Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My former Portland neighborhood had SFH's and it was very walkable. My present neighbor in Lakewood, Ohio is the same. I don't get the assumption that people who live in nice homes can't live in a walkable neighborhood.
Don't get me wrong, I love walking around Lakewood, but my son's home is on Clifton, so it's not really conducive to walk to, let's say, Barrio for some of their exemplary tacos and margaritas on anything but an excellent weather day. Winter is out of the question as was the heat of this past summer. My point is that in even the most walkable city, there are only certain subsections that are truly walkable for the average person on a regular basis.
I live in a house with lots of land but would consider a condo if I could be assured of never having issues with parking near my door and room for guest parking and not having to deal with noise, me being quiet or them.
A high rise only if they have levels of parking garage that is safe and near elevators, well lit and no bums hanging around.
If walkability is such a desirable attribute when it comes to selecting housing, wouldn't builders acknowledge that in the housing that they supply?
Of course they would, assuming that it is in their control to build exactly what the consumers want. However, zoning laws in many areas where newer housing is constructed (as referenced numerous times in this thread) prohibit doing so in many instances. It would be interesting to look at the average age of the housing stock in the areas that score high in the walkability factor relative to the areas that do not, just to see if the differences in restrictiveness of zoning laws over the years play a significant role.
Looking at newer planned communities that embrace walkability and the requisite level of density (think New Urbanism), many also have zoning laws that prohibit retail outlets that can utilize economies of scale (i.e. Wal Mart) to keep consumer prices low, leaving a void to be filled by boutique retailers.
The thread's premise is flawed. I actually find walkability is easiest to find in rural areas, because small rural towns often retain their pre-WWII street plan.
Before the automobile, people walked pretty much everywhere. Do folks imagine that, pre-WWII, everyone lived in extremely dense cities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43054dude
Of course they would, assuming that it is in their control to build exactly what the consumers want. However, zoning laws in many areas where newer housing is constructed (as referenced numerous times in this thread) prohibit doing so in many instances.
This is a key point. Zoning laws don't respond quickly to demand. They (and builders themselves, really) are subject to significant institutional inertia. And in a broader sense, builders don't build walkability because they don't know how (it requires catering to both homeowners and businesses), and home buyers don't know what they're looking for (likely never having lived in a walkable neighborhood).
If walkability is such a desirable attribute when it comes to selecting housing, wouldn't builders acknowledge that in the housing that they supply?
Of course they would, assuming that it is in their control to build exactly what the consumers want. However, zoning laws in many areas where newer housing is constructed (as referenced numerous times in this thread) prohibit doing so in many instances. It would be interesting to look at the average age of the housing stock in the areas that score high in the walkability factor relative to the areas that do not, just to see if the differences in restrictiveness of zoning laws over the years play a significant role.
Looking at newer planned communities that embrace walkability and the requisite level of density (think New Urbanism), many also have zoning laws that prohibit retail outlets that can utilize economies of scale (i.e. Wal Mart) to keep consumer prices low, leaving a void to be filled by boutique retailers.
It is hard to get financing for mixed use buildings. Many many cities also have level of service ordinances that restrict development where it might impact "traffic." So if a new development causes cars to be delayed by 30 seconds, it can't be built, meaning they move development into green fields where there are no cars to delay.
I grew up in a neighborhood like that, but the shopping area was larger. We didn't have to go downtown (it was literally down hill) very often. My family lived in a semi-detached with a small yard, but that was the exception. Most were single family homes. There were few garages, and not everyone had off street parking.
That's closer. There was a small post office branch, bank, salon, bakery, pharmacy, deli--even a few small grocery stores. It was four blocks of mostly shops and services. There were still corner stores at the time, too. We went to town for school clothes and Christmas shopping.
That's closer. There was a small post office branch, bank, salon, bakery, pharmacy, deli--even a few small grocery stores. It was four blocks of mostly shops and services. There were still corner stores at the time, too. We went to town for school clothes and Christmas shopping.
It has some of that(3 pharmacies, post office, a couple of banks, a few barbershops/salons, a couple of bookstores, several restaurants, about 4 bars, an ice cream shop, a theater, an insurance company, a Catholic school, etc.). There are a couple of plazas nearby, including one with a grocery store. There is also a Wegmans grocery store down that Main Street just outside of city limits that you could get to by bus(across a pretty busy street). There is also a library on a side street and a couple of parks. There's some more here: Businesses | Walkable Eastwood
The thread's premise is flawed. I actually find walkability is easiest to find in rural areas, because small rural towns often retain their pre-WWII street plan.
Before the automobile, people walked pretty much everywhere. Do folks imagine that, pre-WWII, everyone lived in extremely dense cities?
This is a key point. Zoning laws don't respond quickly to demand. They (and builders themselves, really) are subject to significant institutional inertia. And in a broader sense, builders don't build walkability because they don't know how (it requires catering to both homeowners and businesses), and home buyers don't know what they're looking for (likely never having lived in a walkable neighborhood).
Agreed- the premise is flawed, or at least the options are too limited. Density certainly matters in many areas, but so do other things like lot size, street layout, and zoning laws. There are many walkable neighborhoods composed of mostly SFHs across the country, and they actually exist in a variety of both urban and rural settings, from big cities to tiny towns.
Of course, that doesn't work for everyone, and in some places there's an extremely low inventory that fit the criteria and/or gentrification has long since pushed the price beyond affordability.
But the false binary that all places are either Gotham or a faceless suburb just isn't true. I think that millenials trend toward cities in their twenties and maybe thirties, but eventually many want a little more space- and many still desire some of the urban features and connectivity missing in the burbs. And there's definitely evidence out there to suggest that there's demand for walkability- but again, there are differing types of walkable neighborhoods. Americans Want Walkable Neighborhoods
I also remember reading an article recently (unfortunately I can't find the link) where builders/developers talked about trends in housing- and while many discussed the return of residential to downtowns, several also discussed the facts that suburbs are still growing- and we are still seeing traditional patterns- BUT- with increased demand for urban amenities, smaller square footage for SFHs, more sidewalks and more centralized locations. Why houses in America are getting smaller
So there's obviously a demand for walkability. But the stock of walkable, often older homes in older neighborhoods is often limited and commands a premium. And it's more expensive to find a house in a TOD or a well thought out residential area with mixed-use/new urbanism-like design. I can certainly attest to that fact after the house hunting and bidding wars we went through earlier this summer in Bellingham, WA. We also experienced the same thing prior to that in Denver.
Again, to the OP- it doesn't have to be either single-family OR walkable. Both articles that you linked to talk about that notion, with Pulte clearly discussing future trends: “Consistent with the research findings, the Company outlined a number of opportunities to capture the millennial homebuyer, including adding urban styling to its suburban offerings, identifying closer-in land positions, and building in urban infill locations,” said Mason. So I don't think we're at odds with one another. Many millenials, which represent the largest single demographics since Baby Boomers, will probably return to what we would call suburbs. But they have different purchasing preferences and behaviors. So whether it's in town or in a suburb, it looks like a trend for the foreseeable future will be more connected, walkable places to live...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
