# Cities with the most pedestrianized streets



## Truepioneer (Feb 25, 2007)

Can anyone provide a list?

Cheers


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

Certanly not the city I'm currently living in. 


... seriously, it should be some European cities I guess.


----------



## jeicow (Jul 18, 2005)

If Ihad to pick one it'd be Venice, but I think that's cheating in a way


----------



## EricIsHim (Jun 16, 2003)

Old European cities'


----------



## Cosmin (Mar 1, 2007)

Venice, The City of San Marino and the rest of the municipalities in San Marino, Vatican City, Vaduz, Andorra la Vella and many other very small cities, of course. Sighişoara, in Romania can also be on the list. But I don't have any numbers for any of them.

It's really hard to say...


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

pics plz.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Las Vegas and New York


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

alex537 said:


> Las Vegas and New York


The pedestrian activity in LV is usually in the city centre like The Strip or downtown. I visited a friend of mine living in the suburbs and the streets there are pretty empty except the cars. 

Here are some cities I've been to where there are alot of pedestrian activity

Hong Kong (where I'm from)
Tokyo
Shanghai
Manila
Singapore
London
Paris
New York
San Francisco


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Busan, South Korea* has huge pedestrianized street markets, which sell everything from bolts and screws to seafood. Street market culture is heavily engrained there, even moreso than Seoul.


----------



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

alex537 said:


> Las Vegas and New York


Las vegas?? more than half the people are walking inside the Hotels and attractions. The sunset strip is for driving. Most of the shops and restaurants would be found inside a the Hotels.....


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Joey313 said:


> Las vegas?? more than half the people are walking inside the Hotels and attractions. The sunset strip is for driving. Most of the shops and restaurants would be found inside a the Hotels.....


Yes The Strip is for driving but the area has alot of pedestrian activity especially at night. Walking in Vegas is better nightime or daytime during winters. Summers there can get really hot like 38C


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

- deleted -


----------



## Cristovão471 (May 9, 2006)

Some streets coming off Madrid's Puerta del sol are crazy, like a sea of people.


----------



## Blue_Sky (Jul 5, 2005)

It should be somewhere in East Asia or Europe


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Blue_Sky said:


> It should be somewhere in East Asia or Europe


South American cities also have high pedestrian activity such as Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenos Aires and Caracas.


----------



## Energy2003 (Jun 13, 2007)

San Marino i wouldn´t think. 

maybe Vatican  but that doesn´t count

i found something interesting: 
http://www.autofrei-wohnen.de/projects.html

doesn´t match the thread-theme 100% but has to to do with parts of towns builded without and not for cars


----------



## AMS guy (Jun 27, 2003)

I think Venice and other old Italian cities have the biggest amount of pedestrianized streets. But I've also seen many pedestrian zones in Stockholm, Copenhagen and in Dutch cities.


----------



## Blue_Sky (Jul 5, 2005)

WANCH said:


> South American cities also have high pedestrian activity such as Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenos Aires and Caracas.


But do you think they can beat tokyo, seoul or taipei???
I dont think so


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Chinese cities have placed a focus on pedestrianized streets in the city centres, and they are common among the large cities. Here are the ones I have been to :
Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Guilin, Beijing, Wuxi, etc.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Seoul's* pedestrianized street markets :

Namdaemun










Myeongdong










Insadong's alleys


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

^^ Seoul market is 24 hours open. Surprisengly (not much really) judging by the extensive amount of Russian language tags, Russians were frequent clients in there. I've visited the Busan market as well but I dislike fish smell so it wasn't very pleasant for me.


----------



## fredcalif (Dec 3, 2003)

IN Europe I would said is Madrid.

I have never seen so many people in the streets like I saw in Madrid, even at 3 am. much more than any city in America.

But I guess Hong Kong and some asian cities take this one easy


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

*Hong Kong*


----------



## cjfjapan (Oct 10, 2004)

Of the cities I've visited, I'd say Busan and Tokyo; In Tokyo, some of the major streets are closed on Sundays for pedestrians; others are purely pedestrian streets, especially near the largest stations.


----------



## SuburbanWalker (Jun 23, 2007)

Historical centres of European cities typically have a lot of pedestrianised streets. The combination of narrow streets with a heavy concentration of leisure and tourism usually makes this desirable.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Blue_Sky said:


> But do you think they can beat tokyo, seoul or taipei???
> I dont think so


There's *no* competition here and it doesn't mean that Tokyo or any other Asian city can have more pedestrian activity compared to Latin American cities or vice versa. But one thing, these cities have a higher activity compared to most US cities.

Here's how I see US cities when it comes to pedestrian activity

*Maximum activity (high pedestrian activity in almost every part of the city excluding suburban areas)*
New York City
San Francisco
Boston
Washington D.C.

*Moderate activity (high pedestrian activity in the city centre and some parts of the city)*
Los Angeles
Chicago
Miami

*Low activity (high pedestrian activity only in the city centre)*
Seattle
Atlanta
San Antonio
Las Vegas
New Orleans


----------



## SuburbanWalker (Jun 23, 2007)

A city like NYC has huge pedestrian "activity" but hardly any pedestrianized streets. Wall Street was the only car-free zone I can think of. Washington DC doesn't have any pedestrianized streets at all AFAIK.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I don't think the road closures in Lower Manhattan around the NYSE was meant to boost pedestrian activity, but rather to enforce security. There is a very big pedestrian street in Little Italy where all the cafes are. Quite a big contrast to neighboring Chinatown.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> I don't think the road closures in Lower Manhattan around the NYSE was meant to boost pedestrian activity, but rather to enforce security. There is a very big pedestrian street in Little Italy where all the cafes are. Quite a big contrast to neighboring Chinatown.


I noticed that too when I was there.

New York still has the highest pedestrian activity than any other US city. When I look at it. Usually those with efficient transportation system and low car culture have a higher pedestrian activity.


----------



## SuburbanWalker (Jun 23, 2007)

hkskyline said:


> I don't think the road closures in Lower Manhattan around the NYSE was meant to boost pedestrian activity, but rather to enforce security. There is a very big pedestrian street in Little Italy where all the cafes are. Quite a big contrast to neighboring Chinatown.


I didn't think the exact purpose of installing the car-free zone was relevant.  Though I suppose the section of E street NW in front of the White House counts as pedestrianised as well then.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

i don't know if i would say SF is a maximum activity city. most of the city is pretty dead once you leave certain areas. i mean, there's more than other american cities, but it's not really comparable to NYC, IMO.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

foadi said:


> i don't know if i would say SF is a maximum activity city. most of the city is pretty dead once you leave certain areas. i mean, there's more than other american cities, but it's not really comparable to NYC, IMO.


When I was there the city was pretty vibrant. Alot of pedestrian activity happening especially in Market St., Financial District, Haight-Ashbury, Fisherman's Wharf, etc. I'm talking about SF, not the whole Bay Area. You can still find some ped activity in cities like Berkeley.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

i walked across sf two weeks ago. got off the bart at embarcdero and walked to the beach on the other side. once i left market street (at around the civic center) it was pretty dead until haight-ashbury. i walked along the south side of that big park and it was dead for like 5 km. maybe one person every few minutes, which is comparable to most US cities.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

foadi said:


> i walked across sf two weeks ago. got off the bart at embarcdero and walked to the beach on the other side. once i left market street (at around the civic center) it was pretty dead until haight-ashbury. i walked along the south side of that big park and it was dead for like 5 km. maybe one person every few minutes, which is comparable to most US cities.


There are certain parts of SF that are pretty dead but its the same with NY (including Manhattan) and in some instances, HK as well especially in residential areas.

But the inactive areas in SF only cover a short area compared to other major cities like Los Angeles.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> I noticed that too when I was there.
> 
> New York still has the highest pedestrian activity than any other US city. When I look at it. Usually those with efficient transportation system and low car culture have a higher pedestrian activity.


Keep in mind New York is a large city, so based on pure numbers alone I won't be surprised their pedestrian volumes will be large. However, the busiest pedestrian zones in the city (ie. Fifth Avenue, Times Square) are actually not too bad by international standards (ie. vs. Tokyo).

An efficient public transportation system with large coverage as in New York actually reduces pedestrian activity. People can easily pop underground to get onto the subway, reducing the need to walk to places.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Is this thread about "Pedestrian Activity" or "Pedestrian Streets"? From the posts author, I would hazzard a guess at the 2nd... but I could be wrong.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Keep in mind New York is a large city, so based on pure numbers alone I won't be surprised their pedestrian volumes will be large. However, the busiest pedestrian zones in the city (ie. Fifth Avenue, Times Square) are actually not too bad by international standards (ie. vs. Tokyo).
> 
> An efficient public transportation system with large coverage as in New York actually reduces pedestrian activity. People can easily pop underground to get onto the subway, reducing the need to walk to places.


US-wise, LA is also a large city but they lack the pedestrian activity NY has. It's because car culture is more evident there and the lack of efficiency in public transportation. Also, public transportation doesn't cover much of the city. They have a Metro system but its limited.

NY may have an efficient public transportation system but one of the reason why pedestrian activity is high is because of the high concentration of commercial areas like shops, markets, etc. It would be the same in HK. You would find high ped activity in commericial areas but it residential areas say, Pok Fu Lam, streets there are pretty empty.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> US-wise, LA is also a large city but they lack the pedestrian activity NY has. It's because car culture is more evident there and the lack of efficiency in public transportation. Also, public transportation doesn't cover much of the city. They have a Metro system but its limited.
> 
> NY may have an efficient public transportation system but one of the reason why pedestrian activity is high is because of the high concentration of commercial areas like shops, markets, etc. It would be the same in HK. You would find high ped activity in commericial areas but it residential areas say, Pok Fu Lam, streets there are pretty empty.


Actually, retail concentration in Manhattan is far worse than in suburban areas, because big box stores now cover the suburban landscape and offer a concentrated environment for people to fulfill their shopping needs. In the traditional city development model, retail is more spread out. They tend to spread horizontally, sitting on street level below residential and commercial buildings. It's hard to find a Home Depot and a Whole Foods in the same plaza, and malls are not that abundant in Manhattan. This also applies to Hong Kong. City centre retail is scattered. People ought to do a bit of travelling to get their groceries, and more travelling for other things. It's a bit easier living in the suburbs since a multi-storey mall or a huge big box compound are close by.

High pedestrian activity in city centre zones stems from commercial activity. People come out for lunch, and after the business day is over, it's deserted. It depends what you're looking at, but conceptually you should not mix residential and commercial-related pedestrian activity together, since they are driven by very different factors. So it's logically incorrect to compare Central to Pok Fu Lam or Manhattan to Hoboken. 

In fact, in high-end areas such as Pok Fu Lam, people are more likely to drive *despite* good public transportation. Hence, the streets won't be busy. Switch to another residential area, such as North Point, and there will be a lot more pedestrian traffic as the middle class go about getting their groceries among other routines. The activity is driven by the residentials in the area. In Central, the activity is driven by the commercial offices. When the economy wanes, the commercial offices will drive less activity in Central, but might not necessarily decrease the activity in the residential areas since people still live there and have to eat.


----------

