This reminds me of an article I read a few years ago, which talked about cities designed for walking.* Most cities have a code that requires that every new dev

This reminds me of an article I read a few years ago, which talked about cities designed for walking.* Most cities have a code that requires that every new development must supply X number of parking spaces per Y square feet of land. However, all these required parking spaces spread out a city's points of interest. By requiring fewer if any parking spaces, some cities were able to achieve a higher density of points of interest. By two points of interest being closer, they are therefor more walkable. The article mentioned San Francisco as an example of a city that doesn't require many parking spaces, and consequently it is rated as the most walkable city in the U.S. Personally, I always walk when I go to San Francisco. That's partly because it is so walkable (my points of interest are usually near Market St or along the waterfront), but also because it's impossible to park there. I often won't go to San Francisco if I want to stay out later than the public transit (BART) runs, because it's usually too much of a hassle to park. That second reason is the point of Slate's article. * I would post a link to the article I read, but I couldn't find it after a few minutes on Google.