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.
I have noticed many threads about walkability. However according to walkscore https://www.walkscore.com/
Very few cities that people are moving to are actually walkable. So here is the question, is walkability out of step with the needs of the average person?
Walkability implies public transportation and amenities that are close. However as many of you know; in order to have walkability you need to have density. Density is correlated with higher rents and lower availability of home ownership. (Including condos) Both are factors in people's desire to move since higher prices are the main reason that people are complaining in places like NY. The lack of home ownership is one of the main things that people seek especially those who want families. We also have a growing society that needs additional housing since we have enough homelessness already and we don't want to add to it by making it more expensive to live.
There is also a political factor in walkability in that you need to have a changing society as buildings need to get taller and taller. The character of the city needs to change in order to accommodate a growing population. However many cities resist this through zoning (I'm looking at you SF!)
I personally favor walkability and I live in an area that is pretty walkable. However, very few places have overcome the economics and politics necessary to become walkable for the average man. So is it realistic?
It's realistic if you seek it out - you say yourself you live in area that is pretty walkable, so obviously yes, it is realistic. No, the average person doesn't live in a walkable area, but that doesn't mean finding a walkable area is unrealistic.
I don't think you need transit to be walkable. It is helpful. But I'll compare my 2 grandparents homes in rural america.
Paternal: they lived on a 2 lane highway. There was a convenience store across the street, but there was poor visibility and traffic going 45, so you didn't cross the street. Staying there meant I was limited to my grandparents house, their back yard and my aunts home next door. Every other trip meant getting in a car.
Maternal: grandma lived on a rural country road with very little traffic. It wasn't really a short cut to anything, so pretty much the only traffic was people who lived on the street. My grandma didn't even drive and many of the old people didn't either. On this street I had many relatives: great aunts and uncles, cousins. Basically everyone on the street was a relative somehow. My grandma's church was a few doors up from her home. And there was a convenience store a little past the church. And some empty lots we used as a park (they belong to one relative or another). We often played games in the street and just moved out of the way on the rare occasion someone drove by.
At my maternal grandma's house, the whole neighborhood was our oyster. We would visit various cousins and relatives who would give us cash. We could go to the convenience store and pick up ice cream or bubble gum. And we could play in the park, or at a cousins house. We walked to church on Sunday with grandma.
Now for both of these homes I am sure the walk score was in the teens or 20s. There was no transit anywhere near by. No grocery store either. But as you can see the walkability was surprisingly different. My grandma who never learned to drive could walk over to see her siblings, nieces, nephews, church and pick up things from the store.
Walkability is about having useful stuff near by. Personally, although I would love to walk to work, it isn't a high priority. I'd much rather walk to a drug store, convenience store, post office, dry cleaner, grocery store, restaurants, bars, coffeeshops and the library. All things I do most often. I chose an apartment based on walkability to that stuff. I figure you will have less control over where you work, but where you play is 100% your decision. And I like to keep the places I play in close proximity.
Any small town or mid sized city cold orient most useful stuff into walkable clusters. And everyone could benefit from that, even if it doesn't come packaged with transit.
If I had to move to a very small town, I could definitely live right on main street, and that is the sort of home I prefer no matter the city size.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,131,933 times
Reputation: 57755
Even a suburban bedroom city like ours (60k people) will have some walkability, the few homes and apartments within a mile or so of the 2 strip malls which have grocery shopping and a few restaurants. Those are rated 60 walkability, but in order to go to a movie, Costco, Home Depot, or other places though, one must have a car or walk over 6 miles. The bus service is strictly commute oriented. Most of our homes have a walk score 0-2, and transit score 0-2. Nonetheless, people love it here, and any homes under about $600k are selling within a day or two.
Realistically, it doesn't meet the current needs at an affordable price for the average American, but that doesn't preclude a sizable (and growing?) niche market. There's a good reason why walkable places are generally more expensive to live in. And remember--demand is only one side of the coin. Supply is slow to catch up due to zoning practices and general inertia/resistance to change. Especially when you consider that walkable does not just mean within walking distance--the roadway design, sidewalks, crossing situations all matter! This is one reason why walkability is too expensive for the average American, or even the average Millennial. Nevertheless, people tend to want to be in walking distance of "something," even if it's just the school or the park or a multiuse trail. Some gated communities even incorporate some park and trail space in their design.
There aren't more walkable communities (loosely defined as housing where you mostly don't need a car to run errands, get to work, or go to school) because most folks, especially families, don't want them. They still prefer quiet living without the noise and congestion of nearby stores and restaurants, they still prefer having a nice-sized backyard instead of going to the neighborhood park, they like limited or protected commercial activity without the vagrants and homeless around (preferring malls, strip malls, and guarded parking lots), and they want the freedom that a car gives them w/o waiting for a bus, train, or trolley. Also, many walkable neighborhoods in big cities still have poor schools, which limits their attractiveness to families, but makes them attractive to singles and DINKs.
And as has already been said, the nicest, settled, walkable parts of big cities tend to be the most expensive.
This is changing only slowly. There are some smaller cities and suburbs where you can live w/o a car for the most part, though there aren't many, relatively speaking. But more often than not, once the baby comes along, its not long before folks decamp to car-dependent suburbs.
There aren't more walkable communities (loosely defined as housing where you mostly don't need a car to run errands, get to work, or go to school) because most folks, especially families, don't want them. They still prefer quiet living without the noise and congestion of nearby stores and restaurants, they still prefer having a nice-sized backyard instead of going to the neighborhood park, they like limited or protected commercial activity without the vagrants and homeless around (preferring malls, strip malls, and guarded parking lots), and they want the freedom that a car gives them w/o waiting for a bus, train, or trolley. Also, many walkable neighborhoods in big cities still have poor schools, which limits their attractiveness to families, but makes them attractive to singles and DINKs.
And as has already been said, the nicest, settled, walkable parts of big cities tend to be the most expensive.
This is changing only slowly. There are some smaller cities and suburbs where you can live w/o a car for the most part, though there aren't many, relatively speaking. But more often than not, once the baby comes along, its not long before folks decamp to car-dependent suburbs.
I'm not disagreeing with you that many if not most people don't care about walkability, but that's not the only reason why there aren't more walkable communities. There are tons of places around the country where there is big demand for more walkable communities but developers are frustrated from meeting this demand by various zoning and land use regulations that make dense developments illegal to build. That isn't due to "most people not wanting walkability" - the vast majority of people are unaware these regulations exist. Loosen those regulations and yes the vast majority of Americans would still live in areas where you need a car to get around, but there would be marginally more walkable neighborhoods.
There aren't more walkable communities (loosely defined as housing where you mostly don't need a car to run errands, get to work, or go to school) because most folks, especially families, don't want them.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. Towns which are walkable are in very high demand right now and contrary to popular belief walkable towns do not equal major cities. Walkable towns are very popular with young families since these areas usually offer better amenities and a safe means to get to them. Case in point, if your child wants to go to the park with his friends which community would you allow him to go to the park without adult supervision?
A. Community with sidewalk streets and stop signs and the park is at the end of your block.
B. Community with cul-de-sacs off a busy road and the park is two miles across town, with no sidewalks and 1 six lane highway to cross over.
Even for people sans enfants walkable cities are a huge plus especially when you factor public transportation. You can save thousands by driving a car less or having one less car, if you have one at all. The elderly and disabled can get around safely and without inconveniencing others. People can avoid drunk driving entirely by walking to restaurants and bars for entertainment, rather than risk a DUI (or worse) after having a few drinks at a party.
I have noticed many threads about walkability. However according to walkscore https://www.walkscore.com/
Very few cities that people are moving to are actually walkable. So here is the question, is walkability out of step with the needs of the average person?
Walkability implies public transportation and amenities that are close. However as many of you know; in order to have walkability you need to have density. Density is correlated with higher rents and lower availability of home ownership. (Including condos) Both are factors in people's desire to move since higher prices are the main reason that people are complaining in places like NY. The lack of home ownership is one of the main things that people seek especially those who want families. We also have a growing society that needs additional housing since we have enough homelessness already and we don't want to add to it by making it more expensive to live.
There is also a political factor in walkability in that you need to have a changing society as buildings need to get taller and taller. The character of the city needs to change in order to accommodate a growing population. However many cities resist this through zoning (I'm looking at you SF!)
I personally favor walkability and I live in an area that is pretty walkable. However, very few places have overcome the economics and politics necessary to become walkable for the average man. So is it realistic?
The problem with discussions like this is you need to distinguish between young single professionals and families with children. Their needs are too different to lump them together as you try to do here.
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.
