Wednesday, January 14th, 2009...3:39 pm
Study Shows Seattle is Suited For Urban Hiking
And I thought it was just me. I’m reading a book right now that references a 2003 study on the cities best suited for walking. The study from Public Health is titled Is Suburban Living Making You Sick? In the study these cities are cited as those best suited for walking.
- Boston
- Chicago
- New York
- San Francisco
- Seattle
Although I’ve never been to Chicago, I have been to those other cities. On trips to Boston, San Francisco and New York, I did long urban hikes. Those cities, as well as my home of Seattle, just invite walking and exploration.
MAS in Boston on an urban hike (2005)
The cities slammed in the study were:
- Atlanta
- Houston
- Phoenix
I’ve not been to Houston, but I will say I did not want to get out of my car on my trips to Atlanta and Phoenix. The study also states that an average adult in Atlanta has the health profile of someone 4 years older living in Seattle.
Of all the cities I’ve traveled to, Seattle is by far the best for urban hiking. San Francisco would be second.
2 Comments
January 15th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
It’s been way too long since I’ve been to Boston and I’ve also never been to Chicago, but I definitely love walking around San Francisco, Seattle and New York.
I think which is best would depend on your perspective a bit. If you’re walking just to explore, Seattle certainly has a lot of interesting and scenic neighborhoods, but for convenience as a primary method of transportation, New York really lets you get anywhere in the city by mixing up the walking with subway rides.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I love walking around Seattle. I work downtown and a “treat” myself with a walk when I have to work late. Up over capital hill, down the waterfront, over to the new Lake Union park – it’s all great. I know there are some places I wouldn’t want to walk through but there really are dozens of beautiful neighborhoods just waiting for you to wander around in.
Leave a Reply