Once again, I'm befuddled by Prevention magazine's list of the most walkable cities. Last year, they comically put Las Vegas in the top ten, and this year -- after perhaps being ridiculed for Vegas's inclusion -- they slipped in Henderson, NV at number 6.

Henderson, NV, a somewhat wealthy suburb south of Las Vegas, is not by any means walkable, unless you're considering walking on golf courses and within gated neighborhoods and casinos as your sole criteria. When I think of walkable, I think of cities where it's both possible and common to live without a car. I would bet that less than 2% of working residences in Henderson are carless, and as far as I know, it would be extremely difficult to get around without a car. And it is severely uncomfortable to be outside for two or so summer months of the year, when temperatures commonly hover between 100 and 115. Walking in, say, Boston during the few months where it's icy cold is far more doable with proper clothing and footwear.

That's not to say that Henderson doesn't have some good walking paths and hiking trails, especially those in the nearby River Mountains. But to call that "walkable" is misleading -- unless you live in a development right on the park's boundary, you'll have to drive to get there. Plus, it's only fair to mention Henderson's old downtown area, which could become pedestrian-friendly in the future, but is currently mostly quiet and economically depressed.

This list is a product of unbalanced criteria, and I wouldn't be surprised if Prevention was heavily lobbied by real estate companies.