NYTimes: Walkable neighborhoods in NoVA (and elsewhere) more valuable (Arlington: low income, crime)

[JD984]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

It's not just the young. Many older empty nesters such as myself also find that setup pretty appealing. Think about places most people go on vacation (city, beach town, mountain village, etc). That's often the type of area older people like to move to with increasing frequency. They generally don't look anything like an outer suburb but fit more closely the walkable places described in the Atlantic article.

Definitely - though it does seem like the studies tend to focus on younger buyers and renters.

Of course, there are many older empty nesters who prefer to remain in suburban homes; it's what they like and know best. I'm not always sure how practical that is, but it's their decision, not mine, to make.

[khuntrevor]

it's their decision until they get too old to drive, not that it seems to stop many of them.

[tysonsengineer]

Its everyone's right to live wherever they want, its no planner or urbanists decision to force anyone to live anywhere else. However public officials and people who decide tax rates and funding policies should review the fiscal solvency of walkable communities and their ability to remain fiscally solvent in tax revenue as well as creating healthy micro economies in commercial/retail use vs SOME (not all) suburban communities which require greater amounts and sizes of roads due to the nature of their geography (the more wide spread the more miles of pavement) and whether these can create healthy microeconomies which keep spending within a community as well (not to large corporations outside of the region). Given whatever each jurisdiction believes to be its way forward, they will make decisions on what percentage of developments to allow in each scenario through rezoning and how much proffer contributions/concessions will be necessary for each type.

This reanalysis in policy could make it so that building in the suburbs now comes to parity with building closer in, which if a jurisdiction wanted to stop sprawl, would likely work to do so. Issues would remain with inter jurisdictional issues (people living in one but working in other and causing damage to infrastructure/traffic) but those issues could theoretically be addressed with boundary condition adjustments (toll em).

Regardless no urbanist is suggesting people MUST relocate anywhere, no one is planning to build a city on your house, but that doesnt mean that cities arent tired of subsidizing the relatively cheap construction costs of sprawl.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

Its everyone's right to live wherever they want, its no planner or urbanists decision to force anyone to live anywhere else. However public officials and people who decide tax rates and funding policies should review the fiscal solvency of walkable communities and their ability to remain fiscally solvent in tax revenue as well as creating healthy micro economies in commercial/retail use vs SOME (not all) suburban communities which require greater amounts and sizes of roads due to the nature of their geography (the more wide spread the more miles of pavement) and whether these can create healthy microeconomies which keep spending within a community as well (not to large corporations outside of the region). Given whatever each jurisdiction believes to be its way forward, they will make decisions on what percentage of developments to allow in each scenario through rezoning and how much proffer contributions/concessions will be necessary for each type.

This reanalysis in policy could make it so that building in the suburbs now comes to parity with building closer in, which if a jurisdiction wanted to stop sprawl, would likely work to do so. Issues would remain with inter jurisdictional issues (people living in one but working in other and causing damage to infrastructure/traffic) but those issues could theoretically be addressed with boundary condition adjustments (toll em).

Regardless no urbanist is suggesting people MUST relocate anywhere, no one is planning to build a city on your house, but that doesnt mean that cities arent tired of subsidizing the relatively cheap construction costs of sprawl.

Yes, development decisions are inherently political, social, economic and environmental in nature. It seems that, very often, those who have been unable to persuade others of the merits of their ideas are quick to claim, in frustration, that the system is rife with inefficiencies which, if only corrected, would produce a different outcome more to their liking.

Much of what one is seeing now does reflect the market at work. People look to live closer to their jobs or to finance public transportation when they get tired of sitting in their cars. Singles look to live in condos near bars when they get tired of sitting at home in an apartment complex where they don't know their neighbors watching re-runs on Hulu. Go figure.

[jillabean]

I'd love to be able to walk everywhere and not use my car. I walk where and when I can (usually after I drive to work, I walk everywhere until I go home). And I only burn a tank of gas once every two weeks (it would be less if my child's dance studio wasn't so far away). It costs me $32 to fill the tank--which is a lot less expensive than metro if I were to go that route. I also walk to the pool, walk to friends houses, walk the dogs... The stores are technically walkable, but a bit far (I have to drive for dairy, refrigerated things, anyway so I just drive).

Why don't I live in a walkable area (mine isn't based on that score thing) since I would love to be able to walk everywhere? Well, bluntly, finding a good home, that I can afford in a good school district (I have a child in public school) was a challenge. I opted for Springfield which turned out to be a great location for me because it met my affordability and good school criteria and just about anything is a short car-ride away. And I have metro as a close by option (both bus and rail) for times when I want to go downtown, to the airport, etc. I could walk to the bus stop and take metro to work, but that would take me over an hour vs my current 15-30 minute drive (depending on traffic of course).

While living within walking distance of your job sounds like a great idea. I would be reluctant to move someplace based on a job. Jobs come and go... and offices move (it's happened to me more than once). For example, work in Old Town and parking here can be rough (my work pays for parking in my building). If I moved here and walked to work--that would be great! But what if the office moved and ended up having to work elsewhere and had to driving--I am suddenly not only am I driving, but I faced with parking issues like others mentioned.

The end result is I live where I live because it was the best economical option for me with all things considered (including walk-ability). I don't know how they could make where I live more walkable without eliminating housing (or just rebuilding everything). Both of which I don't see happening any time soon.

[Fern435]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

Sure a 15-25 minute walk will get you to some other uses/groceries, but thats NOT walkability. A walkable neighborhood means it would take you just as long to drive and park as to bike and that the same path ways could be used for both.

This (especially the bolded, which does not even include the word "walk") does not make sense. Now you've introduced biking into the equation. So walkability means driving or biking on urban roads? And no other situation can be walkable? Ha--this is rather interesting!

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by Fern435

This (especially the bolded, which does not even include the word "walk") does not make sense. Now you've introduced biking into the equation. So walkability means driving or biking on urban roads? And no other situation can be walkable? Ha--this is rather interesting!

An area is not walkable unless it takes 30 minutes per mile to drive through; takes at least 40 minutes/mile to walk through on the crowded sidewalk; has people in tie-dye selling crafts on the sidewalk; and at least three of every 10 people are potbellied young skinny guys with over-tight t-shirts and scraggly beards.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

An area is not walkable unless it takes 30 minutes per mile to drive through; takes at least 40 minutes/mile to walk through on the crowded sidewalk; has people in tie-dye selling crafts on the sidewalk; and at least three of every 10 people are potbellied young skinny guys with over-tight t-shirts and scraggly beards.

Spent some time on Telegraph Ave. Berkeley have you?

[khuntrevor]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ramifications of drinking and driving. How many nights per week do these 20 somethings go to bars? One DUI would just about make a down-payment on a condo. BTW, it is common knowledge that the declines in housing prices were far more dramatic in the exurbs, and the exurbs are the slowest to come back. Can you still get a house for 50 cents on the Dollar in PWC? Absolutely. Can you get anywhere near that in Arlington, or even Springfield?

[khuntrevor]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Spent some time on Telegraph Ave. Berkeley have you?

My walk score in Berkeley was 94. My friend paid 50K for an 1898 house that Zillow says is 630K. There are some billionaires walking around there, too. That's the neat thing about Berkeley.