SFist: Nobody Walks in L.A., but Everyone Walks in San Francisco

Tag

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:47:31 -0800

It would appear that this list treats "walking" as a recreational/fitness activity, as in "I think I'll drive out to the trails and go for a walk." Some of the criteria are "beautiful places to walk," "parks per square mile," and "percent of population that buys athletic shoes." Athletic shoes?

Austin

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:17:05 -0800

This list is terrible. San Diego and San Jose in the top 10? Both are incredibly sprawling outside of their downtown areas (ie where people live). The rest of the list doesn't inspire confidence either, with cities like Oakland and Denver in the top 50. You poke fun at LA, but it's in there at #61. And LA area Long Beach, Anaheim, Riverside and Santa Ana also made the list. It sounds like podiatrists who cite research from the American Podiatric Medical Association should be avoided.

joejoe

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:33:21 -0800

jon, why are you so obsessed with LA?

Peter

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:09:13 -0800

sf is small and compact? spoken like someone who never tried to walk the city.

josh

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:44:38 -0800

This Top 10 List would make my Top 10 Worst Top 10 Lists Ever List.

Ron S

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:26:37 -0800

I don't buy into a lot of these top 10 lists, because of their methodology. It makes sense that they use some kind of formula so they can be objective, but those formulas often uses questionable weightings and a weird mash-up of criteria. For instance, crime is a factor, but what if a city's high crime rate is outside the walkable areas? It's factors like this that cause weird results like San Jose ranking #8 and NYC #39. They also end up including too many cities. It just doesn't make much sense to compare places like Henderson, NV and Bismarck, ND to NYC. They may all be "cities" in the official Census sense, but...

kevin bracken

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:33:39 -0800

I took issue with this entire list. That Oakland ranks anywhere near New York is offensive at best. While the latter is incredibly dense with wide sidewalks and an abundance of parks, plazas and public destinations, the former is, uh, Oakland. And you nailed it, the topography of San Francisco makes its rank questionable: a walkable city should be walkable for the elderly and the disabled, which San Francisco is certainly not. Indeed, one is often tempted to walk around hills, even if it adds an hour on to your journey.

J. beaman

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:40:23 -0800

Tatoo! Gonarehea!

J

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:20:21 -0800

NYC is #39?? I get that the air sucks, the weather isn't too great about 6 months of the year, and people are more likely to take public transportation than walk to work but still...

uglypilgrim

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:13:18 -0800

Austin?! Are they serious? Certain neighborhoods may be walkable, but you have to get on one of their many freeways to go across town.

bill

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:26:42 -0800

Have you guys ever heard of SPELL CHECK? Gonarehea? Are you kidding me? Not even close. Gonorrhea. I mean, I know you may not have a budget for a proofreader, but SPELL CHECK comes free with all word processing programs...