Majority Of US Prefers Communities With Big Houses, Even If Local Amenities Are Far

[llamaorama]

First of all, as others have said, even if only 42% of the population wants to live somewhere more urban, a lot fewer than that are actually able to get that. It's an under-served market for room to grow.

Second, this asked where people wanted to live. It didn't ask where they wanted to go on vacation, shop, or dine out.

Third, this asked people if they would trade a smaller house for walkability. It didn't ask if people who already get their big houses in suburbia would also appreciate walkability in their community as well.

[mrnyc]

oh good lots of discussion, because i was just wondering what this means for chicago.

[Gresto]

It's instructive that "15-minute city" is an epithet in some quarters.

[wwmiv]

The problem is not just housing.

The problem is also jobs. Where are jobs located, to where are people commuting, and if we located more jobs in satellite downtowns, more people would have routine access to quality urbanism. Yes, for many this would be “drive-to” urbanism, but for many it would also end up being walkable. The key is for suburban municipalities to reinvest and reinvigorate their own small downtowns to become regional employment hubs rather than continuing to build office parks. More urban jobs will beget more urban housing, whether it is in Downtown Austin or in Original Plat Round Rock. Same goes for Taylor. Same for Georgetown. Same for San Marcos.

Of course… this also requires changing corporate mentality away from office parks for middle-tier employees and to some extent redistribute geographically their upper level employees.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Back in the 1940s when most Americans actually did live in walkable communities you would have probably gotten an equally distorted response favoring walkable urban areas. Most people prefer the type of communities with which they are familiar.

It's not obviously true that most Americans lived in walkable communities in the 1940s. America's non-metropolitan population peaked in 1940, when 75 million people--57% of all Americans--lived in small towns, in the open countryside, or on farms.

[llamaorama]

Count me as someone who lived in an old school college dorm that was very basic.

Us older millenials born in the late 80s/early 90s who were in college in the late 2000s/early 2010s were probably the last generation to experience that as a mainstream thing.

You guys are right, college housing since about 2010 now is ridiculous luxury.

[Steely Dan]

My niece just finished her freshman year at Loyola U. - Chicago.

She lived in an old fashioned non-luxurious dorm, just as all freshman there are required to do.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Gresto

It's instructive that "15-minute city" is an epithet in some quarters.

ha — it certainly is.

i got a warning for mentioning it on another urbanist form.

who knew it was political, but i guess so.

yet richard florida is fine to talk about when there is the clear undercurrent of whitey tighty neighborhoods there.

go figure.

[Steely Dan]

You can use the term "15 minute city" safely at SSP.

The only people who are triggered by it are conspiracy theory nutjobs.

and we will simply ban those types.

[Quixote]

42% of Americans may want amenities within walking distance, but how many of them would also be in favor (or at least willing to) of not driving, relying on public transit (including bus), living in a multifamily building, widening sidewalks, eliminating traffic and parking lanes, etc.?

Desire and will are two different things.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think Americans have enough perspective to give an educated answer to the question. Most Americans have never really experienced living in a walkable community, so of course they don't value it. This is kind of a trash poll for that reason.

I generally agree with this. First, federal policies have made it that for most middle class households, sprawl housing is the most obvious option. Second, these types of survey questions are loaded. Maybe not to the same extent in the Northeast or the Bay Area, but somewhere like Michigan "old small houses close together" means "urban" and "urban" is a polite way to say "poor" or "black" or "declining". When someone in Lansing, MI says, "Gee, honey, this area sure is urban" they aren't talking about walkability.

Also, the survey seems to provide for a false choice. Newer sprawl communities, generally speaking, are on smaller lots than older streetcar suburban type neighborhoods. There are almost no European-level urban apartment or rowhouse neighborhoods in the U.S. except in the NYC area and bits of a half dozen other metros. Home lots generally get smaller the further out you go. Wealthy in-town neighborhoods (Buckhead, Beverly Hills, Rosedale) are much more spacious than sprawl, but attract many with somewhat urban-leaning preferences, so I think the results are muddled.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

1000%. These are the same people who go to Paris or Madrid on a vacation and rave about how it was so cool and "unamerican" because you could walk to everything..."and everyone was so stylish and healthy and the markets and restaurants!". "And people actually live there!"

Yeah, asshole. It's that way in the city you live 35 miles outside of as well.

Yes, I'll never get this mindset. "The Paris Metro was so amazing! Imagine having something so wonderful! But don't you dare raise my taxes $5 a month so there's a bus within walking distance. Could bring ghetto rapists!"

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But the dichotomy presented in this thread was between “places where houses are smaller and closer to each other, but schools, stores and restaurants are within walking distance" vs. "places where houses are larger and farther apart, but schools, stores and restaurants are several miles away".

There are not very many chicagoans who live in "houses that are larger and further apart", regardless of how nice some of the interiors might be in places like Lincoln Park.


Everything else being equal, places where homes are further apart inherently have amenities further spread apart as well, and are thus less walkable than places where the homes are close together.

Regular Americans have to balance those two competing forces, and according to the results of this poll, more Americans lean towards the "house" side of the spectrum, which really shouldn't be surprising given the almost unbelievable amount of auto-centric sprawl that surrounds American cities both great and small.

Sure, but that is my point. It's all relative. I grew up in Manhattan, and when I see somebody living in say, Lincoln Square, on a 30ft lot to me they have a large house that is further from their neighbors.
The world is much more complex than "far apart" or "walkable to stuff", that isn't how people buy. Also who are these "Americans"? If I'm 23 years old sure, i'd rather live in SoHo or TriBeca, or the West Village, but at 39 years old with 2 kids? I'd much much rather live in Scarsdale or Rye, hardly sprawl, but certainly not the city.

There are a lot of options between The Upper East Side and Plainfield.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, I'll never get this mindset. "The Paris Metro was so amazing! Imagine having something so wonderful! But don't you dare raise my taxes $5 a month so there's a bus within walking distance. Could bring ghetto rapists!"

you can't understand why somebody would enjoy visiting Paris, but not want to live there or ride the metro everyday? Really? Is it that hard?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

you can't understand why somebody would enjoy visiting Paris, but not want to live there or ride the metro everyday? Really? Is it that hard?

To me, yeah, it's hard to understand people who refuse to use or fund transit in the U.S., but will only use transit in Europe, and then rave how awesome said transit was in Europe.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Sure, but that is my point. It's all relative. I grew up in Manhattan, and when I see somebody living in say, Lincoln Square, on a 30ft lot to me they have a large house that is further from their neighbors.

Washington Heights is such a ridiculously extreme density outlier in the US that your specific experience growing up there is essentially irrelevant.

Within the context of America at large, Lincoln Square is a text book example of a place where "houses are smaller and closer to each other, but schools, stores and restaurants are within walking distance".

And that's not even getting into the fact that only 15% of housing units here are even SFH's to begin with.

Small-scale "missing middle" multi-family housing rules the roost here.

With 36" gaps between the buildings, which is extremely fucking "closer to each other" to the average American

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

The world is much more complex than "far apart" or "walkable to stuff", that isn't how people buy.

Go back and re-read the 2nd post of this thread.

"Walkable to stuff" is quite literally how we bought our "forever home".

[SnowFire]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Count me as someone who lived in an old school college dorm that was very basic.

Us older millenials born in the late 80s/early 90s who were in college in the late 2000s/early 2010s were probably the last generation to experience that as a mainstream thing.

You guys are right, college housing since about 2010 now is ridiculous luxury.

when i was at uw madison it was heavily encouraged to be at the dorms the first 2 years though not required. there were car lots but nowhere to park at any place downtown so that was only alc or concert or home runs.

yeah the lux dorms started going up heavy when i was there. 777 lucky in madison is a massive palace for legacy coastie children. they had good weed though.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Washington Heights is such a ridiculously extreme density outlier in the US that your specific experience growing up there is essentially irrelevant.

Within the context of America at large, Lincoln Square is a text book example of a place where "houses are smaller and closer to each other, but schools, stores and restaurants are within walking distance".

And that's not even getting into the fact that only 15% of housing units here are even SFH's to begin with.

Small-scale "missing middle" multi-family housing rules the roost here.

With 36" gaps between the buildings, which is extremely fucking "closer to each other" to the average American





Go back and re-read the 2nd post of this thread.

"Walkable to stuff" is quite literally how we bought our "forever home".

Washington Heights is just one neighborhood, my experience would be similar whether someone grew up in Manhattan, most of the Bronx, or Brooklyn, again given the choice at this stage of my life I’d take a town like Scarsdale or Rye over anywhere in NYC.

Walkability is certainly a factor for many, myself included, but that’s setting the bar pretty low if that’s your only criteria or the most significant especially with kids involved, at least in my opinion. That’s not a knock on Lincoln Square, it’s a great neighborhood, but for many families, it would provide trade offs that are deal breakers.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

To me, yeah, it's hard to understand people who refuse to use or fund transit in the U.S., but will only use transit in Europe, and then rave how awesome said transit was in Europe.

Truthfully that says more about you if you can’t understand.

[SnowFire]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Truthfully that says more about you if you can’t understand.

Oh, how profound.