Recent research by Preply has ascertained a list of the most walkable cities in Europe, based on the distance required to walk between that city’s five most-highly rated tourist attractions.  Top of the list comes Seville, which has only a mile, or 2,100 steps, between Seville Cathedral, the Real Alcázar, Plaza de España, La Giralda, and the Barrio Santa Cruz district.  Cities making up the rest of the Top Five include Venice, Porto, Florence, and Athens.  At the other end of the scale, the least walkable cities include Lisbon, Zagreb, and Hamburg.

I find the research interesting, but I have a few issues.

Firstly… Venice?  The second most walkable city?  Okay, if measured in pure distance but, as anyone who has ever visited Venice will know, your walk will be at a snail’s pace, following the same few streets behind a horde of similarly slow-moving fellow-travellers.

Also, the parameters as specified by the research means that the data can be easily skewed by a single outlier.  Just one top-rated attraction lying outside the bounds of the city centre would be enough to adversely affect that city’s rank on the list.

However, I have a much bigger beef with the survey than these minor quibbles.  Preply’s idea of most walkable is somewhere that means you walk the least distance.  Is that a definition of most walkable, or least walkable?  Personally, I like walking.  I don’t want the shortest walk; I am looking for the most interesting walk.  I don’t want to have a gentle amble for a measly mile; I want to be out tramping for an entire day until the leather of my shoes is hot and my feet are tired.

Next stop Lisbon then.

© E. C. Glendenny

If E. C. Glendenny were ever to put her best foot forward she would be long-jumping.