The study ranked the cities on 30 measures, ranging from the cardiovascular disease death rate to the percent of residents who bike or walk to work. Forbes.com published an overview of the results.

According to the index, Washington, D.C., residents are healthier than other Americans for a number of reasons. They have increased access to farmers’ markets, at 13 per 1 million residents, compared to a national average of 11. Fewer residents smoke and have diabetes, and nearly 90% have health insurance compared to a national average of 86%.

Still, Thompson was surprised to see the city rank first for the second consecutive year. “[It] is not mentioned in discussions of cities that have a strong fitness orientation,” he says. But the data demonstrated only a handful of weaknesses, most of them having to do with the limited number of recreational facilities.

Well, if Washington, D.C., was an unexpected contender, some of the other top cities are not as much of a surprise. The rest of the top 10 are: Minneapolis, Denver, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, San Diego, Austin and Virginia Beach. You can check out the entire list of 45 ranked metropolitan areas, or see a Forbes slide show of the cities.

What does it all mean in the end? Well, obviously, you can be fit anywhere. It’s a personal lifestyle choice. But this list does give you an idea of which regions care more about issues of health and lifestyle and thereby provide access to a more fitness friendly infrastructure. Just as with the list of bike-friendly cities that I recently covered, it’s one more piece of information if you’re looking to live in a place that shares some of your lifestyle values.

Not surprisingly, Amsterdam and several other European cities are near the top of the list. He also includes such places as Cape Town, South Africa, and Perth, Australia, as well as a half dozen North American entries. Here is a sampling of his “pedal heavens:”

Amsterdam, Netherlands – The “bicycling capital of Europe” tops many lists—including this one, it seems—as the most bike friendly city anywhere. Safe and extensive route networks, serious governmental promotion, and a bike culture that transcends class boundaries are all reasons why 40% of the city’s traffic moves on two wheels.

Copenhagen, Denmark – In the Danish capital, nearly a third of the workforce gets to the office by bike. By some estimates, that’s more than 1 million kilometers pedaled every day!

Portland, Oregon - … Most people consider the bike capital of the U.S. The only thing as impressive as Portland’s bicycle infrastructure (including a 260-mile network) and commuter stats (almost 10%, the highest in the country) is the camaraderie of its cyclist community.

Boulder, Colorado- Denver’s little hippy bro to the north dedicates 15% of its transportation budget to improving and promoting bicycle travel. Nearly every major roadway has a designated cycling area, and they’ve even instituted a pilot program to get kids biking to school.

See the entire article for descriptions of 11 other bike friendly cities.

As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.

Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called “smart planning.” …

While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs and focusing specifically on environmental benefits like reducing emissions. Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway.

I’m as guilty of anyone of living in a place where I need to drive my car for most errands, but I do love the thought of living somewhere more walkable and not being chained to an automobile. However, for an entire community to go without cars is certainly a big step. What do you think about it?

I recently came across a fascinating website called Walk Score - it ranks America’s most walkable cities and enables you to find the ”walk score” for your own neighborhood. Simply enter your address and it will create a map of all the stores, restaurants, schools, parks and libraries within walking distance of your home and then compute your walk score.

The benefits of living in a walkable environment are fairly obvious, and this is actually a nice follow-up to my last post, “Walk to school, save the planet.” But for what it’s worth, here is how Alan Durning explains the benefits on the Walk Score website:

Compact, walkable communities—the opposite of poorly planned sprawl—are the solution to some of our biggest shared challenges, from childhood obesity to social isolation, from crash deaths to disappearing farmland, from the high price of gas to the architectural blight of strip development.

They’re even one of our most powerful weapons against climate change—they conserve fossil fuels like nobody’s business. (It takes effort to burn gasoline when everything is so close to your front door.) But the main reason to love walkable neighborhoods is their human energy: they’re fun, lively, memorable…not boring.

Here is how they rank 138 “walker’s paradises” – the most walkable neighborhoods in the 40 biggest cities in the U.S. It’s a nice companion piece to Prevention magazine’s own rankings of the best walking cities, which includes such places as Cambridge, MA; Ann Arbor, MI, and Madison, WI, that don’t appear on the Walk Score rankings of larger cities. Between the two, you can come up with a comprehensive list of the best places to live if you enjoy walking and would rather not have to drive everywhere. In the meantime, go to Walk Score and find out how your neighborhood ranks.

Looking for happiness — it’s family-friendly communities for some, tropical paradise or the rugged West for others. A survey of Americans’ well-being … gives high marks to Utah, which boasts lots of outdoor recreation for its youthful population. Speaking of outdoor recreation, the islands of Hawaii took second place and Wyoming was third in the poll that rated such variables as mental, physical and economic health.

By the way, if you enjoy topics like this you might also like to read some other recent posts along these lines:

- Do cities have personality traits?

- The geography of the American mind

- The geography of personality

The Pew Research Center did an extensive study on where Americans would like to live, and the top three cities were Denver, San Diego and Seattle.  Next up were Orlando, Tampa and San Francisco. David Brooks wrote a recent column about this study and described what he saw as America’s geographic state of mind.

If you jumble together the five most popular American metro areas — Denver, San Diego, Seattle, Orlando and Tampa — you get an image of the American Dream circa 2009. These are places where you can imagine yourself with a stuffed garage — filled with skis, kayaks, soccer equipment, hiking boots and boating equipment. These are places you can imagine yourself leading an active outdoor lifestyle.

These are places (except for Orlando) where spectacular natural scenery is visible from medium-density residential neighborhoods, where the boundary between suburb and city is hard to detect. These are places with loose social structures and relative social equality, without the Ivy League status system of the Northeast or the star structure of L.A. These places are car-dependent and spread out, but they also have strong cultural identities and pedestrian meeting places. They offer at least the promise of friendlier neighborhoods, slower lifestyles and service-sector employment. They are neither traditional urban centers nor atomized suburban sprawl.

What do you think? Does it meet your definition of utopia?

“The mind is a limited machine,”says Marc Berman, a psychologist at the University of Michigan and lead author of a new study that measured the cognitive deficits caused by a short urban walk. “And we’re beginning to understand the different ways that a city can exceed those limitations.”

One of the main forces at work is a stark lack of nature, which is surprisingly beneficial for the brain. Studies have demonstrated, for instance, that hospital patients recover more quickly when they can see trees from their windows, and that women living in public housing are better able to focus when their apartment overlooks a grassy courtyard. Even these fleeting glimpses of nature improve brain performance, it seems, because they provide a mental break from the urban roil…

This research is also leading some scientists to dabble in urban design, as they look for ways to make the metropolis less damaging to the brain. The good news is that even slight alterations, such as planting more trees in the inner city or creating urban parks with a greater variety of plants, can significantly reduce the negative side effects of city life. The mind needs nature, and even a little bit can be a big help.

Yes, a little is good. But apparently, a lot is better. City parks are nice, but researchers have found considerably more benefit from a diverse park, such as Central Park in New York or the Emerald Necklace park series in Boston, than from a plain old green space dotted with a few trees and sports fields.

In a recent paper, Richard Fuller, an ecologist at the University of Queensland, demonstrated that the psychological benefits of green space are closely linked to the diversity of its plant life. When a city park has a larger variety of trees, subjects that spend time in the park score higher on various measures of psychological well-being, at least when compared with less biodiverse parks.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that we should all give up city life for a natural environment, though, because researchers have also found that dense urban spaces are hotbeds of creativity and innovation.

Recent research by scientists at the Santa Fe Institute used a set of complex mathematical algorithms to demonstrate that the very same urban features that trigger lapses in attention and memory — the crowded streets, the crushing density of people — also correlate with measures of innovation, as strangers interact with one another in unpredictable ways. It is the “concentration of social interactions” that is largely responsible for urban creativity, according to the scientists.

The density of 18th-century London may have triggered outbreaks of disease, but it also led to intellectual breakthroughs, just as the density of Cambridge — one of the densest cities in America — contributes to its success as a creative center. One corollary of this research is that less dense urban areas, like Phoenix, may, over time, generate less innovation.

The lesson, apparently, is that cities (especially dense cities) are good, but city dwellers need to take more breaks for nature.

Therefore, I read with interest this recent essay that I stumbled across by Paul Graham, titled “Cities and Ambition,” in which he discusses the characters and ambitions of various cities. An excerpt:

Great cities attract ambitious people. You can sense it when you walk around one. In a hundred subtle ways, the city sends you a message: you could do more; you should try harder.

The surprising thing is how different these messages can be. New York tells you, above all: you should make more money. There are other messages too, of course. You should be hipper. You should be better looking. But the clearest message is that you should be richer.

What I like about Boston (or rather Cambridge) is that the message there is: you should be smarter. You really should get around to reading all those books you’ve been meaning to.

When you ask what message a city sends, you sometimes get surprising answers. As much as they respect brains in Silicon Valley, the message the Valley sends is: you should be more powerful.

That’s not quite the same message New York sends. Power matters in New York too of course, but New York is pretty impressed by a billion dollars even if you merely inherited it. In Silicon Valley no one would care except a few real estate agents. What matters in Silicon Valley is how much effect you have on the world. The reason people there care about Larry and Sergey is not their wealth but the fact that they control Google, which affects practically everyone…

The big thing in LA seems to be fame. There’s an A List of people who are most in demand right now, and what’s most admired is to be on it, or friends with those who are. Beneath that the message is much like New York’s, though perhaps with more emphasis on physical attractiveness.

In DC the message seems to be that the most important thing is who you know. You want to be an insider. In practice this seems to work much as in LA. There’s an A List and you want to be on it or close to those who are. The only difference is how the A List is selected.

O.K., so cities have different characters. Does it matter, though, where you live? Well, it depends. According to Graham, it could matter a lot.

How much does it matter what message a city sends? Empirically, the answer seems to be: a lot. You might think that if you had enough strength of mind to do great things, you’d be able to transcend your environment…But if you look at the historical evidence, it seems to matter more than that. Most people who did great things were clumped together in a few places where that sort of thing was done at the time…

No matter how determined you are, it’s hard not to be influenced by the people around you. It’s not so much that you do whatever a city expects of you, but that you get discouraged when no one around you cares about the same things you do…

Even when a city is still a live center of ambition, you won’t know for sure whether its message will resonate with you till you hear it. When I moved to New York, I was very excited at first. It’s an exciting place. So it took me quite a while to realize I just wasn’t like the people there…You’ll probably have to figure out where to live by trial and error. You’ll probably have to find the city where you feel at home to know what sort of ambition you have.

What do you think?

The act of walking may also be helpful in much bigger ways. Paul Krugman has a column in today’s New York Times about the environmental and economic benefits of walking and of taking public transit, given fast-rising gas prices. He reported on the topic from Berlin, and had this to say:

Any serious reduction in American driving will require … changing how and where many of us live.  To see what I’m talking about, consider where I am at the moment: in a pleasant, middle-class neighborhood consisting mainly of four- or five-story apartment buildings, with easy access to public transit and plenty of local shopping.

It’s the kind of neighborhood in which people don’t have to drive a lot, but it’s also a kind of neighborhood that barely exists in America, even in big metropolitan areas. Greater Atlanta has roughly the same population as Greater Berlin — but Berlin is a city of trains, buses and bikes, while Atlanta is a city of cars, cars and cars.

And in the face of rising oil prices, which have left many Americans stranded in suburbia — utterly dependent on their cars, yet having a hard time affording gas — it’s starting to look as if Berlin had the better idea.

Now, of course, some U.S. cities are actually friendly to pedestrians. But which ones? Lucky for us, Prevention magazine has already done a study on this and ranked the best cities in the country (and in each state) based on which were the most walkable. 

In all, Prevention ranked 500 cities. Of these, the top five were Cambridge, Massachusetts; New York City, Ann Arbor, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. These just edged out San Francisco, Boston, Honolulu and a few other urban areas for the top spots. Other major cities that scored well include Philadelphia (15), Seattle (23), Denver (24), Portland, Oregon (27) and Austin, Texas (29).

Richard Florida thinks so. In a fascinating recent article for the Boston Globe, Florida talked about how certain personality traits actually cluster in particular cities or regions. An excerpt:

Psychologists have shown that human personalities can be classified along five key dimensions: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience. And each of these dimensions has been found to affect key life outcomes from life expectancy and divorce to political ideology, job choices and performance, and innovation and creativity.

What’s more, it turns out these personality types are not spread evenly across the country. They cluster. And how they cluster tells us much: What city someone might want to move to, the broader character of regions, and even the creative and economic futures of broad swaths of the nation…

Interestingly, America’s psychogeography lines up reasonably well with its economic geography. Greater Chicago is a center for extroverts and also a leading center for sales professionals. The Midwest, long a center for the manufacturing industry, has a prevalence of conscientious types who work well in a structured, rule-driven environment. The South, and particularly the I-75 corridor, where so much Japanese and German car manufacturing is located, is dominated by agreeable and conscientious types who are both dutiful and work well in teams.

The Northeast corridor, including Greater Boston, as well as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Austin, are home to concentrations of open-to-experience types who are drawn to creative endeavor, innovation, and entrepreneurial start-up companies. While it is hard to identify which came first – was it an initial concentration of personality types that drew industry, or the industry which attracted the personalities? – the overlay is clear…

While opposites sometimes really do attract, and it is possible to make unusual matches work, our research indicates that people are typically happier in places with higher concentrations of personality types like their own.

Check out the entire story. There is a lot of food for thought in there.