparse "no-man's land."

What about any of that do you disagree with, other than the fact that I don't believe the same can be said for your city?

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I think that's a little bit apples to oranges

DC's equivalent neighborhoods to the middle fine-grained one would be

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...!4d-77.0368707

No it isn't, my example is a commercial district in the heart of Central Paris (2nd arrondissement). Many office buildings, high density of jobs, high mixity of use, lots of shops, restaurants.
I think it's pretty comparable with Downtown DC around Metro Center and Chinatown stations.

You can't compare it with residential neighborhoods of Washington DC located more in the periphery of inner city.
A little area 3d view in the middle of your first example clearly shows the difference.


DC S st by Minato ku, sur Flickr
To compare to those kind of area, I would have to show neighborhoods located in the periphery of double digit arrondissements or inner suburbs.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

whereas the somewhat monotonous Parisian boulevards I was mentioning would be

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...14!4d2.3522219

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...14!4d2.3522219

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...14!4d2.3522219

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...14!4d2.3522219

Execpt the big boulevard/avenue/street in the middle, most of the streets are smaller around.

Even in the first example around Avenue de la Grande Armée, there are still plenty of smaller streets around.
This example is interesting because it isn't a old pre industrial area, most of this neighbourhood was farmland until the mid/late 19th century.

Anyway I have yet to find any functioning big city without some kind of large boulevards.

[Ant131531]

My biggest problem wth Philly(I know people were talking about this city pages back) is the lack of greenery in much of the denser rowhouse neighborhoods. So much of it comes across as banal and lacking life. Philly is one city that I think can use a two or three decade tree planting initiative....the trees don't even have to be big, but something that sort of breaks up the monotony. Trees only seem to exist in the most posh neighborhoods hugging the Center City area. I can't imagine what walking through a lot of city is like when a summer heatwave comes through.