Free daily briefing on global business news.
Some of the easiest cities to explore on foot never crack the top lists. Skyscanner ranks 10 under-the-radar destinations built for walking in 2026
Rebecca Winter / Unsplash
Getting around a new city usually means picking between a few flawed options. A taxi gets stuck in traffic, a metro system takes explaining nobody has offered yet, or a long walk turns into a slog because two "nearby" landmarks turn out to be 40 minutes apart. Cities that avoid this problem tend to share a few traits. Their historic cores stay compact, their major sights sit within a reasonable stroll of each other, and their streets don't force pedestrians to dodge six lanes of traffic every few blocks. None of that happens by accident. It usually comes down to a city's layout, its elevation, its air quality and even its crime rate, all of which shape whether a place is genuinely pleasant to explore on foot rather than merely survivable.
That combination of factors is starting to matter more in how people choose where to go next. Flight-search data increasingly shows travelers drifting away from the handful of famous European capitals that dominate every "best city break" roundup, toward smaller, less congested alternatives that still deliver a full day of sightseeing without ever needing a rental car. Population density and pollution levels play a bigger role in that shift than most travelers realize. A city can have all the right landmarks and still feel exhausting to explore if its sidewalks are narrow, its air is thick with smog, or its crowds turn every street into a scrum. The cities picking up interest for exactly this reason tend to be smaller, quieter and, in more than one case, cities most travelers couldn't have placed on a map a few years ago.
