This seems like a bizarre argument, surely it's an "and". Sidewalks are a necessary but not sufficient condition for walkability.
In the US you tend to find this in places that were built before cars but with sufficiently high property values that rearranging the buildings to widen the streets doesn't make sense. See parts of Boston for example. The places that are both old and wealthy tend to have streets that are pretty much local access only through size alone.
In montreal there is an extensive system of back lanes, and I did a lot of my walking there, no sidewalks. The lanes were shared by cars but they were slow and infrequent.