Why Don't Conservative Cities Walk?

[destroycreate]

Why Don't Conservative Cities Walk?
By Will Oremus | Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012, at 12:44 PM ET




Reading Tom Vanderbilt’s series on the crisis in American walking, I noticed something about the cities with the highest “walk scores.” They’re all liberal. New York, San Francisco, and Boston, the top three major cities on Walkscore.com, are three of the most liberal cities in the country. In fact, the top 19 are all in states that voted for Obama in 2008. The lowest-scoring major cities, by comparison, tilt conservative: Three of the bottom four—Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, and Fort Worth—went for McCain. What explains the correlation? Don’t conservatives like to walk?

You might think it’s a simple matter of size: Big cities lean liberal and also tend to be more walkable. That’s generally true, but it doesn’t fully explain the phenomenon. Houston, Phoenix, and Dallas are among the nation’s ten largest cities, but they’re also among the country’s more conservative big cities, and none cracks the top 20 in walkability. All three trail smaller liberal cities such as Portland, Denver, and Long Beach. And if you expand the data beyond the 50 largest cities, the conservative/liberal polarity only grows. Small liberal cities such as Cambridge, Mass., Berkeley, Ca., and Paterson, N.J. make the top 10, while conservative cities of similar size such as Palm Bay, Fl. and Clarksville, Ten. rank at the bottom.

Substituting density for size gets us closer: Houston, Phoenix, and Dallas are notorious for sprawl, while New York, San Francisco, and Boston are tightly packed, partly because they are older cities whose downtown cores developed in the pre-car era. As they grew, their borders were constrained by those of the smaller cities and towns that surrounded them. That’s not the case with many Southern and Western cities. Jacksonville and Oklahoma City, for instance, are vast in terms of land area, encompassing suburban and even semi-rural neighborhoods as well as urban ones.

That still leaves the question of why urban density should go hand-in-hand with liberal politics, however. I see four possible categories of explanations. 1) Liberals build denser, more walkable cities (e.g., Portlanders supporting public transit and policies that limit sprawl). 2) Liberals are drawn to cities that are already dense and walkable (think college grads migrating to Minneapolis rather than San Antonio, or young families settling down in Lowell, Mass., with a walk score of 64.1, rather than Fort Wayne, Ind., with a walk score of 39. 3) Walkable cities make people more liberal (by forcing them to get along with diverse neighbors and to rely on highly visible city services such as parks and subways). 4) The same factors that make cities dense and walkable also make them liberal.

My guess is that it’s mostly 4), with some of the other three thrown in, depending on the situation. What do dense, walkable cities have in common? Besides being older, they also tend to be on the coasts. New York (#1), San Francisco (#2), and Boston (#3) sprang up as port cities—hubs of international commerce and immigration. That leads to both dense development along the coastline and to an atmosphere of diversity and tolerance. Those three cities top the list because they’re both old and coastal. The others in the top 10 are mostly one or the other. Seattle (#6) and Miami (#8) are diverse coastal ports. Chicago (#4), Philadelphia (#5), and Minneapolis (#9) aren’t coastal, but they are ports, and more importantly, they’re relatively old and industrial.

Look at the walkability map and you’ll see that unwalkable cities are concentrated in the South. While the northern United States developed an industrial economy, the South was dominated by agriculture until the last few decades. Whereas industry breeds density, immigration, and social mobility, agriculture requires vast plots of land and leads to an entrenched social order dominated by the large landowners.

The historical perspective might help explain why cities such as Houston, which today is one of the nation’s largest ports and a magnet for immigration, remain relatively unwalkable. As Houston becomes increasingly diverse, it is already becoming more liberal. Harris County went narrowly to Obama in ’08 after going consistently Republican for decades before that. In theory, it should be getting more walkable as well. The problem is that once a city has an infrastructure built around cars, it’s harder to build support for density and public transportation funding. That is, it may be easier for a city to turn liberal than for a city to turn walkable.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/04/17/_.html


Thoughts on this?

[JManc]

because walking is for liberal pussies. god invented SUV's and freeways for a reason.

[mhays]

Jesus made fenders for me to tap on them in crosswalks. Thank you jeebs!

[Private Dick]

Miami is the 8th most walkable city, huh?

Anyway, the answer to the author's question is... conservatives are fat lazy fucks who not only don't like to walk, but also don't like to do a whole lotta thinkin' either, dammit.

[Austinlee]

This seems to be a VERY loaded premise but anecdotally I think that dense cities obviously have people of all different ethnicities and backgrounds working together and sprawl cities means you can avoid practically everyone and stick to your prejudices.


When different cultured people actually mingle, they discover that everyones the same and become more open minded! I think that that's a silent fact that a lot of people always seem to be alluding to when talking about this type of topic.

[glowrock]

This thread is an epic fail.

Besides, Houston (the city, not the metro area) is far from conservative. And of course, yay, another excuse for bashing fat people!
(edit: +10 for AustinLee's comments)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Anyway, the answer to the author's question is... conservatives are fat lazy fucks who not only don't like to walk, but also don't like to do a whole lotta thinkin' either, dammit.

Walking, taking mass transit, and living in dense, urban neighborhoods is Socialist. Shame on you for suggesting that Amurikanz live like a bunch of filthy commies!!!11 We want vinyl-clad McMansions, fast food, and Wal-Marts, dammit!!!!1

[The ATX]

Liberals are broke ass dreamers who are too poor own a car.

[Krases]

Historically, progressives have been huge advocates for decentralized cities as it was viewed that each american should have a 1500 square foot home and a quarter acre of land with detached housing. We see this during the subway and rail expansions of New York during the early 1900's. Its only recently that liberals have started to get behind concepts like New Urbanism and walkability.

I feel like the problem with the debate between liberals and conservatives on New Urbanism is that everyone comes to the table with political baggage. If I walked into a room with my fellow libertarians and said "there is a system of building cities by which parking requirements are removed, zoning restrictions relaxed, infrastructure spending slashed, oil/car/road subsidies tossed out and land use restrictions eased" then I would probably get a few people interested to say the least.

Of course, 'libertarian New Urbanism' would have major compromises with regular New Urbanism. Where as a new urbanist might want to widen sidewalks, turn one way car traffic into two-way, add parallel parking and a tram/trolly/light rail system to the street, a libertarian would simply want the road opened up as a legal 'right of way' to be owned privately. Like many of the roads in Celebration, Florida which is a decent example of new urbanism.

I should add, that I am only speaing as a libertarian. There are plenty of Conservatives who love their form of government spending, but hate liberal forms of spending.

[MolsonExport]

Simple. While they talk the talk, they can't walk the walk.
Exhibit 'A': Rush Limbaugh

[TarHeelJ]

I guess "conservative" cities (whatever that is) just aren't as good. Is that the answer you're looking for?

[all of the trash]

Liberals in southern cities are just as fat and idle as any one there. These issues are geographic, cultural and policy driven, the politics are just incidental. I'm left wing as they come and realize this article is liberal feel good tripe.

[Chicago103]

It is truly one of the most perplexing things about modern society to me. In reality one of the most traditional ways to live is to live in a human scaled walkable environment and given how conservatives love to idealize the 1950's we have to remember how urban of a society we were then and how many streetcars systems were still around. One could actually make the case that traditional urbanity fostered family values, when we were a more urban and public transit oriented society divorce rates were lower, people had more children and if you are a conservative and want to go there church attendance rates were higher and abortion wasn't legal (last example only for the sake of argument, I am not personally blaming sprawl for Roe vs. Wade). I know correlation doesn't prove causation but given how much it is now a favorite sport among ideologues I am surprised no one else has made the case about how since we have become a more auto-centric society our societal values have fallen from when our big northern urban cities were at their peak populations in 1950. It is not McMansions that create family values if anything anecdotal evidence shows that it is small houses and apartments in dense walkable neighborhoods do.

You can also be traditional and conservative in these environments, the white ethnic enclaves in 1950 Chicago would give someone like Rick Santorum a boner in terms of family values (in spite of being strongly Democrat then and now) and to a lesser extent this is still true in parts of the city where white catholic ethnics still live. Hasidic Jews in parts of Brooklyn where there are some of the highest % of votes for Republicans is an example of how in modern America you can be ultra urban and conservative at the same time.

The thing is that in spite of all the negative traits the white catholic ethnics in big cities had in 1950 (some racist attitudes, etc) at least many of them walked the walk when it came to family values. The modern conservative movement perpetuated in rural and in suburban sprawl is all about self-righteousness and demonizing (projecting) the other side for being "evil". In essence talk all high and mighty about how liberal sexual values are destroying America while cheating on your wife by fucking a slut in a spare wing of your McMansion and in the meantime your teenage daughter gets pregnant because you commute over an hour a day, have no time to truly care about her growth and hold on to some asinine notion that a few hundred extra square feet of floorspace in a house and a bigger yard will babysit her and teach her the right values. In reality I think the reason so many people deride cities as "places of vice" is because they know they wouldn't be able to resist temptations they see in a city, it's just projection. In fact this phenomenon even predates sprawl, when you read about urban vice districts in the past in America the cliche is often about some farm boy or girl getting caught up in immorality and the rich elite of the city were often the owners of brothels taking advantage of new domestic arrivals to the city, the poor immigrants that actually lived in the city a few miles or even blocks away were actually less likely to be involved in such an underground economy. So the idea that urban populations in reality have more straight and narrow values if you will has some historical evidence.

Originally Posted by Krases

I feel like the problem with the debate between liberals and conservatives on New Urbanism is that everyone comes to the table with political baggage.

Political ideologies on both sides of the spectrum in America are becoming more and more like cults than rational schools of thought. Ultra Conservatives for instance often take the opposite side from us on urban issues not because they know jack shit about urban planning principles but because some pundits told them what to believe and they feel obligated because it is "the conservative position". Confirmation bias makes them believe whatever twisted shreds of evidence they are given by people like Kotkin about how urban planning and public is all about destroying single family homes and forcing people into commie blocks and whatever other BS. Some Liberals on the other hand tend to not understand the value of attracting people with more traditional values to the city (i.e. ordinary people that want to raise a family with kids and walk to ordinary neighborhood grocery stores and restaurants and not have everything be upscale vegan/yuppy/whatever, miketoronto explained what I mean very well in another thread).

At the end of the day why is something like walkable urban design and public transit even considered "liberal"? To me it is just common sense and a personal preference that me and others want. As much as I love politics I don't define places that much by political ideology, when I think of a specific city I think about architecture, public transit systems, urban design, topography, climate before I think of what politics the people have. I am a moderate and it just happens to be the case that most environments I would prefer to live in happen to be center-left leaning politically and it doesn't bother me and in most cities it is very easy to find lots of moderate and even conservative thinking people. I HATE HATE HATE about how everything nowadays is about devotion to political ideology (more so on the right thought I think), this notion that you must move somewhere to prove devotion to your silly subjective political ideology, think of people who want Illinois to fail to vindicate the idea that liberals such and then move to a McMansion in Texas to show how conservative and American you are. Screw dogmatic ideology I just want to live in a walkable transit oriented city with world class cultural attractions, the mere sight of the Chicago skyline means BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of magnitudes more to me than what some self-absorbed pundit says about how everyone in my city is some America hating liberal. A single grain of sand on Oak Street Beach means more to me than Rush Limbaugh. I don't know how better I could put into words how much I despise political discourse and dogmatic ideology in America today.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by JManc

because walking is for liberal pussies. god invented SUV's and freeways for a reason.

[rs913]

Alright, I'll bite...cities with less walkability tend to be more isolated, the kinds of locales where the only place you'll encounter a "stranger" is in a supermarket or mall. And when poor people and minorities are reduced to what you see on the local news when you're safely locked up for the night in your gated community McMansion, as opposed to who you share your city with and run into every day on subways, buses, and street corners....that's a recipe for a lot of the opinions today's conservatives share regarding social issues.

[bunt_q]

I seriously doubt that density is making people liberal. Most people have formed the general outlines of their politics long before they ever decide for themselves where to live.

I think it has everything to do with self-selection.

I do think it's fair to say that liberals like density and diversity more than conservatives. And conservatives like space and cars more.

But it isn't like major cities don't have large numbers of conservatives. And plenty of poor-as-hell liberal-leaning folk are consigned to a more affordable life in the burbs. Economics plays a huge role. But given that most Americans are still well-off enough to choose generally where they live, I think they choose places that fit their proclivities better.

I mean... for every person I've heard on this forum praise Portland, I know a conservative who thinks it would be nigh close to the worst place on earth to live. Some people actually choose to live in Wyoming, after all.

[Columbusite]

For the most part, not walking means not having to expose yourself to reality: you can stay in your bubble both mentally and physically and not have to deal with the "other", whether it's homeless people, gay people, etc, except as a theoretical unpleasantness especially in the context of the American city. But yeah, the liberal cities have a lot more going on: they know how to live.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Columbusite

For the most part, not walking means not having to expose yourself to reality: you can stay in your bubble both mentally and physically and not have to deal with the "other", whether it's homeless people, gay people, etc, except as a theoretical unpleasantness especially in the context of the American city. But yeah, the liberal cities have a lot more going on: they know how to live.

Which cities are people considering as conservative? I know Jacksonville was mentioned, but I'm wondering which other cities are being discussed in this context? Most cities that I'm familiar with tend to be at least liberal-leaning, or at least that is the general perception.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

Liberals in southern cities are just as fat and idle as any one there. These issues are geographic, cultural and policy driven, the politics are just incidental. I'm left wing as they come and realize this article is liberal feel good tripe.

Really? I live in a liberal Southern city and it would appear that a great many folks around here are in decent to excellent shape. Every other car you see is a Subaru with either a bike or a kayak strapped to the top as they head out of town to hit the trails or the rivers, and it's quite a common sight on local roads to see someone's biking Lycra-clad ass slowing down traffic up ahead.

Also, I've read your other missives on here and just to amuse myself, I feel I need to point out that when you call "any one" in the South fat and idle, you're not just insulting those dreadful white people. The South is, after all, home to the largest black population in the country, as well as a skyrocketing Latino population.

Now, to the forum at large, walkability is a function of age. Period. The most walkable cities in the country are those that either had centuries to grow slowly and densely, such as Boston, or those younger cities that grew explosively over the course of some 19th Century night, such as Denver or Seattle. Either way, if it grew before the advent of the automobile, and the parts that grew are still extant, it's walkable and the issue of conservatism or liberalism is irrelevant. This is true of Southern cities as well, but the problem in the South is that it just didn't have many cities of note until recently. Therefore, there aren't many areas of old-style walkability in the South.

However, the parts that do exist are stellar. I defy you to tell me that Charleston, Savannah, Richmond, Memphis, St. Augstine, Asheville, or New Orleans aren't walkable or dense.

[fflint]

The article (should anyone bother to read it in its entirety) is neither crazy nor offensive, but the rather lazy forum 'discussion' about it is full of the usual crazy blather and defensive bleating. The more people who actually walk in the big American city, the more liberal that big city is.