A Pew poll released Wednesday found that 57 percent of Americans say they would rather live in a neighborhood with larger houses spaced further apart, even if it means driving to stores or restaurants, as opposed to one with smaller homes closer together but with shops and cafes within walking distance. That’s up from 53 percent in 2019 but down from 60 percent in 2021.
Do you prefer this . . .
The survey also found that young people and Democrats were more likely to want walkable communities while older people and Republicans were more likely to want more drivable communities. As with the general results, all groups tended to move towards a preference to low-density areas after the pandemic, and have partly moved back since then.
or this? Would it change your mind if the cost of housing in the high-density housing was twice as much as in the low-density neighborhood and if the cost of consumer goods within a walkable distance of your home in the high-density neighborhood was also significantly more than similar goods within driving distance of the low-density neighborhood?
Considering that 63 percent of households and 75 percent of Americans lived in detached, single-family homes in 2021, it is easy to see why some planners might think there is a critical shortage of “walkable” communities.
However, as I’ve noted of similar surveys before, Pew’s questions failed to reveal the full trade offs of the different lifestyles. A better question would be, “Would you rather live in a large, affordable home with space between you and your neighbors but with multiple stores and other shops competing for your business with a wide selection of low-priced goods within easy driving distance, or would you prefer a smaller but much more expensive home with little space between you and your neighbors but with a limited selection, high-priced grocery store and a few restaurants and cafes within walking distance?”
Taking costs and other trade-offs into consideration makes it possible to reconcile the results of the Pew survey with those of a 2018 Gallup Poll that found that many people who lived in cities wanted to move to lower-density areas but few people who lived in low-density areas wanted to move to denser cities. A 2021 repeat of this poll found similar results except that the number who wanted to live in small towns jumped from 39 to 48 percent. When combined with suburbs, nearly 3 out of 4 Americans want to live in low-density areas.
Apparently, when people are asked “do you want to live in a big house where you have to drive or a smaller house in a walkable neighborhood,” they assume that all else — including housing costs and access to consumer goods — is equal. When asked “would you rather live in a big city, a suburb, or a small town,” people understand that big cities cost more. The wording of Pew’s question produced misleading results.
It is also noteworthy that nearly all of the people I know who live in low-density neighborhoods love their lives, but don’t feel any need to impose that lifestyle on others. However, many people who live in high-density neighborhoods consider themselves morally superior to those living in “sprawl” and want to force more people to live in high-density areas, no matter what the cost.
You can have walkable suburbs as well.
Walking to work is the hard bit. But as you point out, a short drive to many jobs is very possible.
A few extra paths and allowing shops and cafes in a few areas can make all this possible.
I can walk to a Primary (Elementary) School, walk to a cafe, walk to shops and easily ride a bike to a good supermarket if need be. I’ve lived in similar areas in the US as well, it’s far from impossible.
The area where I now live has now become expensive, but that’s because of a lack of land release on the urban fringe more than anything else.
Can I just say that it is amazing to think that Los Angeles nearly a century ago, the city currently known for having awful traffic virtually all the time, used to have a tram system the world envied. We were told Driving is a privilege, Not a right. Yet we’ve built a country where it’s impossible to do virtually anything without a automobile.
Suburban sprawl is literally driving thru deserted, Depressing landscapes.
https://i.redd.it/vg9xl40c6o471.png
Why do we keep building this?
It’s not “Car-Centric”
Suburbs existed before cars existed.
Even if people didn’t know what “Walkability” means.
No One Knows the term “Car-Centric” or car-dependent.
And you cant build it much anymore…..legally.
Streetcar suburbs, streets are 6 meters wide; they are narrow but still two lane. But these lane widths are not applicable on modern designs. This forces wider lanes which serve little purpose. Modern suburbs no longer uses blocks, thus uses cul de sacs with huge distances between blocks. This extends the “Distance” even people walking need long route. The HALLMARK of modern car dependent suburbia is modern zoning laws; is residential areas are completely separated from commercial uses thus every trip is longer regardless walk or not, and most dont. Even the boundaries between the two, separated by Stroads, Uncomfortable or DANGEROUS places to be Outside of a car. Even schools are not permitted either. So the major building is consolidated to a arterial road, Roads too dangerous for children to walk along. REQUIRE be driven to school. Strict zoning requirements, means most suburban houses are built the same. At similar price point,
After all, we cant have people of margially different socioeconomic status living too close..
Older suburbs houses are closer up to the street. In modern suburbia, setbacks require houses be 10-20 meters because…some 1950’s urban designer decided having a Huge front yard, is “Ideal” way to live so blearggh.
Incidentally the pressure on developers to build as Many houses as possible on the fucked up spiralling plan, combined with strict setback requirements is why you’ll often see new suburban houses with backyards Way smaller than front yard, Both of which are now useless.
More point this ugly architectural monotonous, an overwhelming sameness. It’s not byproduct of laziness. It’s regulation that prohibit designs.
Even if you like Car dependent suburbia, have to justify why it’s illegal to build anything other than that.
Traffic and lack of transportation options came from two things…Street planning and how government views “live-ability”. Post World War II the US adopted the “Dead Worm” neighborhood concept, that relegates neighborhoods to move via only one road. A dead end, begins on a feed road which feeds the highway. With only one way out, you have only one way to get anywhere. Europe has mixed use marketable planning. US zoning laws of compartmentalization led to a preference for corporate big box stores vs. small businesses but it totally makes sense. If I’m just walking around, and I don’t have to park a car, I’m much more likely to walk into what ever store strikes my fancy. it is heritage. Cities in Europe were being build and expanded over the span of centuries. This made it so that surrounding villages became absorbed in the growing cities. This is a big reason why the cities’ shops and facilities are spread out like they are: they were independent villages first. In North America, they had build from scratch most of their cities. Early US cities like PHilly and Boston adopted this mindset….. Once post war years and rampant subsidies. Yes the government did subsidize the prototype Burbs. From early rural electrification in the 1930s and beyond.
There were no sidewalks or pedestrian crossing points, making it physically dangerous to walk there. So, no shopping for me unless I’m very careful. For a few days, I started to walk the neighborhood to get to know it and sat and read at a playground, but a police car stopped me because someone called about a suspicious guy walking around (me). Granted I was in all black and hadn’t shaved in days; What made me suspicious is that I was the one walking!
Modern suburbia is extremely isolating and psychotropic. and it’s impossible to cure and the effect it’s having on children is damning. Connectivity builds social roots and psychologically healthy habits. More importantly burns never ending supply calories modern food makers cram into.
The problem w/ playing is that it is the easiest, most organic way for kids and TEENS to make friends/fight psychosomatic loneliness.
That’s a problem???
Yep. Because it has NO MARKETING BUDGET.
Adult-run activities have money behind them. They win out. Adults have their activities, Games, Pornography, bars, clubs and events and shows. These cost money, these require transportation. Unlike adults, there are no clubs or Bars to unwind.
The result of kids isolation in suburban environments has been studied extensively and it’s worse now; school year 5-8 hours a day and summer 12-15 hours a day parked in front of technology. Without cars their own, minimal transportation and paranoid parents. Away from people they must socialize and play with. Play mitigates those circumstances, but “Play dates” and “sleep overs” often require transportation.
Connected neighborhoods and publicly accessible venues make kids mobile.
And if kids are mobile, they don’t need you to get around and if they don’t need you to get around they can socially function without your supervision. Learn independence which teaches them how to solve problems and adjust to discrepancies. Most kid programs have someone running them, so they represent someone’s salary and perhaps even a business. That someone, or business, naturally must market their program. So they do. This in turn is like adult venues, it requires money and requires transportation. Which in turn defers and ostracizes children of lower income households. “Childrens entertainment” is distraction from social play integration. It’s been marketed but does little to socialize and educate. When adults take charge, they skip over the hard, annoying stuff — the squabbling and compromising that the kids would otherwise have to do. That means the kids don’t get as much chance to practice the skills of getting along and logical deduction and problem solving, i.e. LIFE. The road ahead is bumpier for kids like this, unlike normal life teaching you to overcome obstacles. Modern suburbia and street layout isn’t an obstacle. It’s a prison and a minefield.
“… we’ve built a country where it’s impossible to do virtually anything without a automobile.”
If cars hadn’t replaced trams, today we’d be moaning, “we’ve built a country where it’s impossible to do virtually anything without a tram.”
If trams hadn’t replaced horses, we’d be knee deep in horse shit.
LazyReader, to claim that suburbia is a prison or a minefield is a clear indication you don’t know what the hell you’re blathering on about.
Shocker, people in their 20s have different values than those in their 40s.
We’ve always known the young, as a whole prefer the activity the core city provides.
We’ve always known that as they age, their values change. Many of them move accordingly.
While core cities today would love to think that all those bike lanes and dog parks and vegan kabob restaurants are why their populations grew from 2010-2020, it’s was driven by demographics, the largest generation ever, The Millenials.
They’re getting old. What they desire in a home is changing. Gen Z & Co. don’t have the sheer numbers to replace them.
Crossing the street shouldn’t be deadly….But it is.
A four year old in Japan has more independence and Freedom than a fifteen year old in America.
That is mainly because Japan is full of Japanese. Land use patterns and transport modes are downstream.
america is kind of broad…if you are in super rural mid continent it is much different than even a mid size metro on the southern east coast. from the mid 70s onward in raleigh nc i could, even without bike lanes – using a matrix of paths, sidewalks and parking lots get to all sorts of stuff…and if not by bike i caught a bus