If it's an hour to the grocery store I don't think that's walkable either

A walkable city means everything, including the grocery store, is a conveniently walkable distance away, which would automatically make it bikeable, too. An hour's walk to the grocery store does not a walkable city make.

I feel it's hard to find places which are walkable but not bikeable (outside of the USA)

A walkable grocery store is at max a 10-15 mins from the house (in my opinion). This allows you to just pop in and buy stuff while coming from the public transport stop without having to schedule big trips for the entire week/month.

carrying bags for over an hour is not fun.

I hate to break it to you, but if you have to walk an hour to buy groceries you’re not living in a walkable city.

Yes, there will be plenty of place for outdoor seating space and shade from trees and water and stuff once there no cars in the cities (and countries). Also good public transport if it's a bad knee day.

I still sometimes ask myself what was wrong with the web forum that it needed to be replaced by modern "social media" formats...

Sure, but walking/biking to the local rapid station to then walk to your job is much better than taking 24 steps from your home to your car. And then if you decide to go out for lunch at work, you can walk a block over to a cafe or deli and then walk back. If you have a local produce shop that's a 15 minute walk from your home, you will likely prefer walking out there 3 times a week for groceries than driving out to a grocery shop once a week. Lots of little walks and rides add up to make you much healthier than the sedentary lifestyle encouraged by suburban life.

Nope, in walkable cities all desks have little treadmills under them.

They're not affordable, sadly. Walkable cities are so amazingly great that people will pay a lot of money to live in them. And they have to, because the demand is huge, but they're illegal to build, so the supply is tiny.

In short, Americans are dumb.

I'm not sure I could name 5, period

bear in mind that american "cities" are basically small countries, i'm sure there's at least a hundred "towns" or districts of "cities" that are walkable and affordable, but the "cities" are so stupid huge that they have a bunch of variation in them.

Chicago is really affordable for its size IMO. At least comparatively I guess.

Pennsylvania's got you covered with Pittsburgh and Philly.

Pittsburgh has great walking but its transit is quite limited. Philly has good transit (for USA).

Both very affordable compared to other cities.

Chicago is pretty similar to Philly in terms of affordability, walkability and transit.

It's not really a "walkable" city if you are getting ass-blastes by the sun in the middle of summer. My small town is definitely a walkable city and has trees lining pretty much every street since something has ro go between the road and the sidewalk.

Trees are ideal because they:

• Will stop a car dead in its tracks if it drifts towards the sidewalk Produce shade to keep the surrounding area cool Are natural sound insulation (my town is on a busy cargo rail line and i never hear trains in the summer, but hear them frequently in the winter when the trees are bare) reduce pollution and increase air quality

Any town that is trying to become more walkable will put trees everywhere they are a cheap and easy way to make everything more pleasant.

It's very difficult to take these questions/criticisms seriously when I live this everyday